This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:Teahouse. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page.
Never. You have a pattern of creating drafts and then moving those drafts to mainspace. Subsequently other editors added a Notability tag, meaning that they did not think that the article was so flawed as to need to be reverted to draft or deleted, but worth highlighting as not quite up to Wikipedia standards. One example is Da Vinci (magazine), which you flipped to mainspace after a reviewer declined it at AfC. You can work on improving those articles, but leave it to an independent editor in time (likely loooong time) to remove the tag. David notMD (talk) 17:27, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
"Some of my articles...". Pause right there. Articles do not belong to individuals. There is no "my article" concept of ownership. The article's creator may, of course, feel a sense of attachment, and that's natural, but the creator is not an owner. Feline Hymnic (talk) 18:13, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
@David notMD: Yes i've moved them to draft and after being done with them i felt confident to move them up to the mainspace. About the time that's very disappointing. Should i move it back to draft to resolve the issue? Or is there any way to resolve this in a faster way?
@Feline Hymnic: Yes they're not mine. I meant articles i made. Obviously i do not own the articles or the entity on it.WillsEdtior777 (talk)
Neither. Moving to draft would be a demotion of an existing article. You can work on improving the article, but do leave to someone else to decide on the tag removal. Separately, on your Talk page, you were advised not to submit drafts to AfC if your intention is to move your drafts to mainspace when you feel those are ready. You can create work as drafts without submitting to AfC. David notMD (talk) 21:43, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
Time zone
Is there a way to account for US daylight savings using {{current time}} and possibly some parser functions?
Hi to everyone in the Teahouse. I am an inexperienced editor, and I have come to get a reply to the questions that follow. Should the article Walter the Whale be disambiguated in the DAB named Walter? And what is an appropriate section for individual animals? Thank you for your time.
Rebecca Beecham Gotzl (talk) 19:45, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
Hey, I'm kinda new to this creating pages thing, am I allowed to create a commemorative article about something no one is ever going to need in terms of information? I was wondering if I could create an article for my cat, Chesterlord, just for fun, maybe in the hopes that someone in the future would randomly stumble across it and laugh about it or something? Like, I noticed the Wikipediholic Test and that seems really irrelevant towards actual research, but seems like so much fun, can I create something like that?
So far, I see that Wikipedia is perpetuating a situation in which people all over Earth literally lost touch with reality because people using Allied Command titles were re-writing stuff in High Command style. Y'all have a system of denial of the startling reconciliation of religious warfare that emanated from Humboldt while Microsoft's attempted takeover of Earth using Earth's leaders as hostages and betraying the USA. You still appear to be in denial that God and I are real people charged with the responsibility of preserving history accurately and resolving large-scale problems. Is it worth our time to help y'all return to reality, or will you just keep deleting crucial descriptions of societal patterns? Thank y'all, I still believe in Wikipedia--it was once great.--. Mydearpeople (talk) 06:29, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
You have misunderstood how Wikipedia works. Wikipedia summarises what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about a topic. If you can find reliable published sources to support your content that would be the way forward. Theroadislong (talk) 07:41, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
For the curious: The Mydearpeople account was started 1 March 2022, and made two edits, both to Talk:Earth, both reverted as not being relevant to the topic, and two nonsensical requests to reduce page protection, also reverted. David notMD (talk) 07:43, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
Hello. I'd like to delete a page I was drafting for a music artist that was never approved for a wikipedia page but then ended up on wikitia. How do I go about doing so? The page is for 'Ron_Velvet' on wikitia. Thank you. Pinoypress1 (talk) 02:21, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
Wikitia is wholly unrelated to Wikipedia. It's like asking the Canadian Government for advice on something in Australia, because they happen to speak the same language. You need to go to the right authority. ColinFine (talk) 09:48, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
@Pinoypress1: As I understand it, it is doubtful they will remove it. Wikipedia's license permits them to use Wikipedia content as long as they provide attribution. You agree to this every time you click "publish changes", as stated under the edit window. 331dot (talk) 09:51, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
Hi RajeshGoud007. Are you connected to Kalamandir Jewellers in some way? Are you, for example, someone who works for the company or has been hired by the company to create a Wikipedia article about it? If you are either of those things, please take a close look at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure because those pages contain some important information that you should be aware of. As for the article, you're going to need to establish that the company meets Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) in order for your draft to be accepted as an article. Most of the sources currently cited as references for the draft's content aren't really the type of significant coverage in secondary reliable sources that is needed to establish Wikipedia notability for a company. You can find some more information here about the type of sources that are typically needed to establish notability for a company. No matter how well written or formatted a draft is, it will never be able to overcome a lack of notability; so, you're going to need to find significant coverage about the company in multiple reliable secondary for the draft to be accepted. Finally, there are also some issues with some images you uploaded to Commons for use in the draft. Please go to your Commons user talk page at c:User talk:RajeshGoud007 to see what they are. You might also want to take a look at c:Commons:Own work because it seems as if your misunderstanding what the term means when it comes to image copyright and Commons. -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:57, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
can someone fix this error
I looked up Kurt Thomas (gymnast) an it says he was married 3 times :
Rebecca Sue Jones (m 1996 - 2020), Leanne Kay Hartsgrove (m 1982 - 2020), Elizabeth Ann Osting (m 1977 - 2020)
hi ip user! it doesn't seem to exist in the article, could find no mention of hartsgrove or osting at all in it. happy reading! 💜 melecie talk - 02:49, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
There is an IMDb entry here for Thomas that mentions Hartsgrove and Osting as former wives. Even that source doesn't suggest these wives were current at the date of his death in 2020: the dates of their divorces are not specified. As IMDb is not a reliable source in any case, the Wikipedia article does not mention these individuals. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:06, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
ARTICLE GOT REJECTED
Hello team,
My article got rejected even though its a first draft, Can you please guide me in correct direction on what needs to be done.
From a look at the contribs, this seems to be about Draft:MINIORANGE, which they created and edited when logged-out.
Eswar Ramisetti 2705, the full guideline about sources is WP:GNG, but in 99% of the cases it means multiple full-length articles by newspaper or the specialized press. Paid-for content (such as prnewswire or businesswire) does not count, because it is not independent of the company.
I am trying to create a page for a female presidential aspirant in Nigeria and upon submission, my entry has been rejected citing lack of references. Can someone help me out? Khadijah Okunnu Lamidi (talk) 12:41, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
anyway, the lack of references they are talking about is a lack of reliable sources that support your claim to notability. basically, you'll need to check the guidelines for notability (especially for people) and have that backed up by reliable sources. happy editing! 💜 melecie talk - 13:07, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
Thank you, Melecie, for the courtesy link. Khadijah Okunnu Lamidi, first, welcome to the Teahouse!. I think it is admirable to be a fan of an extraordinary woman as Khadijah appears to be from what you have written. There are extraordinary people in this world that have had such an impact upon our lives. Unfortunately, most of them will never have a Wikipedia article written about them. In addition to what Melecie has told you I would like to add that Wikipedia wants to know what reliable sources say about a subject (See WP:RS). As this is your first article according to the history of your user account I would suggest reading WP:YFA, as well. Writing an article that gets included is one of the most difficult tasks an editor can do here. As pointed out by Melecie, one issue with what you have written is that most of it can not be verified because there are few inline citations to a reliable source. That makes it appear to be original research. If information can not be properly verified about a living person then one may think the author must have a connection with the subject. I would suggest finding additional reliable sources, including inline citations to sources for what you have included and potentially will include and changing your username so it doesn't match the subject of the article about which you are trying to write, in in fact you are not Khadijah. I hope what we have written helps point you in the right direction. --ARoseWolf13:23, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
Hello, Magik 3099, and welcome to the Teahouse and to Wikipedia. A talk page is a page for Wikipedia editors to communicate with each other about matters to do with editing Wikipedia. If you are talking about your User talk page (which does not yet exist) it is primarily a place for other editors to put messages for you about Wikipedia and about your editing. See WP:Talk pages for more information.
@Magik 3099: See WP:CUSTOMSIG. Here's a tip for finding relevant policies, procedures and guidelines, and most anything else you hear mentioned by regular editors, or come across in Wikipedia's interface. Type "WP: (an easier-to-type alias of "Wikipedia:") into the search box, followed by the word or phrase you heard. Most of the time, this will quickly locate a targeted, behind-the-scenes information/help page, or how-to guide. See more at Help:WP search protocol. Victor Schmidt (talk) 12:44, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
Hi, I would like to discuss this case. My article about one of severe Faculties of Warsaw University is said as innotable. However the rejection for article doesn't mean that it cannot be used to improve the general article about Warsaw University. Is it acceptable to integrate these informations into the main article? These Draft is really advanced, has enormous data, just due to the consensus that parts of educational places (schools, universities) aren't notable qualitied this Draft to rejection. Thanks in advance for Your opinion. Superjurek (talk) 13:18, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
@Superjurek: There is nothing wrong in general with reusing parts of a rejected draft in another article. However, as it stands, the article is little more than a directory of current staff, which would not be acceptable per WP:TRIVIA, and a few grandiose-sounding claims which fall under WP:PEACOCK (for instance: leading to reinforcement of research activities and division into 15 robust scientific centres and 2 independent research centres - as opposed to other universities, who weakened research activities through the use of feeble and censored research centres?). If there is useful stuff, you can make a selective copy-paste. TigraanClick here for my talk page ("private" contact)15:26, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
The extra 'References' section and the lack of an introduction except there's an 'Introduction' section but not at the top. Bray (talk) 17:13, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
See Pyrrho's comment below. I honestly feel the "Introduction" section should just be scrapped since that's what the lead is for, it's an introduction for the article, summarizing the key points of the article. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#654517:17, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
For one thing, someone today had removed the lead and put a second References section at the top, for some reason. I reverted it. It still needs work, though. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 17:10, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
The amount of references is not an issue at all with this article. It has 67 references which is way above average for an article. The issue is there are large swaths of information with no citations. Another issue is with the lede paragraph. A lede paragraph is not just an introduction, it is a summary of the contents of the article, very often including some key points from the article itself. The current lede doesn't provide any of that. User Jblight added the second reference section at the top and included what appears to be personal observations or drafted notes at the bottom. I'm not even sure they knew they were editing the article as they also have a sandbox draft with the same name. It would be great to get their understanding of why they added the information they did. I'm thinking it was a misunderstanding. The article needs to be rewritten as proposed. --ARoseWolf17:25, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
Someone's mucking about with the EN-GB page template
Hello Murgatroyd49, and welcome to the Teahouse. This is a known problem, which has been asked about here several times. It seems to have been a mistake in saving translations on translatewiki.net. See WP:VPT#Edit tab says siesie for a discussion. ColinFine (talk) 12:15, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
I often find when reading articles something to do with Christianity that, when quoting a bible passage, they tend to use the King James Version. Is this due to a policy/guideline (and if so why), or is it just an unwritten rule? Either way, I do not consider it very helpful - the King James Version is unclear for modern readers (given how the language has changed, and translation techniques have improved). Farleigheditor (talk) 17:29, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
@Farleigheditor I don't know of any written guidance. I tend to consider it a version of WP:ENGVAR/WP:REFVAR, as in keep consistent within article, don't change without good reason (for example see the editsummaries in this diff:[2]), and if you start the article you get to pick. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:26, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
Hello Farleigheditor, the simple answer is "because it's the easy thing to do". There is a template for King James that is simple and there isn't for other versions. That's it. Human laziness - mine included. Gråbergs Gråa Sång gives good advice above. Jenhawk777 (talk) 02:51, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
Gråbergs Gråa Sång I agree that's a ridiculous edit summary in that diff you linked (that you reverted); I'm not sure how much more easily understood that other version is,though (compare KJV's And Adam knew Eve his wife with And the human knew Eve his woman. The latter sounds like alien speech from a low budget sci fi film ;) General comment regarding the status of the KJV and another probable reason it is commonly quoted in Wiki articles is that, for most of the general English speaking population it is the de facto "standard" version. To most anyone other than scholars of textual criticism, the differences between the Textus Receptus and the modern critical editions of the New Testament source texts is trivial. As for the language: scripture isn't expected to sound modern: it's NOT modern. The KJV is only about 400 years old (although its style of English was even somewhat archaic at the time that it was written), but the texts in their original languages are 2000+ years old. Yet is not the original Greek text of the NT the version that is still in current use in Greece, and the Masoretic text of the Tanakh in current use in Israel? Point being, I don't see any compelling reason for rewriting scripture in modern vernacular. There's also a non-trivial degree of ambiguity created in translations that use "you" as their only second-person pronoun: the source texts differentiated between singular and plural in the second person. Therefore, meaning is lost and ambiguity is introduced when every instance of thee/thou becomes "you". This isn't a problem in modern English writing, because we construct our speaking and writing in such ways to accomodate not being able to indicate singular or plural in the second person through pronoun choice. That doesnt apply to the Bible, and "you" doesnt work as a drop-in for thee/thou in texts that originally had thee/thou (or their equivalents in their original languages). A particular place where this would be highly problematic is the book of Job, during the dialogue between Job and his three friends, Job frequently switches back and forth between adressing his friends directly, and addressing God directly, and often the only way to figure out who he's speaking to is whether he's using 'you' (his friends) or 'thee' (God). Trying to comprehend that correctly from a version that only uses "you" would be totally hopeless. 2600:1702:4960:1DE0:8973:283F:5A03:85F (talk) 16:53, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
If not KJV, which translation would one use? Picking an official Wikipedia standard would be near impossible. An interesting possibility might be a template that for any quoted passage gave the reader the ability to query a selection of other major translations (plus the original text) that are freely available online.--agr (talk) 19:05, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
@Toofllab one of the photo notes states: "U.S. News & World Report Magazine Photograph Collection" so there's a good chance that U. S. News & World Report holds a copyright on the photo. I am not sure how you would go about contacting the magazine to find out about the copyright status. Karenthewriter (talk) 14:41, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
The LoC was gifted the collection (and rights) of these historic images by the magazine. The exact rights situation for this collection can be found at https://www.loc.gov/rr/print/res/078_usnw.html In short, they were made public domain when gifted and this goes for all material in that collection that was made by Staff photographers, whom are also identified in that page. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 15:11, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
By the link you included, it's rather more complicated than that. They turned over the rights to those photos done by their own staff photographers as works for hire. But it also says there's no easy way to know which photos in the collection fall into that category. Others in the collection could still be under copyright for the photographer or heirs. Uporządnicki (talk) 17:20, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
Yes, but most images have credits, so for THOSE specific ones, you can determine if they are staff photographer, and then they are PD. "dedicated to the public all rights" (this is USGov speak for public domain). —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 19:36, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
I don't think it's about a Library of Congress image or not a Library of Congress image. One thing I'm sure of is that the Library of Congress does NOT hold Copyright in these works. Just about any library will have materials that are under copyright; that copyright would be owned by SOMEBODY, and that somebody would not be that Library. Many libraries will have materials that are not under copyright--either because they weren't under copyright protection to begin with (US Govt. publications, for example), or because copyright has expired. With the image you asked about, the most recent question to come up was, does U.S News & World Report own copyright in the image. If they do, it doesn't matter which library you found it in. Uporządnicki (talk) 19:33, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
The LoC has many images with many different copyright status'es. But YOU need to figure out which one applies for each specific photograph you want to use. Some (probably most actually) might be PD, some not and this can even differ within one and the same collection of photos which they own. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 19:42, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
@Magdyshanna: In general, you can change the title of a page on the english Wikipedia if you have at least 10 edits and have been registered for 4 days by using the page move functionality.
On an unrelated note, Since your article creation history has more failures than sucesses, I would reccomend that you still use the draft namespace to prepear articles until they are ready, and submit them to AfC. Victor Schmidt (talk) 09:04, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
am reading Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#Atrying to understand why it was deleted. The international Institute for Software Testing is the ONLY educational institution in the world authorized to issue education-based certifications in software testing. It is also the world leader in software testing certifications by the statements of the references independent sources. How that not important. I can see pages for other commercial organization, some of the are our competitors, and they are listing unrelated items on the page e.g. TechWell Corporation and International Software Testing Qualifications Board, which have references to self-published sources. Please help me understand why you think this is not important Magdyshanna (talk) 03:43, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
I have used 10 different sources all are independent sources from reputable industry magazines. If the pages lacks the notability criteria, why was it delet6ed rather than being fixed? Magdyshanna (talk) 03:09, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
It might have been deleted because the title of the page was mistakenly published as the URL, which I can see a URL is not notable by itself. I just went through all the GNC and this page satisfied this criteria. either restore it or I can create the page with the correct title. Please help me what we need to do more to satisfy notability. Magdyshanna (talk) 03:36, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
The article Https:/testinginstitute.com was deleted by a Wikipedia administrator named 331dot. Have you tried asking 331dot for clarification? Most people answering questions here at the Teahouse aren't administrators and therefore are no longer able to see the content of the article. If you think the article was incorrectly deleted, the best thing to do would be to ask 331dot for clarification. In general, articles about organizations need to satisfy WP:NCORP and this can sometimes be hard because the notability requirements for companies and organizations tend to require that multiple reliable sources showing that significant coverage is provided are needed. Ten sources sounds like a lot, but it's not so much the quantity of the sources cited that matter, but rather the quality. Any information that appears to be too closely connected to the organization itself (e.g. press or media releases/announcements, interviews) might not be considered sufficient to establish notability regardless of whether where the information is published. I can't say for certain because I can't see the article, and the Teahouse isn't really the place to do a detailed assessment of sources (i.e., there's no need to start posting them here). So, once again, you should discuss things with 331dot and explain why you think an error was made. Finally, your last post states Please help me what we need to do more to satisfy notability., but it's not clear who the we is. Are you connected to the International Institute for Software Testing in some way? Are you working on its behalf the create a Wikipedia article about it? If you are (or if you're not sure whether you are), then you should take a careful look at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and Wikipedia:Paid contribution disclosure for reference. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:43, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
I am sorry, how to direct a question to 331.dot? I replied to the post about deleting the article but received no response. Magdyshanna (talk) 05:58, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
When you click on https:/testinginstitute.com, it takes you to the page where the article used to be. On that page, it gives the date and time the page was deleted, the name of the administrator who deleted the page, and the reason why it was deleted. You can post a message on that adminstrator's user talk page and ask them to clarify why the page was deleted. As long as your post is WP:CIVIL, you should be fine. You might also want to take a look at Wikipedia:Why was the page I created deleted? for general reference. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:16, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
Magdyshanna I deleted the draft under what is called the "A7" speedy deletion criteria, which means that there was no credible claim of significance of the company described in the article, in other words, it did not show how the company meets WP:ORG, the Wikipedia definition of a notable company. The sources provided were almost exclusively related to the company, either press releases or the company website. 331dot (talk) 09:25, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
You say "The sources provided were almost exclusively related to the company, either press releases or the company website" this is not true. I provided 10 sited 10 references, only one of the them is the company web site, which I assume is important for people readers to know the company we being mentioned and two press releases. The other 7 are all independent reputable industry magazines and other articles that mentioned how unique the company is. I can delete those three references if that bothers you. Magdyshanna (talk) 19:39, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
Magdyshanna The company website cannot be used to establish notability as it is a primary source(which are only acceptable for certain bits of information). I'm going to post the rest of my reply on your user talk page as it will be a touch lengthy. 331dot (talk) 23:24, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
@Viewer719: Hello Viewer! That would depend on what you are wanting to report the user for. Would you mind being a bit more specific as to what you are wanting to report a user for? ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#654517:18, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
@Viewer719: Ah well then in this case either WP:AIV or WP:UAA will work as their username is also a violation of the username policy as being promotional. When reporting, make sure to tell admins to check their deleted contribs. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#654517:25, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
@Viewer719: Welcome to the Teahouse. That depends on the nature of the report, as there are different venues established to address different types. What exactly seems to be the problem? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:19, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
Viewer719, hello and welcome to the Teahouse please I’m echoing Tenryuu as they are is very much correct, please disregard any reply (that may come) here that tells you to go to WP:AN/I. A couple of questions though, first, which editor do you want to report? Can you show the entirety of their contribs here? Or can you shows diffs that are problematic, this are in order for us to guide you correctly. Please note that WP:AN/I is only used when all other options have been exhausted else you risk opening a premature report. Celestina007 (talk) 20:28, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
Blaze Wolf, when talking to me or, anyone for that matter do not start conversations with “uh”. You can state expressly that they already provided the information or just ignore altogether. Keep this in my going forward, this may come off as rude to the next editor. Celestina007 (talk) 21:28, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
Rude to whom, exactly?.. eh, the question's already been answered, that's all the Teahouse is for anyway, no need for bickering casualdejekyll23:29, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
Hello, ShiriEdits. The answer is, No, not until several people unconnected with the hotel or the resort have chosen to write articles about it. The four links below are all saying what the hotel's proprietors want to say. 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) 11:19, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
@ColinFine: Thanks for the clear explanation. On closer look, it looks like the writers were paid by the hotel owners. Frequent buzzwords such as tallest building in NCR, first fully integrated hotel, top-notch, and ultimate millionaires playground to name a few. Thanks for the advice! ShiriEditsTalk23:52, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
On most important articles there is a table of info like when someone was born/something created. What template code(?) can I use for it? I just need to test it for an article i'm making
ImAFurryWith2BrainCells, two points. First, the place for testing is not your user page but instead User:ImAFurryWith2BrainCells/sandbox. Secondly, your list of contributions shows no work on existing articles. People with little or no experience of improving existing articles tend to waste a lot of time on drafts for new articles, drafts that fail and that waste their (and others') time. -- Hoary (talk) 23:46, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
That's a little mean, @Hoary. I'm of the personal opinion that any good faith attempt to improve the encyclopedia is not a waste of time (bar WP:CIR, but that's an extreme case) casualdejekyll01:28, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
help
on 1 tab my account DMPenguin has a talk page and on one my name is red and does not say i have a talk page but this just happend and i know i have a talk page cas i just edited it DMPenguin (talk) 01:11, 16 March 2022 (UTC) thanks
@DMPenguin: Hello DM! Relax, it's perfectly fine. The pages don't actively update. Simply just reload the tab where the link is red and it will be blue. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#654501:13, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
The page User:DMPenguin was created 2 August 2021. User talk:DMPenguin was created 13 July 2021. There shouldn't have been red links to any of them for many months. I wonder whether you were at another wiki when you saw a red name. Each wiki has separate user pages. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:31, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
Is this fork okay?
