Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 890

Archive 885

←

Archive 888

Archive 889

Archive 890

Archive 891

Archive 892

→

Archive 895

Moravian Orienteers

Can someone help me create this article because my account is not 4 days old. When I find out who will do it I will give them the information. HSBC account number is 4598 (talk) 18:54, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

You can make a draft and submit it through WP:AFC WelpThatWorked (talk • contribs) 18:55, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

I Have completed it, it is called Draft:Moravian Orienteers, can someone review it. HSBC account number is 4598 (talk) 19:27, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Will not be approved. References must be independent of what is being written about. You only ref is the organization's website. David notMD (talk) 19:38, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

I know it's got all the information and people can look through the website to find what they need HSBC account number is 4598 (talk) 19:46, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

HSBC account number is 4598 If you have no independent sources, then the group does not merit a Wikipedia article at this time. In order to merit an article, the group must be extensively written about in independent reliable sources, sources that are not associated with the group in any way. You need to provide those sources in the article itself. Please understand that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a means to simply tell the world about something. If you just want to tell the world about this organization, you should use social media or establish your own website for it. 331dot (talk) 19:51, 11 January 2019 (UTC).

It's already got a website, there is no independent sources those are the best I could find. HSBC account number is 4598 (talk) 20:33, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

HSBC account number is 4598, If there are no other sources, then it may not be notable. WelpThatWorked (talk) (talk) 20:36, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

If look at the draft HSBC account number is 4598 (talk) 20:40, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

HSBC account number is 4598 I'm sorry, but it appears this club does not meet the notability guidelines written at WP:ORG. You need independent sources with in depth coverage, and they just are not there. As I said above, this is an encyclopedia and not just a place to tell people about things. 331dot (talk) 21:57, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