I'm working on a Web site for a ham radio club, and I've copied and modified some content from Wikipedia. The pages with WP content are here. Are these pages compliant with the license? KJ7RRV (talk) 18:40, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
This page is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike (CC BY-SA) 4.0 International. Original content from Wikipedia is under CC BY-SA 3.0 Unported.
There are links in several places ("the Wikipedia...2021", "edit history...2021", "edit history...this page" and "Creative Commons...International", but they didn't copy over. --KJ7RRV (talk) 19:00, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
@KJ7RRV: I think that should be fine. However I'm not an expert on copyright and content copied from Wikipedia so I'm not sure. I would wait for someone who understands Wikipedia's copyright policy better to respond. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#654519:03, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
@Blaze Wolf: Oops, I just realized I was logged out when I wrote that; it was me. BTW, should I put two hyphens before the four tildes? I've seen it done both ways on other wikis, and I'm not sure what's preferred on Wikipedia. --KJ7RRV (talk) 02:11, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
I would like to kindly ask you to review the English translation of the Hungarian page Csákány M. György in order to let us (translation office) complete a project. In loving memory of the great obstetrician, I gathered translators to translate the article into 22 languages and publish them to his birthday, 25 April. As the translation from Hungarian (in the case of some language pairs, for example, HU-JP, HU-CHN etc.) would be very costly, I would like to use the English text as the source. Any help in the early publication of the article would be very much appreciated. Thank you in advance for your reply. https://hu.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cs%C3%A1k%C3%A1ny_M._Gy%C3%B6rgyEczopyk (talk) 16:31, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
@Eczopyk: You don't need permission to use the English text as a source for translation, just follow the guidance at WP:TRANSLATEUS. Each Wikipedia has its own rules for what is required for an article, so having your draft approved here on EN Wiki may not help you with trying to create the article on other Wikipedias. RudolfRed (talk) 16:41, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
@Eczopyk: Hello! It seems that you (and the translators) will have a WP:COI, if not paid COI. Please read the essays I've linked, to see how to stay within the terms of service, but still contribute! Isro! (talk) 16:46, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
Hello, Eczopyk. I see that the translated draft is at Draft:Csákány M. György. It may take some time for it to be reviewed, as drafts are reviewed in no particular order, and this will require a reviewer who is willing to look at the sources in Hungarian. (There is no objection to sources in another language, though English ones are preferred if they are available; but the review process requires a reviewer who can check the given sources. Wikipedia is not, in general, concerned with external deadlines.
A couple of points I note: I believe that you have followed the Hungarian convention, so "Csákány" is his family name. On English Wikipedia we normally title articles according to English sources. I suggest you include {{Western name order|Csákány M. György}}, which will display as
The native form of this personal name is Csákány M. György. This article uses Western name order when mentioning individuals.
Then the article should be named "György M. Csákány", and the first paragraph in "Career", for exampole, should say "Csákány graduated from ..." (also "Semmelweis University" should be wikilinked). You could Move the draft to Draft:György M. Csákány to avoid confusion, though this is not essential, as the accepting reviewer will give it the correct English title when they move it to article space.
Your citations are not adequate, in that they mostly only give a title and a URL. It is important to include bibliographic information such as date, author, and publisher, so that reviewers and readers can evaluate the likely reliability and relevance of a source. I recommend using citation templates such as {{cite book}}, {{cite paper}}, etc. See Citing sources. Also some of your refrences are to hu-wiki: most wikis, (including all Wikipedias) are not regarded as reliable sources, and may not be used as references. The information should be cited to reliable sources, or not included.
Welcome to the Teahouse! This is a page for asking questions about using Wikipedia. If you have a question about the content of a Wikipedia article (e.g. God gene), then the best place to ask it is on the article's talk page (e.g. Talk:God gene). If your question is unrelated to Wikipedia, then you could try asking at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science. GoingBatty (talk) 04:53, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
Famous people that don't have many news coverage
Hi, I converted a French Wikipedia article "Abish Brodt" to an English one & fixed it up (Draft:Abish Brodt). I keep on getting rejected because any standard editor who knows nothing about "Orthodox Jewish Music" won't find much media online, for he lives a quiet life (as many Orthodox Jews do). Yet he is a very significant piece of Jewish music history & known by almost EVERY Orthodox Jew.
These "reviews of his work in print or online" that are "[a]ll over the place": that sounds very promising, BangKettle. "All over the place" surely includes the web. Please, here, provide links to three among the many that you believe are good examples of discussions of him or his work. -- Hoary (talk) 01:35, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
The first and the third of these, BangKettle, tell me "Request has expired". (But even if it hadn't, why are you providing links to Amazon Web Services?) The second is a sales page that says nothing about the man or his music. If there's nothing in print that's very much better than this trio, then no article about him can be created. -- Hoary (talk) 03:22, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
Sorry, the 1st & 3rd were to Dartmouth Jewish Sound Archive that have the albums & covers, apparently it only works for me with an account. Is there a way to show those pictures by uploading somewhere?
Again, if you read the proposed article I made you'll see that he is a top personality. The Siyum Hashas is the largest event in Judaism today, & he's the main singer. The song Sholom Aleichem that he sings is one of the most famous songs in Orthodox Judaism. BangKettle (talk) 04:05, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
BangKettle, images of album covers do nothing to demonstrate notability. Also, I don't see that singing an extraordinarily famous song confers any kind of notability (Wikipedia or other) on the singer. The question would be, rather: Is this person notable as a singer of it? (Many have sung Bachianas Brasileiras 5, which I think we can call famous; but this in itself doesn't make all its singers notable. I believe that it did add to the notability of Bidu Sayão and Victoria de los Ángeles; and it might well have added to the notability of several others. But not to that of all.) A skim-read of the article Siyum HaShas suggests that it's a large event indeed. If you can present reliable sources that he was/is "the main singer", then that would be something. Is there no published commentary on his singing? (Your draft currently says that "He was a featured performer at the 10th, the 11th and the 13th Siyum HaShas"; within which, "featured" is a word meaning anything or nearly nothing.) There are no particular notability criteria for religious figures; since he's a singer, the draft must show that he satisfies either Wikipedia:Notability (music) or, more generally, Wikipedia:Notability (people) (he doesn't have to satisfy both). Note that as long as cited sources are reliable, they may be in any language. -- Hoary (talk) 07:35, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
Thanks to User:Gråbergs Gråa Sång. You can see here that he is one of the main highlights of the Siyum Hashas ("Niggunim" means songs)
BangKettle, I learn from this that he's one of two people who performed one of 10+ "highlights" in a five CD-ROM set of the 2005 event -- according to an advertisement for the CD-ROM set. This is not reliable evidence for notability as Wikipedia understands it. Now, I happen to think that one can reasonably complain that what Wikipedia calls "notability" is close to mere "celebrity", that the most vapid of celebs get the most assiduous write-ups, and that this may help promote mere celebrity over actual worth. But the wider society (with its enthusiasm for writing and reading about attention-seekers) rather than Wikipedia is to blame. An article here about Abish Brodt will have to wait until his accomplishments are written about in reliable sources. -- Hoary (talk) 23:22, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
I'm not sure if anyone read the Title: Famous people that don't have many news coverage
He is extremely well known by hundreds of thousands of people. Yet none of the Wikipedia editors here are fluent with Orthodox Jewish culture. Is that a legitimate reason not to publish it? Perhaps if the article gets published another reader will be able to enhance it. BangKettle (talk) 03:05, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
@BangKettle: All that is required is that Brodt is significantly covered in independent, secondary published reliable sources. It doesn't necessarily have to be news, though that tends to be the medium used). Being extremely well known by hundreds of thousands of people isn't useful due to the "published" requirement if it's being cited as personal knowledge. On the other hand, if he is widely known, surely there's someone (maybe a reputable musicologist or biographer) that has written something about him? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 06:38, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
I'm looking for a specific edit I made to a page that I have edited maybe 100 times over the years. How do I see all contributions I've made to a specific page? Do I just scroll through my edit history and ctrl-f? Akeosnhaoe (talk) 06:20, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
@Akeosnhaoe: Welcome to the Teahouse. If you go to a page's history page, there's a line near the top that lists external tools: one of them is "Find edits by user". Clicking on that takes you to a new page where you can insert your username to see what edits you've made to that page. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 06:41, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
How do you create a page? The User access levels page says the person needs to be autoconfirmed, which happens at 4 days and 10 edits. However, it says it may vary. What are these variations? And what are the ways of creating a page? Oixyplanet (talk) 04:51, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
@Oixyplanet: Welcome to the Teahouse! Creating a new article is one of the hardest things to do on Wikipedia, especially for someone who is just starting to edit existing articles. To learn more about how to edit, you could view Help:Introduction and take The Wikipedia Adventure. I suggest spending a significant amount of time editing existing articles to hone your skills. Once you're ready to create an article, you would gather independentreliable sources that have provided significant coverage of the subject, and determine whether it meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, called "notability". If so, you could follow the instructions at Help:Your first article, and be prepared for a process that may include months of waiting, rejections, and rewrites, before an article is created. Hope this helps, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 04:56, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
Autoconfirmed status allows registered editors to create articles directly in mainspace, but the consistent advice is to use the WP:YFA procedure, which directs users to create a draft and then submit that to Articles for Creation for review. Experienced reviewers will either accept, decline or reject drafts. If declining, reasons are stated, identifying weaknessess and errors. The creating editor can fix and resubmit. Bypassing AfC is not recommended, as new articles are reviewed by a New Pages Patrol, which may implement an Articles for Deletion process. David notMD (talk) 10:28, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
Issue with article on Wikipedia
I faced an issue while posting an article about a businessman from Azerbaijan. My article contains all needed information and links regards the topic - I would like to know, what may cause a problem of a disapprove of the article and what is a list of particular information that should be mentioned and applied to get an article posted? Here is a link Draft:Zaur Sanan Akhundov to the draft issue. Denzo9909 (talk) 12:10, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
hi Denzo9909 and welcome to the teahouse! the issues Robertsky pointed out are that the draft currently doesn't show that the person is notable enough for an article. you can check WP:NBIO to see whether your article does in fact meet the requirements, and if it does, you must provide reliable sources to support that. additionally, parts of the article aren't referenced such as § Career, you also need to add a reliable source for that. happy editing! 💜 melecie talk - 12:24, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
MS Dhoni edit war
Dhoni article is in constant in edit war by @Ripomobo11: other users. They are adding misinformation on there, for ex. In lead they wrote he is former profesional Cricketer. But it's wrong he still plays for Super Kings in IPL, this team retained him in 2022 auction, source- [5]. I suggest to ce the article thoroughly and stop these user from causing destruction on Cricket related articles.Success think (talk) 11:16, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
Changes are made to Wiki pages in the name of revisions but there is no proper consultations. Only page links are shared of external sites and no inputs are taken from the other side of the source. I request you to bring some light to the matter. Gauravbhandari1788 (talk) 11:37, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
Hi. I would like to submit a new, revised, version my original Draft:John R Falck, archived and or deleted for lack of activity and/or potential copy right infringement. I tried to retrieve the original draft but was unsuccessful.
Thanks, Jmcapdevj Jmcapdevj (talk) 14:31, 16 March 2022 (UTC) Jmcapdevj (talk) 14:31, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
Hello. Before i request a move, just to be sure. In Wikipedia:Requested moves it says, Do not create a move request to rename one or more redirects. Redirects cannot be used as current titles in requested moves. Can i request a current article name to be be moved to it's old article name? It's old name is a redirect to it's current article.
@Dawit S Gondaria, yep, you can make that request! If the discussion successfully finds consensus, though, you'll just need to get an admin or page mover to perform the move. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}}talk08:30, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
Should I include all parent categories when adding categories to a page?
For example, I assigned categories for a page about a village in India yesterday. I assigned "Geography of India by city" but also all of its parent categories, "Geography by City", "Geography by Location", and "Geography". Is this the correct thing to do? Link: Mathankovil pattiSushi725 (talk) 16:09, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
Hello, I’m an employee of Chewy_(company) and I’ve added my COI to my user page as well as the Chewy Talk page when requesting edits. I need help with removing the redirect for Sumit Singh (businessman) to the Chewy Wikipedia article; I would like to begin a new draft for the article about Sumit Singh, which was quickly deleted in June 2020 for a lack of notability, after being created by another user. I am unaware of the user who created it, but I’d like to begin the process of recreating it by disclosing and with more notability about Sumit. Am I able to begin this myself with my COI?
I’ll add necessary tags to the draft but need some help with removing the redirect and creating the draft page. Thank you. Ab31488 (talk) 16:24, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
Welcome to the Teahouse, Ab31488 I suggest you use the WP:AfC process to create your draft. later, if the new draft is approved, the reviewer who does so will sort out the redirects. Note that in addition to notifying about your COI, you must under Wikipedia's terms and conditions also fully comply with WP:PAID. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:32, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
Question re references that can't be accessed
Where, in an article, the writer has provided links to the sources of references, but the Wikipedia user can't access the actual information, do we mark it as a dead link or remove the link altogether? For example, the author of an article "quotes" from several books, but only provides the links to the books. The Wikipedia user can't actually read, or see, the quote from the book, the original page, or the preview. So it's a link that goes nowhere and does nothing to verify the article's statements and conclusions.
In another instance (same article), a reference link eventually goes to an Excel file with five date lines in it and nothing else. So it does not verify the statement in the article and is of no use to the Wikipedia user. Should that reference be removed altogether or marked in some other way?--LJA123 (talk) 16:54, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
@LJA123: See WP:OFFLINE. Even though Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia, there is no distinction between using online versus offline sources. The book can still verify information, but it might not be available to everyone online, and that's perfectly fine. As for the second case, if the source definitely doesn't support the material it's supposed to, take it out. Bsoyka (talk) 17:30, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
Hi, I have to give my rationale in a proposed deletion template but can't make it concise enough, so would someone help me word it properly please? -- CalSmith2 (talk) 17:55, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
Hi, could someone please explain to me why is the usage right of the attached picture not open to the public even if it was taken in 1928, after almost 100 years of existence.
I would like to ask how I may upload a picture of my house to go along with my house's listing under the works of George Barber. My house is listed but it doesn't include a photograph. Thank you 8.15.177.111 (talk) 19:12, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
Hi, I wanted to ask if there is a place where suggesting the creation of an article, or asking if an article is relevant enough. Thank you. Malerag (talk) 21:49, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
@Malerag: Welcome to the Teahouse! There is Wikipedia:Requested articles, but there is no guarantee that editors would create articles for any recommendations made there. If you choose to make a recommendation, I suggest you review Wikipedia:Notability and provide multiple published independent reliable sources that provide significant coverage of the topic. Hope this helps! GoingBatty (talk) 22:12, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
create a article
Hi, so I am new to wikipedia and was wondering how to create a page of my own. There probably is a very obvious solution that I overlooked however I was just wondering where I can create a page. Thanks
Hello, Leham6309 and welcome to the Teahouse. If you mean a page where you may share with other Wikipedia editors what your interests are as a Wikipedia editor, then you can create your user page User:Leham6309, and put anything you like on it that is permitted according to WP:UPYES.
If you mean you want to create an encyclopaedia article, then please follow Ruslik's suggestion; but I would urge you to put that project aside for a few months while you learn how Wikipedia works by editing existing articles. If you mean that you want to create a Wikipedia article about yourself, then please don't. See autobiography for why not. ColinFine (talk) 21:12, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
Would someone mind reviewing the draft I created (here) and letting me know whether it would make it onto the mainspace wiki? It's my first draft and I want to know whether it's good enough. I'd guess that even if it doesn't get added currently, it will after a few days, because the season for the Biathlon World Cup is ending soon and he's ranked 10th overall. Thank you! Réunion (stylised) - (talk to me) 20:43, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
@Reunion You just created the draft today. There are 2,979 other drafts waiting for review. Just be patient. You can continue to work on expanding the draft while you are waiting for review. RudolfRed (talk) 21:03, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
I would like to add a screenshoot to the page Draft:Phoenix Bird Database I created, but the system can't verify the rights of the image and I can't upload it.
If it's too new to be mentioned in reliable sources, then don't make the article yet. If an article subject isn't mentioned in reliable sources, it isn't notable enough to be included on Wikipedia. Bsoyka (talk) 17:25, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
Hello, Tech curator 89, and welcome to the Teahouse. I would echo what the other replies have said. 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. So until several independent people have published material about the database, there is nothing that you can put in an article about it.
But I notice that nobody has answered your main question, apart from noting that it's not worth worrying about images yet. The answer is that the user interface ofa piece of software is almost always copyright, and you may not use it anywhere in Wikipedia unless either the copyright owner explicitly licenses it under a licence such as CC-BY-SA; or all the terms in the non-free content criteria apply. Neither is very likely, I'm afraid. ColinFine (talk) 18:00, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
Thank you all for your reply. I have added an extensive bibliography in the draft for now. Some reviews by independent and established magazines are ongoing, when ready I'll add more citations. Tech curator 89 (talk) 22:20, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
Tech curator 89 The ref to a bibliography about birds is completely useless. What is needed is references to published articles about the software, as that is what the article purports to be about. David notMD (talk) 22:50, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
Hi, I am a newcomer in the community. I've made a few changes on some topics, but some of my updates were deleted by others without notification. Are there ways to watch the update? Polinlc2 (talk) 21:26, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
@Polinlc2: you can also see when your edits have been reverted by toggling it in Preferences > Notifications > Edit Revert. regarding the relevant revert, an ip user reverted your edit as it added in a user review from Rotten Tomatoes, which is not allowed per WP:UGC. happy editing! 💜 melecie talk - 00:25, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
A page that I submitted isn't showing up after 2 months
There is large backlogs for drafts. You did not say what draft you are working on, so more specific comments are not possible. Also, don't ask the same question in more than one place, please. RudolfRed (talk) 01:14, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
Best way to escalate politically-charged edit - Russia/Ukraine
Hello there! I am a bit of a newbie when it comes to editing politically-charged content. I have sought to edit an entry about Reuters, stating it had concluded in 2020 a partnership with TASS, the Russian state-owned agency. I originally started an explanation as to why that was important and it could certainly have been improved (long story short: Reuters uses TASS as newswire and puts out content entirely unedited, so we get unfiltered propaganda on the invasion of Ukraine, see TASS#Russo-Ukrainian_War). My edit has been deleted 3 times by 2 people, including 1 person whose edit history shows a clear long bias supporting Russia's disinformation on Wikipedia.
I read I should start a Talk page so I did Talk:Reuters#Removal_of_TASS_partnership. But that did not resolve the issue, as my edit is still deleted, and I don't want to go into edit warring, but want to escalate, given the factual and relevant nature of my edit, not to mention what I see as a critical piece of information to understand how news is being generated on this war.
So finally my question: while I understand I cannot guarantee the outcome of my request based on the channel I choose, such as 3rd party opinion or noticeboard, I want to know what Wikipedia has in place to ensure balance and prevent swarming of disinformation agents ganging up to drive content one way or the other (thinking COVID vaccines, Ukraine invasion, etc...)? And if such mechanisms are in place, what is the escalation method that is likely to give me the most politically balanced outcome? I fear for example 3rd party, as it basically requires a single person to close the matter, and that feels worse than tossing a coin (at least most coins are not loaded).
Hi there! Thanks for the fast reply @Melecie! But you may have read the Talk a bit fast, no one is contesting that the TASS/Reuters partnership exists at all, i.e. the verifiability of the partnership itself is NOT in question. They are merely contesting the fact it is relevant, i.e. they are saying that it is not an interesting piece of information and therefore shouldn't be up. I don't see how constructive it would be to continue that particular debate, as clearly each party from now on would only repeat themselves, having laid it out twice.
Is my article good enough to be sub-content to a main page?
Greetings! Newbie here who has just begun dipping their toes in Wikipedia editing. I created an article yesterday in my sandbox that will be inserted into the MTU main page. The article was declined for not being noteworthy enough for a stand alone article and that the cited resources were only MTU-based. Does that fact that this article will be part of the MTU page, not a stand alone article, make it a viable? Thanks in advance for your guidance. Husky1986 (talk) 13:16, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
We did not have toy guns in the house. I came home one day to find my daughter and friends running around the yard with Barbie dolls bent at the waist so that they were holding the torso and 'shooting' each other with the legs. David notMD (talk) 15:13, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
Sounds like buying your daughter some toy guns is in order. (Not that I'm commenting on your parenting or anything, for all I know this story probably happened years and years ago) casualdejekyll17:40, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
Heck, we used random sticks - or even our fingers - as guns. The original poster's request to remove the image of the toy tank is as ridiculous as a request to remove the picture of teddy bears because people have been mauled by bears. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 18:32, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
@David notMDPlacing an anecdote in the midst of a thread may do more harm than good; refrain from possibly confusing @37.225.76.109 and instead, attempt to frankly explain the situation. If another editor has already done as — as is the case here — then, do not add anything. 2601:641:380:CDF0:2CAE:5DBF:9C78:28F9 (talk) 05:42, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
The tank toy is perfectly legitimate as an encyclopeadic entry in a toy article. I've removed the tone article as it is radically out of date and there was some 500 edits since them. I read about half of it and don't see any tone issues. It probably does need a copyedit. I didn't see anything in the history to say it was copyedited. Certainly it can take a couple of months or more to do the work. Perhaps you never left the tag on long enough for the guild to action it. What the article does need and perhaps you do this, is more sources. There is whole bits and sections which are unsourced. Hope that helps. scope_creepTalk10:54, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
@37.225.76.109: Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and Ho Chi Minh were all very bad people who caused much misery and death. But Wikipedia has--and should have--articles about all of them. Uporządnicki (talk) 14:24, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
(edit conflict) hi I am Rjsb0192 and welcome to the teahouse! ip blocks are applied per ip address, which can affect multiple innocent people. it doesn't mean you yourself was in the wrong, and those innocent affected by an ip block can still edit wikipedia, request an account, or edit with a registered account (as you have). see WP:IPBLOCK for more. happy editing! 💜 melecie talk - 04:29, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
But when I edit when I'm not registered, there's a warning that says :
You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you log in or create an account, your edits will be attributed to a username, among other benefits.
@I am Rjsb0192: that's normal. you can edit without logging in, however your ip address would be visible instead of your username. do you also see this? This network has been used improperly by someone on your network. It has therefore been blocked as a precaution to prevent abuse and damage to Wikipedia. 💜 melecie talk - 04:41, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
But I haven't seen that this network has been used improperly by someone on my network and that it has therefore been blocked as a precaution to prevent abuse and damage to Wikipedia.I am Rjsb0192 (talk) 04:51, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
by notices I meant the You are not logged in notice. if you see just that your ip address is probably not blocked. 💜 melecie talk - 04:59, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
Generally, IP range blocks are used if blocks of single IP adresses are ineffective as the problematic user immedately returns with a new adress. Users in good standing can request IP-block excemption, see there for how. (Note for the future: Instead of posting a screenshot, simply copy the IP adress or range displayed. Makes things a lot easier). See also WP:Partial blocks and Help:I have been blocked. Victor Schmidt (talk) 09:11, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
The block is evidently "anon. only" (block log). If this affects you while logged in, please file a ticket at Phabricator; more likely, you just need to log in. Logged-out editing from your IP address range has been disabled due to harassment by someone else from the same internet provider, but this shouldn't be a problem for you as you have an account. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 07:23, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
Back in 2007 when I wrote it, Vector wasn't a thing yet, not was user common.js, nor the skin.js redirect script. All those came a few years later. Anomie⚔20:40, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
Please help to find out What does it mean "PENALTY"?
from start, continuation, Condition, Equality, Penalizing, Being Penalized, Benefits, Verity, quantity, Quality, Duration......and...............to End.
sorry for not good English.  Dabohg (talk) 07:33, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
Dabohg, an entire book could be written on that subject area. Meanwhile, this "Teahouse" page is intended to help people with the problems they are encountering when trying to augment, improve or use English-language Wikipedia. Are you encountering any such problems? -- Hoary (talk) 09:29, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
Hi I’m a Music Artist. I created a page on Wikipedia. How do I go about getting it submitted and approved where I officially appear on Wikipedia? Phillye (talk) 05:58, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
Hi I uploaded a bio that was actually written by someone else about me. I was asking for directions to the link to upload links for media coverage and other stuff to prove my notability. Where on the page do I click submit or reach out to the team that gives the approval. Thanks Phillye (talk) 06:13, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
@Phillye (Music Artist) By definition, a bio that was actually written by someone else about me is not yours to upload. The copyright is owned by the author, not by you, unless they have explicitly and by act of law transferred the copyright to you, or unless they licence it for use. Please refer to Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for routes to perform this act.
Please see also WP:NMUSICIAN to determine whether you meet our tough criteria. If you do not then please just get a web site and publicise your achievements that way
Referencing is tough. Simple media mentions tend to be puffery. For a living person we have a high standard of referencing. Every substantive fact you assert, especially one that is susceptible to potential challenge, requires a citation with a reference that is about them, and is independent of them, in multiple secondary sources which are WP:RS, and is significant coverage. Please also see WP:PRIMARY which details the limited permitted usage of primary sources and WP:SELFPUB which has clear limitations on self published sources. Providing sufficient references, ideally one per fact cited, that meet these tough criteria is likely to make this draft a clear acceptance (0.9 probability). Lack of them or an inability to find them is likely to mean that the person is not suitable for inclusion, certainly today.
What you face is the personal slap in the face of finding out that you may not merit an article on Wikipedia. Most people do not.
Far better to wait for someone else to write about you. If you are truly notable then I imagine someone will. If you believe that Wikipedia will enhance your reputation please think again. Wikipedia adds no value to you. You must add value to Wikipedia. Passing WP:NMUSICIAN does that. FiddleTimtrentFaddleTalk to me07:11, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
Here's a pretty representative sample of User:Phillye (Music Artist), as I found it: With tremendously popular releases such as ‘All I Ever Wanted’ and her latest single, Weekend Love, featuring Jamaica’s very own Reggae legend, Sizzla, Phillye has taken the main stage in the industry with thousands of fans. I have deleted the whole thing as blatantly promotional. (See WP:UP.) If your purpose is to promote yourself (or anyone else), you're at the wrong website. -- Hoary (talk) 07:10, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
What's the appropriate way to tag this draft? I see these sometimes where it's not strictly {{db-u5}} because it's not a user page per se, and it doesn't quite fit with {{db-g11}} as promotional. It's basically a social media-type page for somebody that is nowhere close to being notable enough for an article. signed, Willondon (talk) 14:17, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
Its okay don't beat yourself up over a mistake you are not an idiot you just did not know all of the information about something before you tried to help. Thanks for trying to help. SkyeWolf369 (talk) 15:44, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
how do i edit?
i am new to wikipedia and i want to edit but i dont know how to edit wikipedia so can you teach me how to edit wikipedia and the guidlines to edit wikipedia? Holiday chicken (talk) 08:32, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
A common beginner's mistake is to add factual content without supporting reference(s). New content without a ref is often reverted (reversed) even if true. Practice creating content and references in your Sandbox, then when ready. copy into an article. David notMD (talk) 10:33, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
Hello Holiday chicken and welcome to the Wikipedia experience. If you look at Help:contents, you will find other portals to articles that can help you know a bit before you begin. And as you begin your first editing actions, you might begin at WP:GettingStarted. Sometimes, knowing how to write the proper source code can be a bit daunting. I first began by looking at the Edit source tab of the article and mimicked what previous editors had done. I still do this for--what are to me--complicated matters. Know that you will make mistakes, and even though there are a few exceptions, the vast majority of editors are gentle, pleasant, and helpful to new editors. Kind regards,Hu Nhu (talk) 16:01, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
Referencing
I have created a Bio entitled Draft:Vivian Granger. I have two questions. QUESTION ONE I have completed my references. They are from historical newspaper and magazine articles. However, these are not online in terms of public domain or web sites - how do I get them to be accessible as proof that my sources are valid? QUESTION TWO Is someone able to place this updated Bio article on Wikitia for me? I am not sure what Wikitia is, but my previous draft version was placed on Wikitia by someone and I would like it to be updated with my latest version. Thank you.
We cannot help you with any Wikitia issues as that website has no connection to Wikipedia. I suspect it will eventually be updated somehow. 331dot (talk) 15:52, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
Better, but needs a bit more work before submitting to Wikipedia again. You describe a photo from 1977 as your own work. Really? If not, remove, as in all likelihood, copyright protected. Bit too much about other family members. Your refs (old newspapers, etc.) do not have to be available on line as long as valid. Basically, Wikipedia trusts editors. The thinking is that published newspapers and magazine can be looked up by people with access to a library that has that stuff archived. David notMD (talk) 16:33, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
What to do when I notice another website is copying Wikipedia without attribution?
I noticed that the article I wrote was completely ripped off on Wikitia. What can I do about this, as I cannot create an account. (It says "permission error" when I try)
Hi QuickQuokka. Your post appears to be about https://wikitia.com/wiki/Shahar_Tavoch. I see this at the bottom of the page:
This article "Shahar Tavoch" is from Wikipedia. The list of its authors can be seen in its historical. Articles taken from Draft Namespace on Wikipedia could be accessed on Wikipedia's Draft Namespace.
That website also has a general statement "Content is available under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike. Some of Wikitia's pages are sourced from Wikipedia.org's Mainspace and Draftspace. Wikitia is not affiliated to Wikimedia Foundation, unless otherwise noted." Cullen328 (talk) 16:51, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
My self Sujit Kumar Mishra, I'm Indian Actor and Author and I have to save my Wiki Draft page for final submission but due more then 6 month is over my wiki draft page deleted. And I want to update my data in Wiki pages for final submission. so please re-store as same. As per last conversation you told me there are no expiration of draft page of updating. but unfortunately it's deleted so pls check and revert back. thanks
Hello i need some help with editing wikipedia articles/making articles. Every time i have a draft edit or every time i have a normal edit to an article i didnt make, it has an admin reply in less than 2 minutes telling me stuff that i cant do and this and that and blah blah blah. I just want to make and edit articles so why cant i? Xephrax (talk) 17:39, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
@Xephrax: Welcome to the Teahouse! While you might have been acting in good faith when you posted the lyrics of "Chocolate Rain", it is a copyright violation and had to be reverted.
Creating a new article is one of the hardest things to do on Wikipedia, especially if you have limited experience editing existing Wikipedia articles. To learn how to edit, you could view Help:Introduction and The Wikipedia Adventure. I suggest spending a significant amount of time editing existing articles to hone your skills. Once you're ready to create an article, you would gather independentreliable sources that have provided significant coverage of the subject, and determine whether it meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, called "notability". If so, you could follow the instructions at Help:Your first article, and be prepared for a process that may include months of waiting, rejections, and rewrites, before an article is created. Hope this helps, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 18:11, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
(edit conflict) CC-BY-NC-ND is not compatible with Wikipedia's content licensing, meaning it breaks Section 7 c of the Terms of Use and therefore shouldn't be here. Providing Non-Commerically-Licensed Content can be problematic, because Wikipedia's content license allows Commercial Reuse, which means it could not only get problematic if a paid editor would start to edit the article (who would have monetary gain from his contributions, ergo a license violation) but also problematic if others reuse the text on Wikipedia (as Wikipedia cannot grant them the permission to use the text commercially, as we don't have the right ourselves). Victor Schmidt (talk) 18:41, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
Hello, I'd like to make a new draft article for Kavinsky's upcoming Reborn album. The page Draft:Reborn(Kavinsky album) already exists, however it only is filled with a single line - I'd like to make sure I can attribute the article to myself if I am going to fill it almost entirely. I plan on having it ready for submission once sufficient critical reviews within the week arrive. Can I do this? Thank you very much! (Note: I have some experience in generating new articles as I did for Escapades (Gaspard Augé album). Radlrb (talk) 17:55, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
Radlrb, nothing stops you from creating the draft under a different name and noting in the comments where a reviewer should move the page if accepted.Slywriter (talk) 18:10, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
I'd like the article (if accepted) to be rightly attributed to me, though. Would it not matter as the acceptance disambiguates who made the most contributions? Thank you @Slywriter@QuickQuokkaRadlrb (talk) 18:20, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
@QuickQuokka Absolutely. What I meant to say is, that I'd like it attributed to me as the main writer. There's a difference is saying I "own" the article as opposed to describing me as the creator and main contributor. Therefore, it does matter. After all, Wikipedia notes when an article was created by you, or not? At least I got a notification telling me from the editor that the article I created was accepted for publication. Would wikipedia not attribute the article to the original creator once moved to the main space even though he would have only contributed a single like originally?Radlrb (talk) 18:28, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
Alright. It's still strange, from the standpoint that there should be proper attribution to creation and development of articles, aside from the edit logs. If I provide a white page for someone to write on, then really that page's final product that is written on was for the most part "created" by the editor. It's just a statistic, but from an editor standpoint of view, it is not fair - if I have white pages myself I would rather use my own since it will be my creation's first draft. After all, Wikipedia articles themselves are creations. Radlrb (talk) 18:37, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
We do track this stat, such as this page we are writing on was created by Kaldari. It just should never be the focus and editors have gotten in trouble for being over-focused on this particular stat.And yes G7 does care.Slywriter (talk) 19:11, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
The article I have was declined due to references not qualifying to be notable enough. I took the feedback, replaced the references, and got declined again. Are you able to provide feedback on what references should be added or taken out to approve this article? Can you find any notable sources to add? Please advise.
I want to make a disambiguate page called "Thomas Glass" to link these 4 articles. Are 4 items enough for a disambiguate page? If so, can someone please help me make it?
I have registered on Wikipedia as a user. I contributed to articles in 2015 and 2016. I have read heavily on the tutorials. Not having a lot of luck. I have attempted to download and use Open Office but Safari will not allow it on my Mac. I was trying to convert my doc document to wiki document. I have written an article that has taken me months to compose and research. It is about a notable photographer, Merry Winnett 1951-1994. The article now exists as a Microsoft word document with 33 reliable references. How can I submit this article to an editor who is experience in the field of Women Photographers of Women Artists or Art History? Thanks . I do not have a link but my user name is Photocher Photocher (talk) 23:58, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
Photocher Good day. First of all pls see Help:Your first article on how to create an article for new editors. Secondly the subject needs to have significant coverage, with independent, reliable sources where by the sources talk about the subject in length and in depth and not passing mentioned to be considered notable to have a stand alone article in Wikipedia. Lastly, you can write your article in "Notepad" application and then copy and paste in draft article using "Wikipedia Article Wizard" where you can find the link on Help:Your first article. Be well and best. Cassiopeiatalk00:17, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
Thank you. The references are mostly authored by art reviewers (art critics) who have concentrated an essay on this particular artist. Also there are two books dedicated to this artist. I used the technique of verifying every statement with a publication. So I hope it is enough. I will try the Wizard and the Notepad. It looks like I may need to use a PC? Thanks for your reply. Photocher (talk) 00:46, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
I don't think that's possible considering Cyrillic characters don't have exact english letter equivalents. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#654500:29, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
Huh, well you've managed to prove me wrong in that it won't work. However, if you can't propose it then there's nothing that can be done. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#654500:50, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
This just seems like a majorly bad idea on the whole, even disregarding the fact that it doesn't fit policy. I'd recommend that discussion here stops before we get too out of hand casualdejekyll00:56, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
In the articles for American professional sports divisions like the American League East or the AFC East(and all the other MLB and NFL divisions) in the Champions by Year, Wild Card winners produced, and Division Champions sections, why are the World Series/Super Bowl wins in red and losses in green? This seems counter to common color associations and even earlier in the articles, in the Timeline and Division Lineup sections, winners are in green and appearances are in yellow. Is there a color guide that someone could point me to? Or is there a different place to discuss this, as it is something across many pages and at least 2 sports. PetahBread15 (talk) 15:53, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
Hi, i'd like to change the image on my wikipedia page. It shows a Russian flag for a company I now no longer work with. I don't know how to change the photo? Collijles (talk) 13:48, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
Collijles Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I would correct you in that it is not "your Wikipedia page", but a Wikipedia article about you. If you have a photo of yourself you wish to use that you either took yourself or that otherwise copyright permits you to upload, you may go to Files For Upload to work towards uploading the image. If your account has 10 edits or more and is at least four days old, you can upload it yourself at File Upload Wizard. 331dot (talk) 13:56, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
Remove the "comparable ships"/"comparable aircraft by era, capabilities" section in every single military arms page. It is very controversial so just abandon it since we are not analysts nor are we professional experts. You can, however classed them as "similar ships"/"similar aircrafts", by role. I.e. destroyer by destroyer. Still, a Type 045 and Type 055 are some examples why we won't be able to initiate this. Hypersonic man 11 (talk) 09:34, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
Hi there - I am hoping to find a wikipedian willing to review an article for which I have a COI. I have tried and failed to make any edits to the article following Wikipedia's guidelines and am hoping that a willing wikipedian might review the article instead. The article has somehow managed to become a lot worse than it used to be as a result of my involvement! Can I have some advice on how to seek out a potential volunteer - the article is primarily about agriculture so someone with an interest in environment/science/agricultural would be beneficial. This is the article in question Soil Association. Thank you in advance for any advice given. DanMor0806 (talk) 10:18, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
DanMor0806 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. There isn't really a way to guarantee that someone familiar with agriculture can look at the article- it also shouldn't be necessary, as one does not need to be an expert in agriculture to review an article or examine its sources. You have already received extensive advice on the article talk page; I can't add too much to that, but I can say that you should continue to propose edits on the article talk page, preferably sourced to independent reliable sources. You had one edit request denied There is no such thing as a page without bias, as everyone has biases. Any bias in reliable sources will be reflected in Wikipedia. The sources are presented to readers so they can evaluate and judge them for themselves as to bias and other factors. 331dot (talk) 10:28, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
331dot (talk) Thank you for your response and helpful advice. You're right - it doesn't need to be someone from that sector. Is there a list somewhere of active contributors who are open to being contacted? I don't mind doing the leg work in contacting them one at a time and of course, respectfully. As for continuing in the same vein with how I am already trying to edit the page I am unsure as to how this can work. My small edit (as suggested by the community) has now been waiting for review for 6 weeks. Despite acknowledging that there is no time limit on a review process, that pace would mean the page being out of date for over a year (and that's if my proposed edit is accepted!). DanMor0806 (talk) 10:33, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
System sizing guidelines
If a Wiki is deployed on to a on-site server, what system capacity rules should be considered?
Specifically, HDD capacity, RAM, CPU (qty, cores and speed).
Usage model is mostly as a knowledge and document management system. Expected to be relatively small user count (sub 500) but large quantity of documents to be managed. Some files very large (CAD drawings for example). 81.157.37.227 (talk) 10:34, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
Hello IP editor. Welcome to the Teahouse. I'm afraid your question is well outside the scope of this help forum for newcomers. You might wish to read Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks and ask at WP:VPT. I think I have seen a page about downloading an entire copy of one language version of Wikipedia, but can't seem to re-find it for you.
If, however, you are simply asking about creating and running your own wiki from scratch, and with nothing to do with re-using our 6.2million existing articles, then you're asking about specs to run the Mediawiki software. You should be able to find your answers here. Does that help? Nick Moyes (talk) 11:42, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:ThorCon_nuclear_reactor
I would like to see an article on each of several new reactor designs, with enough detail to answer many of the questions raised by anti-nuclear advocates. Are all molten salt reactors a proliferation risk? That depends on the specific design. We need these details.
I have started one of these articles, but I am running into a wall of opposition. The clearest source of design details is the companies themselves, usually on their website. That was the first reject, not independent enough. Then I found the same data in documents submitted to the IAEA, not as clear, but much more thorough. That got another reject. Even though the data was reviewed and published by independent experts at the IAEA, it still ultimately came from the company. I don't think there is any better source of this information.
I have written a response to the second reviewer (See the notice at the top of the article.) Can I get some advice, before submitting it again? I have read the policy on reliable sources, and it is not clear to me why this reject, or how this question can be resolved. David MacQuigg21:49, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
Macquigg, what you need is reliable independent published sources that discuss the reactor. Your own comment "I contacted ThorCon and got the following comment from Robert Hargraves: 'There were dozens of interactions between IAEA editors and me. The tables of tech specs were required by IAEA and filled in by me and checked by others. There can be no more accurate source.'" makes it clear that the IAEA sources are not independent of the designer of the reactor. Maproom (talk) 22:19, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
The point of the comment was to show that there WAS an actual review by the IAEA. They don't just accept without question the information submitted by companies wanting to build nuclear reactors. Regulatory agencies answer to the government. Their mission is public safety. Their reviews are done by experts independent of the companies submitting applications.
If not a regulatory agency, what would be a better source of information on a reactor design? Would an article in Popular Mechanics be acceptable? David MacQuigg22:53, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
@Macquigg, you need two different types of sources. To show that the article is about a topic already well-enough known to have a Wikipedia article you need two or three sources which are reliable, independent of the company, and have some in-depth discussion of the reactor. ThorCon is discussed in the technical literature of molten salt reactors and turns up in multiple places, such as here and here. However it is perfectly acceptable to also use published company sources for what the reactors do and the design details, from their website or in articles they have written in the industrial literature. These primary sources are fine for such factual statements and are likely to be the most accurate. We use NASA for details about rockets and spacecraft for example. But all sources have to be published. StarryGrandma (talk) 00:16, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
@StarryGrandma Thank you. This is very helpful. I was aware of the first link. The second is also good to establish that this reactor is well-known in the technical community. Thank you also for the clarification that I can use the company website for the design details. I will keep the link to the IAEA document for those who want more detail and have the time to wade through it.
Now I need to convey this information to the next person who responds when I click SUBMIT. Should I just copy your comments into the template at the top of the article? David MacQuigg01:20, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
{{u|David MacQuigg]],That comment alone will not help you. You need to show notability, which requires independent secondary sources taking an interest in the subject. IAEA and primary docs may be WP:DUE once the article establishes notability, but they are useless for establishing notability itself.Slywriter (talk) 16:32, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
David MacQuiggThe 2nd is sourced to ThorCon for the very limited mentions it makes of the company. The second also seems to be using the company as its source. So I don't see how either contribute to notability of Thorcon. Another reviewer may find differently.Slywriter (talk) 16:54, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
@Slywriter, @Macquigg it turns out that TMSR-500 is the existing article about the reactor. The two sources I mentioned were to show that the reactor turns up frequently in the technical literature; there are more as well as the news media coverage. The point is that sources for facts don't have to be the same sources that show notability. StarryGrandma (talk) 17:34, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
StarryGrandma, agreed though getting the draft accepted is not as simple as referring to your comment and expecting a reviewer to accept that as proof of notability nor would those two sources necessarily convinced every reviewer. Though all moot, as the article already exists and the technical information should be incorporated there. Name change might be justified but I haven't done any review of which is common name.Slywriter (talk) 17:59, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
On the question of notability, can I appeal to common sense? Understanding some important details of these new reactor designs is super important to the debate going on now over renewables vs nuclear. ThorCon is one of the leading contenders (not my favorite), but certainly worthy of coverage.
On the question of reliable sources, can we accept company websites as authoritative on the details of their own designs? If there is a challenge, we can dig deeper. If that still doesn't resolve any question of fact, let's have a brief point-counterpoint on the talk page. See the examples in the draft I submitted.
On the existing article, TMSR-500 appears to be an old name. I don't see it anywhere on ThorCon's current website, or in their filing with the IAEA. The old article seems too promotional to me. We need a short, factual article, focused on the issues of safety, waste management, weapons proliferation, and cost. Everything else is readily available on the company's website. If there is something you think is important in that old article, let's merge it into the current draft.
I will be writing articles on a few other reactors, the ones I find most interesting. I suggest we try to establish a common format, so readers can easily compare one to another. Surely the four issues I listed should be prominent. David MacQuigg22:44, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
Macquigg, you are free to edit the existing article and are encouraged to clean up(even remove) the promotional materials added by a connected editor. You are also free to move the page to what you think is a better name either by using the Move feature or requesting at WP:RM. So with that established, notability is not currently being questioned since the article already exists in main space. What's not going to happen is your article being approved when an existing article already exists. Also please see WP:Advocacy as we are here to inform readers, not lead them by the nose to a desired outcome. Additionally Talk pages are for discussing the editing of an article and not for further discussions or information on the subject or related topics.Slywriter (talk) 23:33, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
@Macquigg, it was originally titled Thorcon and was about the reactor. Occasionally it tried to be an article about the company. It was moved to the current title in 2020 and certainly can be renamed. A standard organized form is a good approach. You could start by writing an article about one of the other reactors, then step by step modify the existing article about ThorCon into that form. Since we are an encyclopedia the article needs the history of the project, who it is being built for, etc. as well as the technical material. It is the former that will show the project is notable in the Wikipedia sense and provide the references that demonstrate notability. There is an in depth, though rather negative, analysis of the reactor done by the Union of Concerned Scientists, and their assessment should be included. I've added the reference as Further reading here. StarryGrandma (talk) 23:53, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
I worry about getting into an edit war with whoever wrote the TMSR-500 article, but I will give it a try. There is nothing provably wrong with the existing article, so it will probably end up like the mush I see in other articles on nuclear power.
I have no desire to "lead them by the nose". If that remark is in response to the draft, I would sure like to know what you are seeing.
If the talk pages should include only editorial, not substantive issues, I will need to remove the point-counterpoint summaries on the current talk page. How about we make a sub-page: "Thorcon nuclear reactor/Q&A" where both sides can have their say, and keep the controversies off the main page.
I agree, the UCS analysis should be included, but not without fact-checking. Also UCS is far from neutral on anything related to nuclear power. I guess you didn't see that I included their statement about this reactor on the Talk page, followed by a statement from the company that seems to settle the matter. I think the only legitimate challenge to this would have to be a statement from a nuclear engineer, not affiliated with UCS or any other advocacy group, saying that while the ThorCon design does not have the alleged problem, it won't work as designed. If true, the company will have a big problem with getting approval by the regulatory agencies. If the question can't be resolved between neutral experts, our readers should see that. David MacQuigg01:22, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
Macquigg, my lead them by the nose is based on your comments here. Even now, you are looking to provide analysis to the article through Talk or Sub-page. Wikipedia is fundamentally not the place for such analysis or discussion. Wikipedia provides the facts, the rest of the internet provides the conversation. Most importantly, we never engage in orginal research.
On the edit-war, we have policies to prevent that. You can be WP:BOLD and wholesale remove what's there. Just be ready to discuss on talk page if someone reverts. Just because the connected editor found favorable facts in 'reliable sources' does not mean they are WP:DUE for inclusion and the talk page shows other editors had concerns with the article even after cleaning up. Though some of the sources may be useful as general references or basic facts so they can support notability since your draft is currently based entirely on primary sources.Slywriter (talk) 01:38, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
Slywriter, you say I am "looking to provide analysis to the article". I don't understand that, and I still don't understand how I am leading the reader "by the nose". The "analysis" you refer to (I am guessing} is the point-counterpoint on the Talk page. I see my role in this as being that of a reporter, gathering the most important facts, and getting exact quotes from each side where there is disagreement on the facts. I am not a nuclear engineer, so I would not even try to inject my analysis into this debate.
"we never engage in orginal research" I am guessing this refers to my digging up quotes from both sides?
Macquigg, digging up quotes is perfectly fine. Providing both sides of an issue as long as its not false balance is also great practice. The concern was statement here about the importance of this issue, followed by seeing a talk page that has a mission statement, point-counterpoint companion to the article and then a link to a facebook discussion. They gave the impression of trying to start a conversation and that's not what wikipedia is for. If I misunderstood the intent then my apologies.
Anything the reader needs should be in the article with sources or listed as further reading they can explore themselves. The talk page is not a resource for readers. So to the specific question, the point-counterpoint should be incorporated into the article along with all the relevant content from your draft and any corporate double-speak should be eliminated. You are on the right track with content and your reporter belief is mostly correct though unlike journalists wikipedia prefers boring, dry facts over sensationalism.Slywriter (talk) 12:46, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
@Slywriter OK, I am encouraged. I agree, no false balance (he-said, she-said, ignoring facts), and no sensationalism. That is not what I think of when I say "journalist".
I see now that the point-counterpoint on the talk page does not belong on a page focused on editorial issues, and where personal opinions on these issues are freely stated. I have moved this to a Critiques section in the main article.
As for the link to a FaceBook discussion (in the point-counterpoint on Waste Management), this is early-draft. Maybe I can dig further and find something quotable in the UCS "Advanced isn't better" paper. I could add a note at the top of that section - "Please help us find a better source for this critique of the ThorCon reactor. Loose talk on FaceBook is not good enough for a quote in Wikipedia. Does this reactor have any problems with waste management?"
I've been recommended to go to the Wikipedia Adventure, and it says articles must be based on another sites and not experiences. Is this the case with things like movies that you have seen and videogames you have played? Oixyplanet (talk) 03:03, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
@Oixyplanet: Good question! Some parts of articles, like plot summaries of films or video games, do not require a secondary sources, and the primary source (the film or game) can be used as the citation/reference. Let us know if you have any other questions! ––FormalDudetalk03:15, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
I've been looking through other user pages, and have noticed little embed boxed to the sides among other things. Are these custom features? EarthCore9999 (talk) 21:51, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @EarthCore9999: Welcome to the Teahouse! Your user page is a place to share what you like doing on Wikipedia, and a little about yourself if you like. I suggest reviewing Wikipedia:User pages, especially the sections on what you may and may not have on your user page. When I see other user pages that I like, I've examined the source code and done something similar on my page.
I'm currently writing a draft for the OneZoom not-for-profit organization, but i can barely find any citations for the company (that aren't from James Rosindell, the lead of OneZoom). I have a handful of articles that i listed here:
@Dontuseurrealname, it is unlikely that you will be able to find enough independent sources for a small non-profit project. The ones you have are either written by people associated with it or are interviews with them. You may have better luck looking for sources to write an article about Tree of Life Explorer instead. There is a review of it here in an American journal for biology teachers. There may be other independent reviews. The application may also be discussed in articles about data visualization. I don't have access to their content but try here and here. StarryGrandma (talk) 20:55, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
There are a number of incorrect statements and missing information. This page involves a product of my employer, so I don't think I can submit edits directly based on the Conflict of Interest rules. How would I go about requesting edits and offering citations without editing directly? Thanks!
I was looking to create a page for the Adirondack Council, the largest environmental non-profit in New York's Adirondack Park. Checking out their online financials shows annual budget of $2.5M, a multi-decade long history, and dozens of news articles in 2022 alone, so I think they're clearly Wikipedia-worthy as an organization.
But typing "Adirondack Council" into Wikipedia takes you to a section of the "Scouting in New York" page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scouting_in_New_York#Twin_Rivers_Council), namely the section on the Twin Rivers [Scouting] Council, which was formed from the merger of various other boy scout councils, including one named Adirondack Council.
So ... how do I go about requesting that "Adirondack Council" point to a new page about the environmental organization, and not a defunct scouting council? (or at least that it point to a disambiguation)? CallOftheLoon (talk) 22:00, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
CallOftheLoon, I'm not entirely sure what "their online financials" means, but suspect that it's something of little importance to "notability" as Wikipedia (perhaps perversely) understands this. By contrast, if there are indeed "dozens of news articles in 2022 alone" about it, and if these aren't mere PR fluff, then that does count a lot. So go ahead. Forget about "Scouting in New York": simply ignore it. (It's a matter for sorting out later.) Instead, click on Draft:Adirondack Council and edit. (However, better digest Help:YFA first.) -- Hoary (talk) 22:55, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
Details for References in Sources?
In the article "Edmund Gurney" the entry "Hall 1964" appears in the References many times, but that is the full extent of the detail there. The section "Sources" contains the entry "Hall, Trevor H. (1964). The Strange Case of Edmund Gurney...". Is it supposed to be self-evident that they are the same thing? It would be nice if this was made more explicit somewhere. The entry "Hall 1964" is a link, so I clicked it in the hope of getting such confirmation, but up came another opening of the "Edmund Gurney" article I was already reading! This is utterly pointless. Can something be changed so that clicking the "Hall 1964" entry does go to the detailed entry in the Sources? Thanks. 61.68.250.211 (talk) 13:22, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
hi ip user! yes, the reference does refer to the book The Strange Case of Edmund Gurney, which the source link already redirects to. if I'm correct it's a physical book instead of the usual webpage link and the individual references are referring to pages of said book (for example Hall 1964 p. 27 refers to page 27 of said book). happy reading! 💜 melecie talk - 13:38, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
When you say "which the source link already redirects to", do you mean that if I click any of the "Hall 1964" entries (which ARE blue links) in the References section, it IS supposed to display or lead to the full-length entry in the Sources section? (The second of the three entries there, which for me is entirely white and not a link AFAICT.) That is not what happens for me - I am viewing on a Galaxy tablet, not a PC. Could that be making the difference? 61.68.250.211 (talk) 14:03, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
That isn't a limitation of the device that you are using to read Wikipedia. It behaves the same on a Windows device. It is supposed to be self-evident that "Hall 1964" is a short notation for "Hall, Trevor H. (1964). The Strange Case of Edmund Gurney...", and that that is a printed book. There probably isn't any information available on the web. Wikipedia requires that information in articles be verifiable, and it is, by finding the book in a library, or buying the book second-hand via Amazon or eBay. If Wikipedia required that all references be web links, that would exclude the ability to list information such as this that is found only in printed books. The source is a printed book that may not exist online. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:47, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
You misunderstand me. I am not asking that the reference itself should be on the web; I can see that it is a book. I am asking (perhaps only wishing) that the short-form entries in the References "Hall 1964" when clicked should lead to, or display, their long-form entries in the Sources section (totally within WP). The system already does seem to be trying to do this, but it only opens the TOP of the same article over again, when it should at least be going down to the Sources section, and preferably be displaying only the text of the relevant entry. It is this action that I feel may be deficient on a tablet. 61.68.250.211 (talk) 15:25, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
Are you not seeing Hall 1964 in §References as a link? When I click on them, they take me to §Sources and highlight the Hall source. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 15:34, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
For me, both in the Firefox browser, and in the Android Wikipedia app, if I pick (eg) reference 21, it takes me to the top of the "Sources" section". On Firefox it highlights the particular source, as Tenryuu says. In the app, it offers me a new page, but when I go it it, it opens at the Sources section. ColinFine (talk) 15:48, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
I am not clicking any reference by number in the body of the article. I have the References section open and I DO see (eg:) "Hall 1964" as a link. If I click that link it is the same as if I clicked the link to some other article: I see the title and the introduction to the article, only it is the SAME Gurney article that I was already viewing. It stays at the top; it does NOT "take me to Sources and highlight the Hall source". I am using the Android Wikipedia app, but obviously the "go down and highlight" function is deficient on this tablet. Perhaps I should try to update or reinstall the app - AFAIK it has been unchanged since I got the tablet. 61.68.250.211 (talk) 16:12, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
Ah okay, I booted up the Wikipedia app on my Android device to see if I can replicate your issue. I went into the article, scrolled to §References, and tapped on one of the linked Hall citations. A prompt comes up with "Open a new tab" or "Read article". Picking "Read article", the app directs me to §Sources to display the full Hall citation. What version of the Wikipedia app are you using? I'm on version 2.7.50396-r-2022-03-03, which was last updated on 3 Mar 2022. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 16:45, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
Both of you may be having problems due to using the Wikipedia app on an Android. Some editors advise against using the Wikipedia app on an Android. Use the Firefox or Chrome web browsers on the Android, either in mobile view or in desktop view, but the Wikipedia app is worse than either mobile view or desktop view. That may be the problem. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:21, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
I didn't encounter any problems: the link seems to be working on the app as intended, just like ColinFine. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:41, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
When I view the article in my Chrome browser and click one of the short-form links in the References, it DOES display in a pop-up the corresponding full text from the Sources, ie: sensible operation. My copy of the Wikipedia app IS (rather to my surprise) the 2.7.50396-r-2022-03-03 version as reported by Tenyruu. So it seems that "using the Wikipedia app on an Android" is indeed the problem. Thank you all for your help in discovering this. Is it worth reporting this to the appropriate area, or would they already know, or is it a lost cause? 61.68.250.211 (talk) 06:35, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
The feature I'm complaining about IS used when only reading ... That last reply, and some of the earlier comments, suggest that the candid answer to my last question would be: no, yes, and yes ... But nevertheless, I will ask one final question: Where is the appropriate area to report a deficiency in the Android Wikipedia App? 61.68.250.211 (talk) 10:43, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
I logged a ticket at Phab:T304186, but I couldn’t find appropriate tags to add for Android App. Andre is tagged automatically, so presumably he will do the triage and categorisation. Don’t let that stop you from reporting via email per the page Colin linked. ⁓ Pelagic ( messages ) 23:08, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
Help with rejected draft: 1) Need good sources 2) Construed as an advertisement
Dear friendly editors, I'm happy that Mako001 has rapidly read the draft and rejected it.
He has asked me to include good sources, however because of the nature of the industry, there are not many good sources written about this subject.
I intended this page for informational purpose only, and definitely not as an advertisement.
I would appreciate any specific steps to help to improve the article. Thank you so much for reading.
Angyts, all *new* Wikipedia articles must include sources. Personally, as this crypto project is still ongoing, I would wait maybe a year to see how the subject has demonstrated notability. Sungodtemple (talk) 17:15, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
If your article has only primary sources and no secondary coverage (news articles, professional reviews, etc.), then it's more likely to be rejected. Not because the draft is bad, but because it lacks established notability. Not that the topic isn't important to you personally, or that it might not become more important in the future, but notability is generally something established through unbiased secondary sources, at least in my experience. PetSematary182 (talk) 19:14, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
thats the problem with this industry, every source is bias!! hahaha they are either trying to blow their own position or bash it because it threatens them hahaha Angyts (talk) 23:30, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
Help needed over title disambiguation
Hello there! I'm very new here so I'm sorry if I'm doing anything wrong or there's any confusion (I haven't used the talk feature until now haha)
But, I was looking over Wikipedia when I stumbled on the page Young John, which (looking through it's revision history) had been having a bit of an edit war/back-and-forth. The changes that had been made were users essentially arguing on whether his name should be "Young John" or "Young Jonn" -I googled it, and upon the first google search it looked like "Young Jonn" should be correct -the first thing to come up for both search terms was a rapped who goes by the name "Young Jonn".
However on further inspection, I found that they were actually two different rappers, which explains the confusion.
I'm very new here, and am not sure on how I could do this myself, but is there anything that we can do to clear up/stop future confusion on this page (whether from editors or readers)? I know some articles have a "See: _ (disambiguation)" -I'm not sure if that or something else is the correct thing to do here.
Hi again teahouse, EarthCore here. I've made some contributions by reverting some major vandalism on some articles. However, I've not made any edits that a typical user would do, such as tone adjustments, spelling corrections, etc. I'm unsure about the protocol here and I get nervous from editing worrying that it isn't good and will get reverted. I'd like to start my Wikipedia "career" by fixing articles with tone issues, but I'm having trouble finding it. Is there any way you can help? EarthCore9999 (talk) 00:00, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
@EarthCore9999: Hi there! Thank you for deciding to help out on Wikipedia! I would suggest you to check out the Help Out section at Wikipedia:Community portal. It provides a bunch of lists of articles with issues to fix (Category:All articles needing copy edit might be a good place to start if you are confident with spelling/grammar skills). If you are unsure about protocol, it's worth reading a few Wikipedia policies to familiarize yourself with them. The 5 fundamental pillars of Wikipedia is a good place to start. The Manual of Style is your go-to for anything grammar or formatting related. I'd recommend consulting the specific sections of the MOS for whatever subject you need clarification about at the time. Hope this helps, — Mcguy15 (talk, contribs) 00:49, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
EarthCore9999, here's a specific recommendation. En:Wikipedia has squillions of articles, and very many of them (certainly including most that I work on) are not on matters of very great importance. By contrast, just last night I wanted to read up on Moldova–Russia relations; so I did, and I was disappointed by the quality of the article. It really needs editors who can read Romanian, Russian or both; however, even with no knowledge of either, I believe that I could make at least minor improvements to it. If I could, you could too. I very much hope that Moldova–Russia relations do not suddenly become very newsworthy; whether they do or don't, the subject merits a better treatment than what it now gets. So there you are: Moldova–Russia relations. All the best with it. -- Hoary (talk) 03:12, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
Hi, I am new at this and have tried putting categories into my article in my Sandbox for Adelaide Motorsport Festival but they do not appear correctly (eg: not in a Category box) and I don't seem to be able to include an Info box either WinterCup (talk) 01:11, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
@WinterCup: Welcome to the Teahouse. A bot disabled category markup, as it is a guideline that drafts/sandbox pages do not get content categories. If the draft is accepted (which can be done by adding {{subst:submit}} to the top of the page), it will be categorised. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 03:19, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
Tamjeed Ahmed I have reported them to WP:UAA, so they should be blocked for an offensive username once an admin comes along. Alternatively, an admin may see this post (it's clearly offensive in Hindi, according to Google Translate). Joseph2302 (talk) 17:19, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
His older account was blocked by Wikipedia but it is still showing in search. And he has created another account with Hindi cuss words. Can you ask Wiki admins to block his IP? Tamjeed Ahmed (talk) 05:34, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
In my talk page and sandbox, I accidentally pressed the "edit visually" button when I want to edit the source itself. What should I do? Magik 3099 (talk) 16:57, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
Magik 3099, just click out of it back onto the 'read' tab. You can then select 'edit source' from there. Given that you have posted this comment, you have probably already figured it out. Sungodtemple (talk) 17:16, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
Visual editor isn't available on talk pages, so you won't have it there. Try the pencil icon top-right to switch between visual and source mode, Magik 3099. ⁓ Pelagic ( messages ) 03:36, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
Courtesy link:User:WinterCup/sandbox
I am new at this and I have created an article on Adelaide Motorsport Festival and all of a sudden the box with Submit my Article for Review has disappeared - so how can I submit for Review to get the page live? WinterCup (talk) 04:26, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
The page should already be live as soon as it was created unless it was removed from the mainspace by an administrator. Could you please post the link to the page? Urban Versis 32 (talk) 05:17, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
@WinterCup: I've gone ahead and added a template for you on the page. When you feel it's ready for review, you can click the blue Submit the draft for review! button. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:20, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
Oh dear I am having such trouble - I renamed the article Adelaide Motorsport Festival and now it won't let me submit for review even though I put Draft: Adelaide Motorsport Festival as the draft article. WinterCup (talk) 05:49, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
Hello, I created a infobox in Zaza Korinteli added all stuff, moved birth date behind his name in lead but a user is saying, I was doing a test, experiment but I wasn't, he reverted my edits without writing proper reason in summary. Is any new rule say that, you can't create a infobox in BLP articles.Success think (talk) 11:58, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
Sometimes I come across a fact in wikipedia that is really useful. I would like to thank the author of the sentence if possible. Other times it is interresting how only a certain section of a page changed. Is there a way to look something like this up? TheFibonacciEffect (talk) 12:07, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
Hi TheFibonacciEffect. You can find a record of each edit made to a page in its page history; so, that might be one way of doing such a thing. I also believe some editors use something that is called WikiBlame as well. Thanking editors is a nice thing to do and there is a WP:THANKS feature that allows you to do so, but you can also leave a more personal message on their user talk page if you want. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:12, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
User page
I have been an active editor of Wikipedia for several years (4,600 edits), but I only now noticed that, on the Revision history pages of entries that I've edited, my name appears in red, whereas most of the others do not. I figured out that that is because I never created a User page. Should I? Does it serve a purpose? I've looked at a few other editors' user pages, and they contain random information or no information. If I have nothing I want to say on it, should I create it anyway so that other editors can write to me on it? But that's what my User talk page is for, right? Maurice Magnus (talk) 12:51, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
Guidleines are a bit flexible when it comes to userpages; you can simply put some important links there which you need to access regularly, or somes things/tasks you plan to do, or draft notes. It is like a personal organizing space. See WP:UPYES-- Abdul Muhsytalk13:16, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
Thanks, - Abdul Muhsy. The first thing that I've used it for is to paste the link you provided — WP:UPYES — so that I'll have ready access to it. The User page will also be helpful to retain technical instructions such as how to link an author to his or her Wikipedia entry when the author's name is listed in the citation template.Maurice Magnus (talk) 13:26, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
Research Question
I've been working on an article - Draft:Deborah Gail Stone - that needs more sources. I've come across some legit news sources that are cited in it from CityNews (2004), but unfortunately the only copy of this media report I could find was scanned and posted to somebody's blog, so even though the CityNews magazine is a reliable news source, the blog is not. It's kind of a strange situation. I was also wondering if anybody knows where to find reliable legal reports on this case. Despite the family's settlement with Disney Corporation being private, the initial lawsuit was public and in the California Compensation Cases. Before I resubmit my draft, I want to have stronger sources. Debbie Stone is a notable figure and a woman who achieved a lot in education and athletics before her death, so I want the article to be approved instead of declined, but I need better sources first. PetSematary182 (talk) 19:10, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
@PetSematary182 I looked at Wikipedia:Notability (people) and went down to section 6, People notable for only one event. That section begins with “When an individual is significant for their role in a single event, it may be unclear whether an article should be written about the individual,” which leaves unclear whether Deborah Gail Stone is notable enough for a Wikipedia article. It comes down to good references, and as it is written in Your first article "In general, sources with no editorial control are not reliable." Unfortunately, most YouTube videos, Find a Grave, and question & answer websites such as quora.com are listed on Reliable sources as generally being user-generated, and considered unreliable.
Have you seen the article America Sings, which has a section entitled "Deborah Gall Stone Incident"? If you are not able to have your article about Deborah Gall Stone accepted you could at least go to America Sings and add a bit more to the section on the tragic accident. Best wishes on finding good references. Karenthewriter (talk) 14:58, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
How to write on my user page ?
That I likes to watch movies, I likes to eat vegetarian food, likes to travel, likes to read history, story books, newspaper, And all that kind of stuff. Success think (talk) 05:57, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
You can write it as you've written above, you can express it via so-called userboxes, or (best of all) you can forget about your user page and demonstrate your enjoyment of reading various kinds of stuff by applying your reading to the improvement of articles (of course, citing your sources). It's articles, not user pages, that matter. -- Hoary (talk) 06:05, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
Userboxes can be displayed horizontally (See my User page) or in a vertical stack by using userboxtop and userboxbottom, thus terms being put inside double curly brackets {{ }} before and after your list of userboxes. Having a good-looking User page is self-rewarding, but keep in mind Hoary's admonition - we are here to improve the encyclopedia, not self-aggrandize. David notMD (talk) 12:59, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
Hi, I have to give my rationale in a proposed deletion template but can't make it concise enough, would someone help me word it properly please? -- CalSmith2 (talk) 23:46, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
forwarding from my talk, the reasonings given are Article cites only one government data source, sparsely (failing WP:1R), Unlike the Mayor of Greater Manchester as a whole, insufficient sourcing is available, I can't foresee a scenario were the topic becomes WP:Notable or gains sufficient coverage outside the government data site, WP isn't an indiscriminate collection of information were the reasonings given for this PROD.
for @CalSmith2, I'm thinking that you could write this as Article fails notability, and cites only one government data source, with insufficient sourcing compared to Mayor of Greater Machester. however then again I don't work at PROD or AFD, so this can probably be improved. happy editing! 💜 melecie talk - 09:32, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
I think I saw someone mention a bot that would archive all the sources in an article at various archiving websites. Could someone direct me to that bot? TipsyElephant (talk) 17:00, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
How is mentioning John Mearsheimer's contention that the Israeli lobby wields disproportionate influence over US foreign policy in the introductory section of his article not biased? 194.223.185.231 (talk) 13:31, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
The sentence in question reads, "In 2007 book The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy Mearsheimer argues that the Israeli lobby wields disproportionate influence over US foreign policy." That is an assertion of fact. The question is whether it is accurate, not whether it is biased. Whether Mearsheimer's argument is biased is a separate question and is discussed later in the article.Maurice Magnus (talk) 14:03, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
Hi, is it possible to create an new infobox with a universal parameter, that the user could place under any other parameter? If so, what method could be used to create it? Thank you in advance. Your admirer AngryBiceps (talk) 08:46, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
Translation (Portuguese): with firm eyes nature we follow, security and transparency of google is our notion.Welcome to the Teahouse. Did you have a question about editing or using Wikipedia? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 18:43, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
Redirects for URLs
Is it standard practice to create redirects for URLs to the article about that company or group? I don't see anything at WP:REDIRECT about URLs. However, nytimes.com redirects to The New York Times.
Is it standard practice to create redirects for URLs to the article about that company or group? I don't see anything at WP:REDIRECT about URLs. However, nytimes.com redirects to The New York Times. It seems like there is a standard format as I haven't seen any containing "www.", but are these standards outlined by a guideline somewhere? Are there websites that shouldn't get a redirect? TipsyElephant (talk) 18:58, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
Hi TipsyElephant, and welcome to the Teahouse! Yes, it is common to redirect domain names to the corresponding article. In fact, there is an entire redirect category dedicated to domain name redirects, {{R from domain name}}. Domain name redirects help our readers quickly identify the organization associated with a website. This is especially handy when there are multiple organizations with similar names (e.g. The Telegraph and The Times) and when the website is in a language other than English. Personally, I create these redirects when I see the opportunity to do so, and I encourage everyone else to do the same. — Newslingertalk19:59, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
Apex Lugia, hello to you too and welcome to the Teahouse we are glad to have you, please whenever you have a question to ask about editing, please feel free to stop by . Celestina007 (talk) 20:49, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
Denoting a single that has been re-titled within a discography
On Svdden Death's article, there is a single missing from the Discography section which has had two titles: it was originally released in April 2021 with the title "SLB 2021", but appears on the newly released album VOYD Vol. II as "Shallow Land Burial". Should it be listed in the table of "Other singles" under the former title, with a note saying that it appears on VOYD Vol. II as "Shallow Land Burial"; or under the new title, with a note saying that it was originally titled "SLB 2021"? Sporeball (talk) 21:24, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
Why not both? It could be done as a combined footnote, with only a linked superscript character in the table entries themselves. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.213.229.59 (talk) 03:13, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
The Two William Olivers
They are Engish Victorian painters who are often confused, sometimes as father and son (particularly on art sales index type web sites eg Junior/Senior, Younger/Older, I/II). The younger artist whose professional name is William Oliver (William Oliver (artist)) is actually William Oliver Williams (1823-1901). I am writing an article on the older artist with the draft title 'William Oliver, Artist (1804-1853)'. Hopefully this could help to reduce further confusion, particularly if the birth and death years were added to the Wikipedia title of the younger artist. Would this be possible? BFP1 (talk) 10:36, 18 March 2022 (UTC) BFP1 (talk) 10:40, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
Hi BFP1. What you're asking about is called disambiguation on Wikipedia and there are various ways it can be done. If you look at William Oliver, you see there are quite a number of articles about individuals with that name and they are all diambiguated in various ways. What you might do in this case is start a discussion at Talk:William Oliver (artist) and explain what you're hoping to do and why. You can then add Template:Please see to the talk pages of the four WikiProjects listed at the top of the article's talk page to let others know about the discussion. You, then, basically wait and see what kinds of responses you get. Since only the article about the younger currently exists, perhaps the consensus will be not to WP:MOVE the page (at least not just yet) but rather wait until the article about the elder William Oliver has been created. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:24, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
@BFP1 Yes, we have various ways to distinguish between similarly-named pages. We have Disambiguation pages and we also have WP:HATNOTES which can go at the very of both pages to point to one another and to distinguish them. See examples of both at Dark side of the moon. Right now, don't worry about the title. Create your draft and submit it for review as normal, and maybe add a note at the top with a suggested title for the reviewer to resolve. But even if it's not done well at first, it can always be resolved later by moving the page to a different title (with or without a WP:REDIRECT. The key thing is to get the page content written. I hope this helps? Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 11:34, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
@BFP1: A commonly used disambiguation style in situations like this would be to title the articles "William Oliver (artist, born 1804)" and "William Oliver (artist, born 1823)". But, as you have been advised above, there's no need to worry about the exact title of your article yet. Deor (talk) 13:48, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
The article has now been created with the new title 'William Oliver (1804-1853)', while the other article has been retitled to 'William Oliver 1823-1901)'. However, I think I prefer Deor's suggestion above indicating that both were artists. Can the Deor option be Implemented?@Deor:@Marchjuly:@Nick Moyes:
This follows on from the previous Teahouse dicussion titled the 'Two William Olivers'. An article on the older artist has now been created, titled 'William Oliver (1804-1853)', while the existing article for the younger artist has been retitled 'William Oliver (1823-1901)'. In the previous dicussion an alternative suggestion for the two titles was 'William Oliver (artist, born 1804)' and 'William Oliver (artist, born 1823)'. I prefer the versions where 'artist' is included in the title. If this is considered reasonable could this be implemented? In the previous discussions helpful suggestions were given on how to do this. Unfortunately my Wikipedia technical knowledge is weak and and I do not know how to carry them out. Therefore I would hope that an expert could do this for me.BFP1 (talk) 07:33, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
Hi IP 2001:44B8:41C6:F700:548:3E48:AC7:668. A Wikipedia sandbox is sort of a place where you can practice editing Wikipedia. You can use the sandbox to make test edits, try out new formatting, see how templates work, and make other types of edits that you might want to check before trying to make them anywhere else, especially to Wikipedia articles. There is a main sandbox that all editors can share at WP:SANDBOX and there are individual user sandboxes that each registered account is given. Once you're done practicing, you can simply rake over the sandbox and make it "new" again for the next person or for your next practice session. A sandbox, however, is still not a place where it's OK to publish anything you want, and you still need to make sure that any sandbox edits you make don't violate any major Wikipedia policies like Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, Wikipedia:Copyrights, Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:No personal attacks, but for the most part you will be left alone to experiment as long as you're experimenting doesn't get out of hand. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:19, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
Can any one my friend help me by improving this article?
In https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aram_Khachaturian there needs to be a additon to the listing of "other compositions":
"Chamber Music - Trio for Clarinet, Violin and Piano (1932). Publisher: www.editionsilvertrust.com"
Doing this edit is beyond me, please have at it if you know how this editing process works. Thanks. Beach1bum9 (talk) 05:46, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
See comment on draft. The refs that mention the films as her work (9-21) do not describe at any length what her roles as scriptwriter or director were. David notMD (talk) 08:30, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
Ostracism I continue to modify the page Kosem Sultan indicating it correctly, with explanations and with source as the mother of Sehzade Mehmed, in line with the most modern and accredited historiographical research. The relationship is correctly indicated on the pages of his father, Ahmed I, on that of Mehmed himself, and on the wikis of other languages. Yet it is routinely deleted by a user who refuses to provide explanations or best sources for his belief that Kosem is not Mehmed's mother, as well as to at least indicate that the matter is controversial. Instead, he requested to block the page changes. Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia that grows from everyone's contribution and from the awareness that no one knows everything, but this user acts as if he were the owner of the article and the only one authorized to modify it, without in any way accepting that he may not be the only one with knowledge about it, or not knowing everything. Is it possible to do something? 31.156.255.6 (talk) 13:21, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
Hello, IP user. You are having a content dispute with Jacob Historian about the article Kösem Sultan. This is perfectly normal, and the way Wikipedia works. It appears that you have both been edit warring, and should stop doing so. You have now done the right thing by opening a discussion today on both the article's talk page and the other user's talk page (though it would have been better to do so in only one place, and if necessary draw the other user's attention to it by pinging them). It is now up to Jacob Historian to enter in a discussion with you - they should not have reverted your edits without at least an edit summary explaining.
First of all, thanks for the reply. I apologize if the title is not appropriate: I do not think it is personal, however that there is a thread of arrogance in canceling any modification, even justified, and without explanation, yes.
But I don't think I am doing edit warring: it is true that I have made the change twice, but only because I thought that the first one had been canceled because it was badly formatted. The second was perfect, with links and sources, as well as an explanation of why, but was deleted in minutes and again without explanation. I will certainly not rewrite it, as it takes more time to create it correctly than it is for him to delete it. I don't claim to be right, but if I'm wrong, you should at least provide me with an incontrovertible source. If, on the other hand, it is his personal conviction or simply a different historiographical interpretation, I think my modification should be left, perhaps indicating the alternative in a note. But the attitude of arbitrary cancellation without explanation annoys me. I will be waiting for Jacob Historian's response, even if I'm not very good at online fights and if he cancels the change, I can't do much about it no matter what and how he will respond. For this I wanted to try with a third evaluation that judged whether the change is valid or not and how to point it out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.156.255.6 (talk) 14:04, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
I have already said that, in my opinion, Jacob Historian should have explain their reversion in an edit message or on a talk page. You don't need to rewrite anything: your previous edits are there in the history of the article, and if the consensus is to incorporate some or all of what you wrote, you can retrieve it. ColinFine (talk) 14:36, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
Commonedits Admin here. You don't need to worry about moving it yourself as you need to resubmit it for a review. If accepted, the reviewer will arrange for it to be moved. 331dot (talk) 11:25, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
Arjayay I'm sorry but the reasons given by that reviewer were completely "invalid" and it was clear from the reviews done here (for some drafts the reviewers simply accept even when it is not well-edited and poorly sourced) that many reviewers follow WP:COI. Thank you Commonedits (talk) 11:32, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
Hi Commonedits. You might have no other option to wait for it to be accepted by an AfC reviewer. Once accepted, the AfC reviewer who does so will know how to get the title unsalted so that the draft can be moved. No administrator is likely going to unsalt a title for a draft that has been declined multiple times until the draft has been accepted via AfC, and they're unlikely going to jump into the AfC process to review such a draft. There are really WP:NODEADLINES when it comes to this type of thing, and you can continue to work on improving the draft so that it's ultimately accepted by an AfC reviewer. You can also ask questions or express your concerns about the review process at WP:AFCHELP. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:38, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
Commonedits If other drafts are accepted and should not have been, please discuss that with the reviewers of such drafts. It doesn't mean that more poor drafts should be accepted. 331dot (talk) 12:50, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
Declined AfCs, revised and resubmitted, are rarely reviewed by the same reviewer who declined in the past, so an accusation of reviewer COI is utter nonsense. David notMD (talk) 14:09, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
Even if they are reviewed by different reviewers, it doesn't mean the reviewers don't follow WP:COI because myself a very "common editor" have seen it happening here!!! Commonedits (talk) 15:32, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
HTML Required?
Hi, everyone! Please pardon my ignorance, but I'd like to do some copyediting. I looked through the MoS and noticed the markups. Do I need to have knowledge of HTML to edit? I don't even know if this question makes any sense, so some direction would be immensely appreciated.
@Gingerbreadgal: Welcome to the Teahouse. While some HTML markup is used, for the most part wiki markup is its own beast (some of the more common ones you'll see can be found on this cheatsheet). If you're primarily here to copyedit, there is the visual editor that you can use instead of just editing in source mode (you can enable it by going to Preferences → Editing → Temporarily disable the visual editor while it is in beta). The visual editor has buttons you can use to do general formatting, so there's less wiki markup to worry about there. Shameless plug: If you haven't already, check out the Guild of Copy Editors. We're currently in the middle of a backlog drive clearing up articles that have been tagged for copy editing, and an extra pair of hands would be welcomed. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:20, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
A week ago, maybe two, I had a discussion with a User, name forgotten but may have been admin, on their Userpage, regarding a deletion that User had made to an article whose name I can't recall. Helpful? Sorry.
As there was a difference of opinion, that User's advice re revertal (haha-new word) was to make a note on that article's talk page, which I did.
I thought the time was ripe to check on its progress but, using the tools at my disposal and the few grey cells left by Father Time and noxious chemicals, I could find no trace.
Can someone please help, it's keeping me awake. (local time now 04:30) Doug butler (talk) 17:32, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for your prompt reply. Alas not there. None of those, at least the recent ones, was about reverting a deletion. And I've searched User Contributions for edits on article talk pages to no avail. Doug butler (talk) 17:59, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
It's possible you forgot to log on, in which case you were editing as an IP-address instead of as Doug butler. You could try logging off, and then clicking on 'contributions' at the top right of the screen (if you're on the web version of Wikipedia). This might find your logged-off contributions, but since IP addresses are often reallocated by internet service providers, unfortunately it might find someone else's! Good luck, anyway! Elemimele (talk) 18:28, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
Nice piece of lateral thinking, but as there was some argy-bargy during which I (in the nicest possible terms) accused the User of shifting the goalposts, I would Shirley have noticed, don't you think? PS I like the new [reply] button. Doug butler (talk) 18:43, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
@Jéské Couriano: Depends on the software. If it is freely licensed software, then it may be shared according to the license conditions. Otherwise, as you said, it must meet the non-free content criteria. Not all screenshots of non-free software are fair use, though. I can't take a 4K screenshot of a non-free app, and share it on 1,000 pages. QuickQuokka[talk • contribs]21:32, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
Help me edit a draft
I am currently reviving this draft that was deleted because it was abandoned by its creator. I request editors to develop this draft with me since the artcile would be very important due to the current situations with Ukraine and Russia. Thank you! Prodrummer619 (talk) 15:31, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
Welcome to the Teahouse, Prodrummer619! This isn't quite the place to recruit editors to assist you in editing a draft. Do you have a specific question we can answer here? Bsoyka (talk) 16:07, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
I have been slowly trying to improve the Turner Prize page as it has/had lots of bits with no citations, out of date info, and/or vague things like "There are conflicting reports as to how much personal sway he has over the proceedings" without explaining who is making those reports, what they are saying, or any citations.
I saw on the Talk page for the article that it is part of several projects aimed at improving relevant pages. I clicked on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Awards one but can't really find much discussion/coordination. There is a list of users. What is the benefit of adding yourself to the list? Is there some more discussion somewhere where I should say "hey I am trying to improve this article" and people put their suggestions or whatever? Or shall I just crack on on my own? Ascendingrisingharmonising (talk) 15:24, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
@Ascendingrisingharmonising, I concur with Cullen. If you'd to get more feedback on that article, you could ask for a peer review, or if you think it meets the criteria, nominate it for a good article nomination. Both might take a few months to go through the queue, though, and a peer review isn't guaranteed.
Taking a quick look at the article, one thing I'd suggest is to try to make the reception section less of a list of individual people who have praised/criticized the award and more of an overview of the themes that come up among praisers/critics with a few examples. Also consider adding {{Infobox award}}. You could also look at the list of featured articles or good articles to see if there are any examples of awards, and if there are, model the page after those. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}}talk22:17, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
Goat ate all my email addresses, user names, passwords.
Some old silver haired goat ate my info. Looking at starting over. Thought I might ask for recommendations as to email servers, usernames, and what ever positive recommendations the community might have. I get the feeling some of you know a bit about my back story. Thank you. I think.........;! 107.122.97.43 (talk) 23:08, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
Indefinitely blocked? From internet servers, or life, live, and heaven or what. So much has happened and so many involved that by my self and with ignorance of internet technology I'm soaking lost and have been smashing toes in the dark. Trying to get to favorable standings but about wore smooth. 107.122.97.43 (talk) 23:40, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
Short description
What does the "short description" template do? I've seen it on some pages. Is it supposed to display something in the page? Oixyplanet (talk) 01:20, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
From the long-term abuse page: "Persistent spreading of misinformation about Greek alphabet topics across multiple language Wikipedias. Persistent sockpuppetry, including good-hand/bad-hand schemes, edit-warring against his own socks; verbal abuse, fake death threats and outing attacks against administrators, joe jobs and impersonation of other vandals, use of open proxies. Wikinger's account was globally locked on 24 March 2015 due to cross-wiki abuse. He is banned by the Wikimedia Foundation and may not edit any Wikimedia project. All accounts/IPs should be globally locked/blocked on sight." This is a long-dead horse. Why want to pick at it? David notMD (talk) 14:37, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
If there were problem revisions that needed to be suppressed or otherwise revdeleted, most likely that would have been done already (particularly in a case like this). If you think that perhaps something was missed, then try asking the administrator who protected the page or try contacting WP:OVERSIGHT. Whatever you do, don't repost anything you think is inappropriate on any Wikipedia page because that just creates more things to cleanup if you're right and there's really a problem. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:45, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
I'm trying to fix a reference to include an up-to date link because the current one is broken, but I haven't been able to figure out how. The "edit" box that Wikipedia help pages have said will show up when hovering over a citation doesn't show up for me.
Ezulwini Consensus
I'd like to fix the third source above^ to a current working link. Flubberpuff (talk) 02:15, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
I would like to make a wiki article "List of International Film Joint Productions" for movies produced by more than one country. The list would be some sort of table with data entries like Amélie [2001] (France, Germany), Resident Evil Welcome to Raccoon City [2021] (United States, Canada, United Kingdom, Germany).
Hello, IP editor. I am not an expert on film financing, but I think that international co-productions are very commonplace in the film industry. Take a look at the history of Horizon Pictures, for example, which goes back 75 years. You would need to establish that the topic of International Film Joint Productions is notable, as opposed to an everyday and commonplace way of producing films. Cullen328 (talk) 03:40, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
I'm a bit confused as to what counts as "coproduction", actually that's kinda why I want an article like this. The Resident Evil Welcome to Raccoon City wiki page says it's a coproduction of United States, Canada, United Kingdom, Germany. The film credits itself says "Co-production Canada-Germany". The intellectual property rights belongs to a video game company in Japan. Films are also often shot outside the country or hire foreign actors but that itself isn't necessary indicative of coproduction. Look at the wiki page for the film "Stockholm (2018 film)" which lists "Countries" as "Canada, United States" but is referred to as a "2018 Swedish-Canadian film" in the "Stockholm_(disambiguation)" page. The film seems to have Swedish financing so it should count as Swedish but the criteria for "coproduction" still seems kinda vague. "Scott Pilgrim vs. the World (2010)" has
"United States, United Kingdom, Japan" under "Countries" probably because those are the locations of the productions companies but it is under the categories of "English-language Canadian films" and "Japanese romantic comedy films". 104.159.49.165 (talk) 04:21, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
Putting aside the title for a moment, you talk of "movies produced by more than one country". I suppose you mean "movies produced in more than one country", but "produced" can, I think, mean almost anything. According to some non-fringey understandings of "produced", a very large percentage of movies may be said to have been produced in more than one, so large as to make your proposed list unhelpful. -- Hoary (talk) 03:44, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
{{Infobox film}} is used in 144,000 articles. Too many have more than one production country, and it too often depends on the definition or interpretation. It wouldn't be worth the effort to try to make lists (one list wouldn't be enough). Country/Countries comes after running time in the infobox so the search hastemplate:"infobox film" "minutes countries" with 9415 hits is a first estimate of the number. PrimeHunter (talk) 04:13, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
How to write auto biography
I have tried to write an auto biography but failed. I'm fulfilling all the basic requirements for writing and publishing an article but still didn't make it. FaizannAmjad (talk) 02:58, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
FaizannAmjad, you have provided no evidence that you are a notable person by Wikipedia standards. If you persist in this campaign to promote yourself on Wikipedia, you will be blocked. Why not devote yourself to Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, YouTube and Instagram, where self-promotion is allowed?. Wikipedia forbids self-promotion. Cullen328 (talk) 03:29, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
FaizannAmjad, you can create an article here, but not about yourself, and even then making one would be hard. it's best for you to work on other simpler tasks first, see Task Center for stuff you can do. then once you've gathered enough experience, you can create an article, Your first article has information on that. 💜 melecie talk - 10:11, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
hi Bijoy2020 and welcome to the teahouse! you can find them at Special:Preferences. for the former, Preferences > Gadgets > Browsing, Twinkle; for the latter, Preferences > User Profile > Email Options > Change or remove email address. happy editing! 💜 melecie talk - 12:35, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
Submitting Articles About My Company
Hi,
I DO work with The Violin Channel but I also honestly believe both it, as an influential international classical music news source, and its founder, Geoffrey John Davies, both deserve to be listed in Wikipedia articles.
Both The Violin Channel and Geoffrey John Davies have significant, credible external media and notability in the classical music field.
I have listed just some press below — including a recent front cover and 7-page feature in International Arts Manager Magazine, plus press endorsements by acclaimed journalists from The New York Times, New York Magazine and Graydon Carter’s Cultural Air Mail. Geoffrey has also had interview profiles in The Washington Blade, as a leader in the LGBT community, and on The Classical Post.
As a recognized classical music industry leader, Geoffrey also currently serves on a board of the Lincoln Center for Performing Arts and was recently invited by the United Nations to join a broadcast paneled discussion on the future of classical music.
I know a former colleague tried to upload these two pages sometime back, without a full understanding of the Wikipedia process, and they were removed and blocked. I would appreciate if feedback could be provided to ensure it's done this time with the absolute correct protocol and integrity.
I am happy to write them both, in total compliance with Wikipedia’s standards and formats, and submit them for full approval and certification of neutrality and non-promotional content or hand over the following information as a newly suggested article or stub.
Thank you very much for taking the time to consider this. I do genuinely hope the following media list should highlight the international notability of both Geoffrey John Davies and The Violin Channel, and their qualifications for inclusion in Wikipedia.
Many thanks. In the meantime, I will continue to edit other non-related musicians’ articles.
Extended content
BRIEF BACKGROUND:
Geoffrey John Davies
Born: 4 April, 1977
Founder, CEO and current Editor-in-Chief of The Violin Channel.
Geoffrey founded the well-known classical music platform in 2009 in Australia and it now has over 1 million followers and subscribers internationally.
The Violin Channel
The New York-based classical music media, streaming, and news platform.
It is one of the largest and most widely-read classical music portals in the world.
In 2020 The Violin Channel, in partnership with the Alphadyne Foundation and New York's Kaufman Music Center, produced the 10-episode online Vanguard Concert Series during Covid. It was viewed by more than 4.3 million people internationally and received significant international praise and press coverage.
PRESS:
Musical America
Geoffrey was named as one of Musical America’s 30 “Most Influential Professionals in the International Classical Music Industry”
Musical American described the 30 chosen as: “the people who make the industry work”, and “the people who are making a difference in our business, either by virtue of their position, their creativity and/or their dedication”. Musical America’s editor Susan Elliott went on to say that “when these 30 speak, we listen!”
International Arts Magazine
Geoffrey was recently featured on the front cover of International Arts Magazine. The issue also featured a 7-page feature on him and The Violin Channel’s Vanguard Concert Series. (Pages 3, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 and 19).
“Our cover star, the flamboyant Geoffrey John Davies is helping to drag the sometimes stuffy world of classical music into the current century.”
“In an era when the remuneration for musicians and composers is often pitifully low, this is an example for all to follow,” - Editor Kevin Whitlock
The New York Times
Geoffrey was included in a The New York Times article in 2021 written by acclaimed journalist Cara Buckley. Cara has been a full-time staff member at The New York Times since 2006 and has previously received a Pulitzer Prize for her work: https://www.nytimes.com/by/cara-buckley
Cara’s due diligence confirmed the artists were paid full concert rates for their performances in The Violin Channel’s Vanguard Concert Series and that they now do hold rights to the footage. She also published and confirmed that the series “racked up millions of views”.
New York Magazine
New York Magazine also praised the quality of The Violin Channel’s work, describing it as “polished”, “high-tech” and “exciting”.
Former Vanity Fair editor-in-chief Graydon Carter’s cultural ‘Air Mail Arts Intel Report’ also praised The Violin Channel’s Vanguard Concerts project for its “visual interest” but also for keeping the focus firmly on “musicians making music”. The article also confirms the artists were paid for their performances, that the series was broadcast internationally for free, and that at that stage, the series had already received over 2 million views.
Journalist A.A. Cristi (www.aacristi.com) from Broadway World confirmed that the first episode of the Vanguard Concerts received over 600,000 views from more than 50 countries in less than one week.
The article, written by journalist Patrick Folliard, (www.muckrack.com/patrick-folliard) stated that Geoffrey “built the world’s leading classical music news source”. The long-format piece also provides significant published information on Geoffrey and The Violin Channel’s background.
“What began as a social media hobby in Australia has grown into the world’s leading classical music news source with 17 employees and a combined reach of more than 1 million across social channels and newsletter subscribers,” - Journalist Patrick Folliard
The Classical Post
Geoffrey was also profiled for the online classical music site, Classical Post.
Editor Jonathan Eifert describes The Violin Channel as: “a leading classical music news site” and as “a go-to media source and streaming service.”
The Journal News
Journalist Heather Clark from The Journal News in New York covered The Violin Channel’s online round-table forum in 2020 on the experiences of black artists in the classical music community and beyond.
Geoffrey was invited, as an international industry specialized, to take part in an online forum hosted by the United Nations Institute for Training and Research on the topic of “sustainability of classical music”
Both Geoffrey John Davies and The Violin Channel were mentioned as early classical music tech innovators in the 2018 published book: ‘The Classical Music Industry’ by Chris Dromey and Julia Haferkorn:
There was also references to The Violin Channel in the Rowman & Littlefield published book: “ The Orchestral Conductor's Career Handbook” by Carl Topilow. Violinchanneljohnjohn (talk) 04:11, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
Hello, Violinchanneljohnjohn. It seems that you misunderstand the purpose of Wikipedia, and also the purpose of the Teahouse. First of all, Wikipedia is not for self-promotion of any kind. Editors who engage in any type of self-promotonal activity are blocked here quite routinely. I see that you posted some kind of lengthy article draft here at the Teahouse, which I have collapsed. Please read WP:TLDR. If you are trying to jump over the Articles for Creation process, you are highly unlikely to find a editor who will help you here. Since you claim to be a "recognized industry leader", why don't you spend a few months improving articles about violins, violinists and violin music, in areas where you have no glaring Conflict of interest? On the other hand, if you are here only to promote yourself, we can save a lot of time by blocking you now. Cullen328 (talk) 04:37, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
Thanks @Hoary. No, I completely understand. I really do. I have been editing for a little while now and will continue to keep working on more classical musicians' articles.
My confusion is more that when I submit new artists and musicians for listing, they are rejected for not being considered as notable enough. I will have a try at writing those two out, for other editors' approval and keep them extremely neutral and referenced with no hyperbole or promotion. Geoffrey's was rejected previously, I understand, for not being notable enough, but based on the press listed above should there be enough now for both GJD and TVC to be accepted, if created correctly? I guess that was my purpose of asking here. I understood this was the 'safe place' to ask questions and get past confusions. Please don't block me, I really just want to help get our classical music industry as a whole better represented in Wikipedia. I will use the two samples William Morris and William Hurt you provided below to Billieb71 as guides. Thanks again for your help. Violinchanneljohnjohn (talk) 09:16, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
Violinchanneljohnjohn, I think you have me somewhat confused with Cullen328. I have not looked at any of your links, merely at your descriptions of them. Comments on my (very possibly mistaken) interpretations of your descriptions:
one of Musical America’s 30 “Most Influential Professionals in the International Classical Music Industry” Shallow stuff.
Geoffrey was recently featured on the front cover of International Arts Magazine. The issue also featured a 7-page feature on him and The Violin Channel’s Vanguard Concert Series. Being on a front cover is meaningless. If the "feature" is neither an interview nor based on one, it carries weight. We cannot link to unauthorized reproductions of copyright material.
Geoffrey was included in a The New York Times article in 2021 written by acclaimed journalist Cara Buckley. Being "included" in an article doesn't count for much.
New York Magazine also praised the quality of The Violin Channel’s work, describing it as “polished”, “high-tech” and “exciting”. Does it go into any depth? (And see above about reproductions.)
Journalist A.A. Cristi [...] confirmed that the first episode of the Vanguard Concerts received over 600,000 views from more than 50 countries in less than one week. In themselves, big numbers such as this count for nothing here.
Geoffrey was profiled in The Washington Blade Same comment as for International Arts Magazine above.
Geoffrey was also profiled for the online classical music site, Classical Post. Same comment as for International Arts Magazine above.
Journalist Heather Clark from The Journal News in New York covered The Violin Channel’s online round-table forum in 2020 on the experiences of black artists in the classical music community and beyond. This sounds substantive, and good.
Geoffrey appeared in the 2018 Marie’s Crisis documentary about a live music piano bar in New York City Merely appearing in a documentary is of no significance.
Geoffrey was quoted in Vanity Fair in discussion with staff journalist Dan Adler Being quoted (like being mentioned) doesn't count.
Try to make sure that either of your proposed subjects clears Wikipedia:Notability or a relevant subject-specific guideline. Though I still wonder why, if either proposed subject is so notable, an employee would have to write it up. -- Hoary (talk) 09:50, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
Ok. Thank you for your help. Yes. The International Arts Manager Magazine, Washington Blade and Classical Post are lengthy interviews. International Arts Manager did a 7-page interview and profile, as well as put GJD on the cover. The long-form New York Times article is talking about a number of Covid initiatives in the arts during Covid including The Violin Channel's Vanguard Series and GJD was interviewed and quoted multiple times. I guess maybe nobody cares about classical music articles, except myself?!?! Sad. I'm not sure. Also GJD did very little press until this past year, and also press often don't like writing about other press. I am also working on a couple of other musicians' articles that have been rejected (not at all related to me) so your feedback is very helpful. I'm trying to learn and to get this right as I do genuinely enjoy contributing. Thank you. Should I perhaps just aim for a very basic stub with the two I am connected to (GJD and TVC) for others to write and to add to as more press is published? Or just leave them alone completely? I don't want to get blocked but I do genuinely feel they should be listed, as in our field they are extremely notable. Hence why I chased this internship. Violinchanneljohnjohn (talk) 11:11, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
Hello, John. The progression from "I haven't been able to get drafts about subjects in field X accepted" to "I guess nobody but me cares about field X" is one that new editors quite often make, but it is rarely justified. Any individual editor cares about some subjects more than about others, of course, but all experienced editos care very much about making sure that only subjects that meet Wikipedia's criteria for notibility get included. Beneath that is the fact that (in my words) Wikipedia is not interested in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is only interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. It follows that if you can't find truly independent sources about a subject then there is literally nothing which can go into an article about it.
For this reason, I would advise against creating even stubs for subjects before you have found the multiple indepedent reliable sources with significant coverage of the subjects, as you may well be wasting both your own time and that of those who end up deleting them. (Personally, I don't believe there is a role for stubs in 2022, as there was in 2010. Most stubs never get expanded. Now that we have the AFC system and draft space, I would rather that people wishing to put an article in Wikipedia went on and created tha article, however long it took them). ColinFine (talk) 12:40, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
Yes, Violinchanneljohnjohn, people care about classical music articles. As examples, A Child of Our Time, Il ritorno d'Ulisse in patria, Symphony No. 3 (Górecki): consider the work that has gone into each article. I'm glad to hear that you enjoy contributing; my advice is to forget about the Violin Channel and its head for Wikipedia, to concentrate on other matters during the internship hours, and to "relax" in the evenings (though it's hardly relaxation, of course) with Violin Channel unrelated articles. The nation currently foremost in many people's minds is Ukraine; just now I looked at this list of Ukrainian composers, clicked on half a dozen among them, and didn't land on any article that rose above mediocrity. (Some didn't even rise to that.) Perhaps you could improve one among them? -- Hoary (talk) 12:41, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
How to add a new page / article in Wikipedia?
dear Teahouse,
I want to add a famous Punjabi writer in the Wikipedia. His name is Telu Ram Kohara, he has given so many good books to Punjabi literature and also wrote a Punjab movie names Ranjhan Mera Yaar. He has been awarded many times by authorities and different foundations. I think he deserves a place is Wikipedia page.
Thanks for reading my issue.
I hope you will consider my request as genuine.
Regards. 2409:4055:119:E1FE:A9F4:107E:A8EB:900E (talk) 13:47, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm sure your request is genuine. But creating a Wikipedia article takes much more than saying "I think he deserves a place". First, somebody has to be willing to invest the time to research whether or not the subject meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability. If he does not, then they will know that there is no point in going any further at present. If he is notable (by Wikipedia's standards - not by yours or mine), then somebody has to go to the effort of assembling those sources and creating the draft.
I've italicised somebody because it is not obvious who that "somebody" will be. Wikipedia is entirely a volunteer project, and editors work on what they choose to work on.
If you want to see an article about Kohara, then it is up to you either to research and create it, or to get some other editors interested in working on it: simply putting a request here will probably not achieve much.
Unfortunately, creating it yourself, while a possible route, is very challenging: I always advise new editors to spend a few months learning how Wikipedia works by making small improvements to existing articles before they attempt it. your first article is a good resource.
Another possibility is to go to WikiProject Punjab. It is possible (only possible, not definite) that you might find somebody interested in working with you on Kohara.
But in any case, if you want to get somebody interested, it will help if you do the first part of the work and find some sources (in English if they are available, but sources in Punjabi are acceptable) that are (all three of) reliable (not blogs, wikis, personal websites, unedited aggregators), independent of Kohara (not written or published by Kohara or his associates, or reporting what he has said, but independently created) and containing significant coverage of him. (All the terms in blue above are links to more information). ColinFine (talk) 14:25, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
Billieb71 From a search on "D.J. BILLIE-B" it is clear that you have a successful music career. However, your attempt at an article did not have any references. Hence declined and then rejected. Autobiography is not prohibited, but is a hard road. See WP:MUSIC for guidelines. IF, you really want to try again, I recommend using WP:YFA to create a draft, using as a name D.J. BILLIE-B. BUT FIRST, see if you can find at least three website articles that are about you, at significant length, not just name-mention, or else the effort will come to maught. And yeah, no copy/paste as that is a copyright infringement. David notMD (talk) 10:14, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
From WP:MUSIC: "Wikipedia should not have a separate article on a person, band, or musical work that does not meet the criteria of either this guideline or the general notability guideline, or any subject that, despite the person meeting the rules of thumb described above, for which editors ultimately cannot locate independent sources that provide in-depth information about the subject. Wikipedia's goals include neither tiny articles that can never be expanded, nor articles based primarily on what the subjects say about themselves." David notMD (talk) 10:16, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia has a simple rule that I think is not written down. It is "Do not try to write an article about yourself". If you are really notable, somebody will write it for you. --Bduke (talk) 10:26, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
Policy regarding autobiographies is written at WP:AUTO. While not absolutely forbidden, it is highly discouraged, and it is better to not attempt to do it. 331dot (talk) 10:28, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
AND indefinitely blocked for trying to create an autobiography under three more names (each Speedy deleted) after the first attempt was Declined, then Rejected. Tsk, tsk. David notMD (talk) 14:56, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
List versus table
When should a table be used instead of a list? It seems rather arbitrary from what I can tell. For instance, should List of science podcasts be a list instead of a table? The sortability of the table is kind of nice, but is it helpful to include all the information that's in the table and is there a way to represent that in a list format instead? I was trying to decide whether Draft:List of BBC Original Podcast Series is appropriately formatted as a table before reviewing the draft and even after reading through a number of guidelines I'm unsure whether this should be a table or a list. It seems like it would be a helpful feature to be able to sort by radio station or year. TipsyElephant (talk) 15:11, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
From what I've gathered from MOS:LIST and MOS:TABLE, tables should be used when there is more than one piece of information being presented for each topic. For example, on List of science podcasts, the table has the Podcast name, it's runtime, the narrators, etc. A list would be used if there was only a single thing for each row, List of lakes for example. ― Tuna+15:16, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
I'm still a beginner here and one thing that kinda confuses me when citing sources is the access-date parameter. It seems simple: just write down the day, month, and year on which you accessed the source. My question is:
If I already cited some particular source, and then I go back to editing the Wiki article so I can add more information, and in order to do that I need to access the source again: do I have to change the access-date to the one I'm currently accessing the source on? So, if I for example added a reference on March 5, and a few days later, on March 8, I'm again accessing the website I referenced, do I change the access-date to March 8, or do I keep it as March 5? Castlepalace (talk) 13:10, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
@Castlepalace, if you don't think the web page has changed since you last looked at it you don't need to change the date. Since web pages change and move, the access date indicates when the page had the material that provides the reference and was at that location. This is helpful for locating the material in an archive like Wayback if the page changes. StarryGrandma (talk) 15:45, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
I want to write and draft a new article, but I'm very, very new to writing on this platform. Could I have some help writing a new article? Hannahmominey (talk) 14:46, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
Definitely off on the wrong foot. You started a draft, but submitted it too soon (little content, no references). Do not resubmit until you have completed your draft. "Publish changes" means save. "Submit" means submit for review. David notMD (talk) 15:07, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
I am trying to publish a page on the “middle-out perspective” on Wikipedia. I had issues in publishing, it is now in the sandbox, and I would like to learn from you who have more experience with Wikipedia and get your input 😊. This is my article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Middle-Out_Perspective_(MOP) I am not sure if you can open it.
I have two questions.
1) I had issues in creating categories. How does that actually work?
2) The other issue that came up when I tried to publish it, is that no original research should be posted. The MOP is an established conceptual framework and the page does not present "original research" as such, but rather presents the concept, its history, and application in the real world. In this sense, it resembles other Wikipedia webpages as for instance on the diffusion of innovation, personal carbon trading and multi-level governance (links listed below).
I therefore kindly ask your help in understanding how to edit my page so that it conforms with other Wikipedia pages.
You can't add categories to draft articles. They must be in the article space, and then you can add them by adding [[Category:Your category here]] to the bottom of the page.
Couldn't you just use nowiki tags around the categories while it is in draft space and remove them when it is moved to article space? This would allow the author to keep track of what categories they wanted the article to be in and allow others to make suggestions of other categories to add. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 17:02, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
Hello, Ecocharlie. As far as I can see, almost all your sources are by the originators and developers of the concept. 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. This applies to concepts and theories as much as to everything else. Unless you can adduce significant writing about the concept written and published by people unconnected with the developers, the concept will not meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability, and no article on the subject will be accepted at the moment. ColinFine (talk) 17:44, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
2 Questions:
Where can I ask to create a new Wik(p/m)edia Matrix server?
Hi I recently tagged some page for AFD also will do this in future if I find valuable point. But I want to add LOG to me. For example this like if I use CSD automatically I will be there. Can anyone help? @@@XyXtalk21:26, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
@Bijoy2020: that log has to be enabled at WP:TWPREF. For it to work like the one from DanCherek, tick Keep a log in userspace of all CSD nominations and fill the input box immedately below it with
I've initated speedy deletion on commons, as its almost certainly a copyrighted logo and the file is missing evidence of the license. Victor Schmidt (talk) 22:09, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
Chart performance of singles with remixes
Hi, I have a question about what to do with the chart performance of a song. The song that I am talking about is "Envolver" by Anitta, and I am working on its Spanish article. The song has a remix, which is also a single. Since both versions have charted on different charts, I made two different tables for their chart peaks (I got the idea from the article of "Hawái" by Maluma, which has a remix with The Weeknd). The remix has charted only on charts from Monitor Latino. In some countries, it has charted on the general chart, and in other countries it has charted only in the pop chart. As I was updating the peaks, I noticed that in Puerto Rico it had already charted before on the pop chart. I went to check and realized that it peaked at 3 on the week of January 3 to January 9.[1] However, the remix was not released until February 17. Therefore, what I think happened is that Monitor Latino first considered the solo version of "Envolver", but then, after the remix was released, they considered the remix the "official" version. So, I wanted to ask what I should do. Should I put all of the peaks on a single table like the article for "Levitating" has?
Jvaspad, the editorial standards (and policies and assumptions) of the various Wikipedias differ. How you should write an article for es:Wikipedia is something you should ask about there, not here. -- Hoary (talk) 02:39, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
Hello,WikipediaNekoBroken. Unless you can remember the password, you have lost access to that old account, but can use the new one instead. Nothing can be done about it. I suggest that you add an email address to this account. Cullen328 (talk) 19:32, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
It's not that we don't want to give you access to your old account; it's that we physically cannot. If you don't have an email address attached to your account to reset your password with, there is no technical way to gain access to it otherwise. Writ Keeper⚇♔19:45, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
Without that email address we have no way of knowing that you are you. You wouldn't want just any random person to be able to come here and say "I'm User:WikipediaNeko" and automatically be given access to your account, would you? I don't know why anyone would do that, but I have no doubt that (eventually) someone would do that to some account if they were able to. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 11:18, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
From looking at User:WikipediaNeko you have been registered and editing for a bit longer than one month. I recommend you register for a new account, mention there on your User and Talk pages that you had previously edited under that name, and abandon WikipediaNekoBroken. David notMD (talk) 21:36, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
WP:RECENTISM Experts wanted
I am currently involved in a fairly deadlocked 50/50 discussion and RfC regarding inclusion of certain content into an already well established article, and I am still at a loss as to how WP:RECENT may apply. Some editors are saying the content being discussed qualifies as WP:RECENT or WP:NOTNEWS and therefore, to some degree, is also WP:UNDUE. The content in question appears to continue to receive consensus among RS such as NYT, ABC news, NBC news, etc. over the past month. The content in question has also already been added to a multiple of other articles. While I understand RECENT is not actually a policy or guideline, it is more of a supplement to better explain how related policies and guidelines apply, my understanding of WP:DUE keeps coming back to this part... "Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public." I would prefer not to give any more specific info, and request that any respondents do not involve themselves, as not to violate WP:CANVASS. Thanks. DN (talk) 04:29, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
You seem to have asked a similar question at WP:HD#March 21 (2). Generally, it's not a good idea to ask essentially the same question on multiple noticeboards because it often leads to redundancy and confusion. Why do you want to give warnings? Your account is a little more than a month old and already your user talk page is filled with warnings issued to you by other editors. Maybe before issuing warnings yourself, it would be better for you to become more familiar with Wikipedia editing and relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines. It's more important to understand why and when to issue a warning than how to issue a warning, and knowing the "why" and "when" comes with editing experience. Improperly issued warnings often end up creating problems between editors and can sometimes even lead to accounts being blocked. There are many ways to WP:CONTRIBUTE to Wikipedia that don't involve issuing warnings; so, perhaps it might be better for you to focus on some of those and gain experience editing first. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:11, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
Can you practice what? Giving warnings? Making edits? If you feel you need to practice giving warnings, then you probably shouldn't be giving them at this time. If you want to practice editing as an IP account, you can use the WP:SANDBOX; however, you'll be sharing the sandbox with others. If you register for an WP:ACCOUNT, you'll then have your own personal sandbox where you can practice editing as often and as much as you want, and most people will leave you be as long as you're not doing something that violates one of Wikipedia's policies. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:28, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
Don't. There are many different kinds of people, and they have different talents. Your edits (example) suggest that you would be better suited to other websites than to Wikipedia (or Meta). -- Hoary (talk) 02:45, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
What makes the spelling of the part of a continent a part Eastern or East? Thank you. Jishiboka1 (talk) 04:46, 22 March 2022 (UTC) Such as East Asia but then for Europe it says it's Eastern Europe. Thanks!
using article wizard for the first time by user Photocher
3-21-22 I uploaded an article using the article wizard guidelines. I hope I did it correctly. I appreciate the fact that the process takes time. I wonder if I uploaded the article correctly? I am Photocher Photocher (talk) 20:24, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for replying. Yes, I wrote the article in Microsoft word and copied it into the wizard page. I attempted to convert the article with various methods like Open writer, but those extensions and plug-ins did not work. I will try to edit my submission. Thanks Photocher (talk) 21:06, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
Hello everyone! This is a new frontier on Wikipedia for me. I have a COI since I co-founded the company I am writing about.
It's been around for 10 years and written about in numerous publications; it was removed / my draft was declined for notability reasons. I removed any sources where company members were republished or did a guest post on a reputable platform.
I don't want to abuse the draft function, so I'm not sure if the page is ready to resubmit for a review, or if I should wait until we get better press coverage. Our company created an open-source tool that has signficant spread and use in the independent film world, and we just premiered our latest docu-series on HBO Max. We're also one of the very few B-Corporations in the entertainment space, so I collected independent, reputable sources that talk about these aspects of the company at reasonable length:
Gentle Some of the refs appear to be blogs or rehash of publicity content provided by PP (#3-6), so not independent. Also, there are a few hyperlinks in the text. Continue revising. David notMD (talk) 09:11, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
Indian topics
I watch the RfPP Decrease page usually to quickly clean up malformed or empty requests, and honestly a lot of the requests can get really amusing for one reason or another. I’ve come to notice that a lot of Indian topics come through, whether the page even exists or not, and I’m wondering why that is exactly? I mean, I’ve noticed a few cases of COI, but like, in general is covering modern Indian figures a blind spot? CreecregofLife (talk) 07:06, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
Hi CreecregofLife. Maybe this discussion would be better suited for WT:INDIA or maybe even WT:CSB than the Teahouse since it seems there could be lots of reasons for this and a proper dicussion of them would likely soon go beyond the scope of the Teahouse. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:10, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
There is no ability to delete an account. For legal reasons, all edits must be attributable to someone. If you no longer wish to edit, just abandon your account. If your account is in good standing, you may request a vanishing which randomizes your account name(and some other things). 331dot (talk) 11:58, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
No response to my draft
I entered a wikipedia draft article at
16:20, 20 January 2022 diff hist −208 Draft:Riya Mukherjee Have added reputed independent secondary sources current
This was a new draft I did after I got some feedback to add reputed sources.
It's been 2 months and I still haven't got any feedback on whether it is approved or not.
Gwenzil Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. You had not actually submitted the draft, as it lacked the necessary information to do so. I have now added this so you can submit it(it is provided if you create a draft via WP:AFC). 331dot (talk) 11:55, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
Hello Gwenzil and welcome to the Teahouse. Looking over your draft it appears you have not resubmitted it for review, however, I wouldn't do it yet. There are issues with the draft (additional citations needed) and some of the references (two of them were not referenced correctly) that need to be addressed. If you need assistance with citing sources please look at WP:REF. For information on the "citation needed" template or what to do when your work is tagged you can look at WP:CITENEED. @331dot has provided the way the to resubmit. --ARoseWolf12:00, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
Many of the references there are to Antonelli himself, and therefore wouldn't suffice in en:Wikipedia. So that option is out. Your list of contributions, Pyrrorhiza, shows no experience of working on Wikipedia articles; you'd be well-advised to gain skills by working on existing articles before attempting to create a new one. Thank you for declaring your COI on your user page. -- Hoary (talk) 13:45, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
Encyclopedia tone
I've been told to improve the tone of the text to encyclopedia. I've made many changes and now I think it's tone is neutral but I wanted help if it's actually an encyclopedia tone right now or not?
There are whole sections without any reliable references. That is the main issue. Find solid references or delete those passages. I would delete or clarify such phrases as "he taught himself the skills he had been gifted" (if they were gifted he wouldn't need to be taught them), "well-known and respected worldwide" (meaningless without a supporting reference). "From an early age, he began to notice something in himself." What on earth does that mean? "he had mastered gifts he didn't know existed" If he didn't know they existed, how could he master them? "He has helped young models in developing their careers" is impossibly vague and unreferenced. And so it goes on. And did you really take that photo yourself? It looks like a heavily photoshopped publicity shot. Shantavira|feed me15:31, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
Among other things, the draft currently says Using his parapsychological skills, he predicted Terrorism breakouts, China becoming the world's largest economic power, a phony peace pact including China, the possibility of World War 3, the invention of robots, the purported demise of the English Royal family. I very much doubt there are reliable sources independent of him that support this assertion (in particular the "using his parapsychological skills" part). (Also, by 2002, items 2, 3, 5 and 6 were not very hard to "predict".) TigraanClick here for my talk page ("private" contact)15:54, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
Is it possible to translate articles from French to English as a beginner contributor fluent in both languages and have it reviwed by more experienced contributors for publishing?
Thank you so much for your help, Y2re6z7 (talk) 14:14, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
@Y2re6z7:Michael D. Turnbull’s advice is mostly correct, and you should definitely check if the article is properly sourced before spending time translating it.
That being said, I do not think it is quite true that the English Wikipedia probably has more stringent requirements [than the French Wikipedia]. If anything, the reverse is likely true; their equivalent of the general notability guideline, fr:WP:CGN, requires notability-granting sources to (1) have the subject as their main topic (unlike WP:GNG’s provision that requires significant coverage but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material) and (2) be published across at least a two-year span (when on en-wp there is no such restriction). (I have no idea if those guidelines are enforced more or less strictly than GNG on en-wp.) TigraanClick here for my talk page ("private" contact)15:32, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
Whats the name of the template that says "A main contributor to this article may have a close connection with its subject"? Poopykibble (talk) 18:07, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
Actually, I'm pretty sure the title itself should not be italicized. It is a line of toys, and normally, lines of toys are not italicized, c.f. Lego, K'Nex, Barbie, Hot Wheels, etc. MOS:ITAL only indicates that titles of creative works, like record albums, books, films, etc. are normally italicized. I would un-italicize "Monster High" in that article.--Jayron3212:14, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
It's not just a line of toys – it's an entire franchise, that includes both toys and other works like movies and soundtracks. Castlepalace (talk) 12:26, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
Barbie has two separate pages for the dolls (Barbie) and for the movies (Barbie (film series)), and the latter is italicized while the former is not. In this case we only have one article for both the toys and the media, so I figure it should be italicized. Unless we break the article up into two, separately for the toys and the media, which is also probably a good idea. Castlepalace (talk) 12:37, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
If it's about the film series, it is italicized, because we italicize film series. If it is about the toy line, we don't those. --Jayron3214:09, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
I think I'll follow your advice and un-italicize the article name, and only keep the italics where it's strictly talking about the media and not the merchandise. If anything, someone will correct me. Castlepalace (talk) 15:44, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
To whom it may concern:
I am still new at Wikipedia and I am trying to find out about my distant relative David Champion. A father, mother, or anything that would help me find out about him. David Champion was born in 1785 (I believe in Spartanburg, SC) He married in Crawford County, Ga to Mollie Preston on 11/18/1876. He died in Crawford County, GA as well.
Thank you lovely Wiki people. I've taken extermal links out of my page and submitted for review Draft:Norena Shopland
I hope it goes well.
Looking ahead to Black History Month (Oct in UK) I am researching (and will be adding) African or African Carribean folk with Welsh links who are notable in the fields of Environment and Nature.
I am doing this for the Welsh government, but will post here (with the appropriate caveats/disclaimers) as it's important to recognise our Welsh Africans! I think that's OK isn't it?
Thanks! This is so much harder than I thought it would be. But I really enjoy it. Eeek Im using a new PC and can't find tilde - apologies! GemNain (talk) 21:31, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
@GemNain when you're done editing, go to the bottom, right above "Edit summary" (where you briefing state what your edit was) and you'll see "Sign your posts on talk pages:". On the next line is a small gray rectangle with four tildes. Click on that rectangle, then click on "Show preview" and you'll see your post has been signed with your user name. I always click on the tilde rectangle to sign my posts and edits. Happy editing. Karenthewriter (talk) 21:51, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
Subtitles
What is the standard convention for including or not including subtitles when citing sources? For instance, should I include a subtitle and separate it from the title with a colon and space? What if the subtitle or title already includes a colon? I noticed that WP:SUBTITLES is a guideline, but it appears to be a naming convention for the name of a Wikipedia page about a book rather than when citing sources. WP:CITE doesn't appear to include anything about subtitles so perhaps subtitles should not be included or should be included based on the editor's discretion? TipsyElephant (talk) 20:25, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
@TipsyElephant, if you look at the examples in Template:Cite book you will see they include very long titles and have subtitles. You can also use a period to separate a title from a subtitle if there are colons in the title that would confuse things. We are not limited here for space for references. StarryGrandma (talk) 21:55, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
Notability for (draft) article
(If anyone can tell me the best place to ask this question, please refer to one in replies) So I'm working on an article for a video game made by Halfbrick Studios called Dan The Man. But I'm unsure whether or not it's notable. There are a decent amount of news and review outlets that have made articles all about it, but I am still not completely sure. Here is the sandbox where I'm working on it: User:G-Toasty/sandboxG-Toasty (talk). My main problem is that I can't really find any sources that aren't primary sources for sections such as the Story sections. 22:12, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
Hi G-Toasty. I would think that the "story" of a video game is much like the MOS:PLOT of a movie or TV show in that it tends to be fictional in-universe content which simply summarizes what's happening in the game. In such cases, a primary source is probably OK per MOS:FICTIONPLOT as long as you summarize things in your own words (avoiding WP:C-P or WP:CLOSEPARAPHRASE). Of course, any claims (particularly anything about living persons), interpretations, etc. will need to be supported by reliable secondary sources, but a simple plot summary should be OK with only primary sources. You might want to ask about this at WP:VG since that's where you'll find editors familiar with this type of article. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:39, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
Can someone else please take a look at the recent edits by User:Cmard69? I've tried to provide some advice but it has not been received well so I think it would be best for another experienced editor to step in. Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 01:52, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
Cmard69 advised on Talk page: "Your desire to add a person to the Notable alumni list has been reverted five times by four different editors. It's not them, it's you. When your temporary block ends, please do not return to the scene of the crime." David notMD (talk) 09:54, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
I posted an RfC entitled "Removing actors' names from plot summaries" on February 5. The last comment was on February 9. I see now that the entire discussion has been archived, with the template missing, and no formal closure or consensus being determined. How do I get a consensus on this topic? The reason I started the RfC was because an editor had reverted a bunch of my edits, against an informal consensus on the talk page. I figure I need a formal consensus to get the reverts reinstated (and to know how to proceed in the future). What should I do? -- Pete Best Beatles (talk) 02:43, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
OMFG HELP ME - I WANT MY PROFILE PHOTO CHANGED ASAP
Hi I am an actress,
and apparently one of the editors on this site changed my profile picture & posted a really terrible horribly awful pic of me as my wiki profile and I’m so upset. I need it changed immediately. Everyone who knows me is like “oh shit I can’t believe they put that there “ it’s literally a screenshot from an Instagram live. Even my mom was upset and spent an hour trying to change it. I can’t even change it myself , im extremely tight. I BEG OF YOU PLEASE HELP
Desireeannaross (talk) 00:54, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
Yes that would be me. I have no idea how to use my account and I don’t think it’ll let me. I just started this page today to handle this little problem . If possible I’d like to add a more flattering picture I just still can’t figure it out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Desireeannaross (talk • contribs) 01:08, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
@Disireeannaross: It seems the original photo was deleted as a copyright violation, so this new one took its place. Bear in mind that you not liking the photograph isn't a concern for our editorial decisions and not a valid reason to remove it, although I have no objection to the courtesy removal. However, if someone else restores it, an edit war shouldn't ensue. You can upload a photo under an acceptable free license if you can get the photographer to send a release. See the left column of any page, there is a link "upload a file". That's where you upload a picture. And see WP:CONSENT. That's the template for the email the photographer needs to send to the Wikimedia Foundation to permit the photograph to be published here. ~Anachronist (talk) 01:11, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
Two FYIs. That now-deleted image was added by an editor who likes to add images to articles, in September 2021. Unlikely to make a return visit. Copyright to any photograph of you is held by the person who took the photo. Not you. So the above instructions apply. David notMD (talk) 01:28, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
Just to note, I've nominated the file for deletion as it appears to have an illegitimate license. So it should not be restored anyways until the deletion discussion is resolved. ––FormalDudetalk01:39, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
Desireeannaross, the uploader has indeed returned, to argue rather convincingly that the image you don't like does have a legitimate license. Putting aside rights and wrongs and guidelines and so forth, it's not a pleasing photograph and I can understand why you'd want to have it replaced. What Anachronist says above is all true, but it would simplify matters if you uploaded a photo that you took. Just use the camera's self-timer; if you have to throw out a couple of dozen images in order to get one decent one, well, digital photos are free. Even if the photo isn't much good, it's sure to be better than the photo you want replaced. Be sure not to appropriate anyone else's photograph of you: even if the actual photographer is a friend and says "Oh, just say that you took it", this is unsatisfactory and its falsity is likely to be uncovered and lead to a lot more time-wasting. Be candid. -- Hoary (talk) 02:47, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
I have some expertise in the area of carcinogens. I do not have a lot of editing experience in Wikipedia even though I have been here for years. I've noticed that individual product pages for carcinogenic products do not mention that they're carcinogenic or even addictive for tobacco and alcohol (both are human carcinogens according to International Agency for Research on Cancer, Category:IARC Group 1 carcinogens). Examples of products are Skoal and Stolichnaya, but it seems to be true for most if not all such products. There's even been pushback on the Skoal talk page against calling it a carcinogen. This seems to be a systematic problem on Wikipedia where little-visited product pages get pumped up by their users/manufacturers, and nothing negative ever gets added for very long.
@THSlone I think it's probably a matter proportionality. The fact that alcohol (ethanol) is carcinogenic should be properly discussed in the page about the substance and other relevant articles such as alcoholism for example. It does not need to be mentioned in every single article about every single product that contains it. We don't note death rates in every article about vehicle models even though it's common cause that car accidents kill many people asthat would be WP:UNDUE. Solving your issue would probably take some discussion at an apropriate venue. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 06:32, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
And the appropriate venue is? Vehicle models are not really analogous to tobacco products since automobile transportation has benefits and safety features to counter the risks. Tobacco products arguably to do not have significant benefits or safety features. The tobacco product pages ares simply product promotion when they lack mention of hazards as they do. THSlone (talk) 07:11, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
@THSlone, WT:MEDICINE might be a good place to start, as a lot of editors with medical expertise hang out there. The neutral point of view noticeboard might also work if there are questions about what's due or not. (Choose one, not both, to avoid a talk fork.) To make your argument, references will be important—have links to academic literature that backs up your view. Best, {{u|Sdkb}}talk07:24, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
I would like to add the following to the Non-fungible token page, under the Copyright heading:
"American law professor and artist Brian Frye describes the phenomenon of valuing NFT ownership despite the lack of transferring copyright control as "pwnership," to which the investor's focus is primarily on the value of clout that the ownership provides, rather than control.[1]" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Umjessica (talk • contribs) 20:34, March 22, 2022 (UTC)
Hey, Umjessica! Please follow the instructions at WP:ER rather than requesting this change here. Also, please make sure to sign your messages by adding ~~~~ to the end. Happy editing! Bsoyka (talk) 20:52, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
Umjessica, your case for adding this mention of "pwnership" to the article will be stronger if you can cite a source other than the coiner of the term. Maproom (talk) 08:16, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
References
^[1], After Copyright: Pwning NFTs in a Clout Economy.
Aren't "review notices" of blocked reviewers "procedurally" supposed to be reverted/deleted?
Hi, when I submitted Draft:Chahat Pandey, the submission was declined all because I was blocked. Today, while editing Draft:Priyanka Choudhary I noticed that the latest review was done by a "blocked reviewer" User:Krishnavilasom Bhageerathan Pilla, so isn't that review notice "procedurally" supposed to be reverted/deleted?
STATUS: The review decline of Draft:Priyanka Choudhary by Pilla is dated 4 October 2021. Pilla was indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet on 6 October 2021. The draft was previously declined by two other reviewers. After the Pilla decline it has been edited more than 50 times, and resubmitted to AfC on 18 February 2022. It awaits a reviewer. David notMD (talk) 07:19, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
I looked at Wikipedia:Blocking policy and could not decipher whether it addresses contributions made by an editor prior to that person being indefinitely blocked. The question raised by Commonedits is one example. And if a review/decline by a subsequently blocked editor is proposed here to be deleted, what about articles created by an editor before that person was blocked? Or a draft at AfC when the creator is blocked? David notMD (talk) 07:43, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
This is somewhat complicated, I think it comes down to WP:BANBLOCKDIFF. My understanding is for blocks, content created before the block is not applicable, and shouldn't be reverted without a normal reason. But for bans, WP:BMB applies, and it can be deleted. Correct me if I'm wrong please. ––FormalDudetalk08:22, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
This article contains content that is written like an advertisement.
A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject.
In my view, the article is a straightforward article without any promotional style; its purpose is clearly to provide information on the TightVent platform focused on building and ductwork airtightness dissemination activities. M.Kapsalaki (talk) 10:42, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
M.Kapsalaki Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I would first ask you if you are associated with the company in some way; if so, please read about conflict of interest and paid editing. Please understand that a Wikipedia article should not merely provide information; it should 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. The article should not just tell us that the company exists and what it does, it should tell us what others completely unconnected with the company say is significant about it. 331dot (talk) 10:59, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
I've removed three copy and paste copyright violations from the article and I'm worried I'm going to find more. As to the way the article is written, terms like "platform" are never a good starting point and the tone continues in that manner. And the contributor having a close connection message, that will probably be there for a very long time. - X201 (talk) 11:26, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
@Brown Promoter Using "you people" is not the best way to get attention except the attention I am giving you. It is patronising, as though we are just here for you. We are not. We are people with an enjoyable hobby who edit Wikipedia as amateurs.
Assuming you mean your declined draft Draft:Prime Learn. None of the three refs are valid. What you have written is promotional. Expect this to be Speedy deleted. Also, I am guessing you have a connection to the Prime Learn company. That requires you to comply with WP:PAID by stating your connection on your User page. David notMD (talk) 11:53, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
Philip of Macedon
Hi, I want to add some information about Philip. I read in Islamic history book Tabri a complete lineage of Philip up to Abraham. Al-Biruni also mentioned list of Alexander the great's ancestors in his book "The Chronology of ancient nations" The chronology of ancient nations; : Bīrūnī, Muḥammad ibn Aḥmad, 973?-1048 : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive.
I cleaned up the article Zee Live a bit, and added a few citations. One of them was Citation 9. That one seems to have a problem. It shows the website URL that I’m pretty sure is not supposed to be there before the citation. I can’t figure out how to fix it. Can you give me some help? Speatle (talk) 23:22, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
Hello Teahouse. I have a COI (I'm an employee of the company in question) and want to go about requesting some edits in the right way rather than just making changes! The company Cambridge Nanosystems has a page currently that hasn't been updated in a while. Cambridge Nanosystems was acquired at the end of 2020 and rebranded in 2021 to Levidian Nanosystems. There's documentation of this available via UK Companies House and I'm sure I can pull together more sources if that's helpful. We've got a new logo, web address, and leadership team as well. Again all of that can be confirmed by Companies House and also via a number of media sources that have covered a recent major announcement with National Grid.
While it would be fantastic to have the profile content updated more thoroughly (we have expanded beyond just graphene, for example, and the technology we're using is pretty different from how others approach methane cracking - maybe one for the Graphene page), I'm primarily after an update to reflect the company name change. We've had a few people get in touch confused because they think Cambridge Nanosystems is something different from Levidian when we are in fact the same company. I'm obviously happy to provide whatever independent documentation I can to support edits. What's the best way for me to approach this? Thank you in advance - I just don't want to do the wrong thing. Z31tr (talk) 09:54, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
@Z31tr Welcome to the Teahouse, and thank you for your question. Because of your COI, you should not directly edit the article. First, please follow the instructions at WP:COIPAYDISCLOSE. Then, you may post your suggestions at the article's talk page with the {{edit request}} template, or use the Wikipedia:Edit Request Wizard. I suggest you start slowly and make a couple small suggestions, as suggesting major rewrites seems to take much longer to find someone willing to do that major work. Thanks again! GoingBatty (talk) 14:55, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
I tried putting "{{busy}}" on my user page but the template doesn't show up on mobile. Does anyone know why? ---- GTNO6 (talk) 10:05, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
Lots of templates don't show in mobile, a deliberate decision by the maintainers of mobile mode. Only way out that I know is to not use mobile mode at all (there's a script for that, User:Þjarkur/NeverUseMobileVersion.js). After installing that script I can finally use Wikipedia on my phone (the "desktop mode" works better for me). —Kusma (talk) 17:00, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
Declined article for "lack of citations"
Hello. The article in question is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Michael_G._Shively, declined because "Entire sections without a single reference; particularly problematic in articles on living people (see WP:BLP). Please ensure that all material statements, as well as any private personal details, are clearly supported by inline citations to reliable sources."
I want to draw attention to a detail from the Wiki page of Carol Queen:
"Personal life
Queen is a Wiccan. She is bisexual."
Neither of these statements is supported by citation (that is, "Wiccan" and "Bisexual" are referenced, but there is no citation that demonstrates that Queen has said either that she is Wiccan or that she is bisexual). I don't understand the difference between what is in this article and what is in the proposed Shively article.
And another example from the page for John P. De Cecco:
"John Paul De Cecco (April 18, 1925 – November 2, 2017) was an American academic. He was a professor of psychology at San Francisco State University, the editor-in-chief of the Journal of Homosexuality from 1975 to 2009, and a "pioneer of sexuality studies."
None of these four statements is supported by a citation, though "pioneer of sexuality studies" links to the page on "sexuality studies." It doesn't prove that he was a "pioneer of sexuality studies."
Hello, WendellR. You appear to have found some of our many thousands of seriously substandard articles - mostly created a long time ago before our standards were as high as they are today. Since most volunteer editors would rather work on new material than go around cleaning up after others, these problematic articles often remain unfixed for a very long time. That does not mean that we are willing to accept further substandard articles: see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.
If you were to do something about those broken articles, that would be great, but properly fixing them requires sometimes significant work in looking for the sources. A simpler solution is simply to remove the unsourced claim: if somebody disagrees, it is up to them to provide a source. ColinFine (talk) 17:49, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
Regarding the John Paul De Cecco the content is sourced later in the article, the lede section does not require references as it is just summarising the article content. The content at Carol Queen is also very clearly and correctly sourced. Theroadislong (talk) 17:53, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
Hello! The first sentence on the Maypo page is incorrect. There is not an "edit". I was notified of this by a customer. I am the quality control technician here at Homestat Farm, LTD. We make 7 different cereals under the Maypo brand name. Maypo does not mean maple oatmeal. We have Maypo Grits, Maypo Cream Farina, Maypo Quick Oats (NOT maple flavored), Maypo Creamy Rice, Maypo Vermont Style Maple Oatmeal, Maypo Maple Oatmeal with Quinoa and Maypo Maple Oatmeal. I need to know how to change this. Thank you! Jennifer Enders Homestat Farm, LTD 800-819-3918 2603:3007:1600:4A00:5853:C981:2C14:D6F9 (talk) 17:51, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
Hello and welcome. Please direct any concerns about the Maypo article to its article talk page, Talk:Maypo. You will also need to read WP:COI and WP:PAID for information on required formal disclosures you will need to make. This is easier to do with an account, but it's not required to have one. 331dot (talk) 17:53, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
Hello, I am Kabiryani, a new editor on Wikipedia! My first goal is to fully reference the Latin letters in mathematics article. I feel that it is essential that an article of such importance to maths is properly referenced! However, it is much too much work to do by myself. How could I best encourage other people to join me on this journey? I also have a second question about the adoption system: How does it work? Best Regards Kabiryani (talk) 21:27, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
When you say you "saved a page on the watch option", I suppose that you mean that you opted to "watch" it. But what do you mean by "the saved files"? If you mean "the watchlist", this only shows pages whose latest changes meet certain conditions. If for example you opted five years ago to watch a page but nothing has happened to the page since, then there's no recent change to show, and the page won't show up in your watchlist. -- Hoary (talk) 13:10, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
It's actually possible to view all the pages on one's watchlist: at the top of the watchlist page is a link labeled "View and edit watchlist" that can be clicked to bring one to a page that has all watched pages. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 15:47, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
@Anonymous user 0000: The ability to save articles for later reading is a feature of the Wikipedia App. If you're using a browser to view Wikipedia, then your browser provides options to bookmark or download the page. Wikipedia's desktop view also has two links at the bottom of the left hand bar: "Download as PDF" and "Printable version". Happy reading! GoingBatty (talk) 18:29, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
Ancestory.com via WIKIPEDIA LIBRARY
Hello and good day Wikipedians. I recently gained access to Newspapers.com via Wikipedia Library. I have submitted a request for Ancestory.com but I am aware that there is a wait list. How hard is it to get Ancestory.com access. If it is easy to gain access is it just a matter of accepting to many people at the same time? In short, can I expect any action on my request or should I just right it off as a long shot? Gandalf the Groovy (talk) 16:23, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
@Mifdale: Welcome to the Teahouse. Before thinking about creating a new article I strongly recommend you learn how Wikipedia works, as writing a new one is one of the hardest things to do on Wikipedia. For example, try editing some pre-existing articles and try out the interactive tutorial first. Otherwise, I suggest you read Your first articlevery thoroughly and carefully. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 20:40, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
Is there a way of allocating colors to wikitable columns ? Lots of good reasons for doing so, not the least being to improve readability in a long dense table. We achieved the desired effect in the article List of Australian AM radio stations, but by a clumsy workaround. Doug butler (talk) 00:11, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
Thanks Mike for the interesting link. Being deficient in the red cone department, I appreciate your concern, but for this purpose, giving the wavelength columns a pale grey background would suffice, and I haven't yet found how to do it. Incidentally, what a hotch-potch of spelling in that article. I'm Australian but happy with the spelling "color". Can't we get over some of these petty shibboleths? Doug butler (talk) 20:58, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
Pronouns in Personal Information
This is a small question/suggestion, but is there a reason why pronouns aren't included in the "Personal Information" section for people? It sometimes presents as something I want to verify when talking about someone, but it isn't often listed. It can be tricky, too, when someone identifies outside of the gender binary, but there's no quick place to check it. BenRJ915 (talk) 14:11, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
There are plenty of articles in which a personal information section includes pronouns, but gender identity would normally appear in the lead paragraph of the article. However, the use of their name instead of a pronoun avoids any possibility of ambiguity, so it may be the preferred option for the formal tone of an encyclopedia. Shantavira|feed me14:44, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
Maybe because there are only two sets of pronouns and in English and basically every other language, men are reffered to a he or him and women she or her. Thats basic biology and linguistics for you. BritishToff (talk) 23:19, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
I can think of at least four third-person pronouns in English, not to mention second and first-person pronouns. So I don't know where you're getting your "two" number from. casualdejekyll13:11, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
Can you let me know how long it takes for a new page to appear once I hit Publish? I just created my page as an author and would like to know what it takes to get it to appear on Wikipedia? What do I need to do? My page is Dominique Luchart. Please let me know.
Dominique Luchart Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. "Publish Changes" should be interpreted to mean simply "save changes", it does not mean "publish this to the encyclopedia". You have edited your user page, which is not article space and is not searchable by outside search engines. Your user page is a place to tell about yourself as a Wikipedia editor only, it is not a place for you to tell anything and everything about yourself. New users cannot directly create articles. You may use Articles for Creation to create and submit a draft article(not a mere "page"), but be advised that while not forbidden, autobiographical articles are highly discouraged, please read the autobiography policy. 331dot (talk) 16:20, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
hi Oixyplanet and welcome to the teahouse! to link to pages from other language project wikipedias, you can use links such as [[:es:Wikipedia:Portada]] (displays as es:Wikipedia:Portada) to link to Spanish Wiki's main page. just replace es with the two-letter ISO 639-1 language code of the language you want. this also works for non-wikipedia wikimedia projects such as Wikimedia Commons: [[:commons:Main Page]] leads to its main page: commons:Main Page. for more on this, please see Help:Interwiki linking. happy editing! 💜 melecie talk - 00:09, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
Atlanta Intl Airport page annual traffic table
Hello. Can you please fix source at bottom of Annual traffic table so it goes to ATL Airport operating statistics 2013-to present. Must be too many ref tags. Thak you. Theairportman33531 (talk) 01:13, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
hi Theairportman33531 and welcome to the teahouse! this has been Done, seems like you added the reference inside the existing reference instead of beside it (plus also a few token </ref> tags. happy editing! 💜 melecie talk - 01:26, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
Need help with getting my draft article approved for mainspace
I need help from an experienced wikipedian here to get my draft article approved. I have done my possible best but my article keeps bouncing back from approval because it is "not in a neutral tone." Someone kindly assist me.
@Daniel.amankwa: Welcome to the Teahouse. A more pressing issue is that reviewers feel that there are insufficient reliable sources used in the draft. No amount of tone neutralisation is going to help if more sources of that calibre aren't found. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 23:58, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick response. However, I have given reliable sources of reference for the draft article in question. Sources like credible websites, online media stores and other third party sources. Daniel.amankwa (talk) 00:05, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
@Daniel.amankwa: There are five citations in the References section of the draft; three of them are the same article with the same title on different websites, and every single one of them looks like paid advertising. However, on a much more important note, your user page states, I am a Ghanaian wikipedian who manages online content for interested people especially public figures.. Please see your talk page and respond to my message there before editing further. Thank you! Bsoyka (talk) 01:04, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
@Daniel.amankwa: I observe that the references seem to be a review of an album, and the person is not the subject of those articles. One of the citations consists of a few short sentences and videos. Also disturbing are the spammy external links to the Apple music store. Don't use external links in articles. If they exist at all, they should be in an "external links" section at the end. Can you explain exactly which criteria in WP:MUSICBIO she meets? ~Anachronist (talk) 01:09, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
Hello, Daniel.amankwa. Please read the Neutral point of view, which is a core content policy. Phrases in your draft that you propose to state in Wikipedia's voice, such as a Minister of God's word, the Gospel and a passion for travelling and trading and got her calling and she exhibited her God-given gift and gained massive airplay on all media platforms are completely unacceptable in a neutral encyclopedia article. In addition the section called "Early life and education" does not contain a single reference to a reliable source, so that entire section fails Verifiability, another core content policy. These issues must be fully resolved if your draft is to have any hope of being accepted into the encyclopedia. Cullen328 (talk) 01:38, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
I've replied on their talk page. Also, I'd definitely suggest you be clearer in your edit summaries when reverting in the future; the history seems incredibly vague here. Bsoyka (talk) 02:02, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
As a new user, what exactly should I be doing?
Yo. I just joined a couple days ago, and parsed through the introductions to editing and stuff like that. For the past few days, I've been working on the suggested edits from the list on my userpage. However, I feel that some of the articles' problems go beyond simple copyedit, and I'm not sure if I'm doing the right thing while editing them. I would appreciate suggestions. the rat goblin (talk) 14:20, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
@Ratgoblin: You could look for new articles or drafts (Special:NewPages) and copyedit/fix them, as they frequently have issues such as spelling, grammar, not bolding the first mention, and not having a references section. --The TipsofApmh14:32, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
@Ratgoblin My advice: join a wikiproject on something you're interested in, and start working through their maintenance backlog! Here's a very long list of all of the cleanup listings: [10]. Selecting the "by cat" option will get you a list broken down into types of problems. Probably, lots of these category types won't mean anything to you yet, but you'll be familiar with some of the more obvious ones already from that suggested edits list. If you like this idea, but the cleanup listing looks too confusing or ambitious to you at this point, you could also try the links at WP:TASKS. Have fun! -- asilvering (talk) 03:37, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
Anonymous user 0000 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. To create your user page, simply click on your username after your post above(which was added by a bot, please sign future posts with four tildes ~~~~) and write a little about yourself as a Wikipedia editor or user. There is no requirement that you have a user page if you don't wish to. Some users will put much effort into their user pages, others will just put text on them. Please read WP:USERPAGE for information about what can go(and not go) on user pages. 331dot (talk) 08:30, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
Courtesy link: Draft:Khadijah Mobolanle Okunnu-Lamidi 💜 melecie talk - 12:57, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you log in or create an account, your edits will be attributed to a username, among other benefits.That's the screen of IPs when they try to edit.
Facepalm QuickQuokka [talk • contribs] 15:37, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
QuickQuokka [talk • contribs] 16:59, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
Courtesy link: Draft:Reborn (Kavinsky album)
Courtesy ping: PetSematary182 —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:15, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
. Celestina007 (talk) 20:49, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
Note: Please see WP:ANI § Xtreme o7 and Indian hate speech regarding this. Bsoyka (talk) 07:13, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
Temporarily disable the visual editor while it is in beta). The visual editor has buttons you can use to do general formatting, so there's less wiki markup to worry about there.
Shameless plug: If you haven't already, check out the Guild of Copy Editors. We're currently in the middle of a backlog drive clearing up articles that have been tagged for copy editing, and an extra pair of hands would be welcomed. 
Moved to User talk:Cmard69 § Personal attacks
Fixed. ––FormalDude talk 03:47, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
Twinkle; for the latter, Preferences > User Profile > Email Options > Change or remove email address. happy editing! 💜 melecie talk - 12:35, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
Keep a log in userspace of all CSD nominations
Note: IP blocked for 72 hours for block evasion. Bsoyka (talk) 04:37, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
Done. A template was causing the title to be italicised, so I added a parameter.
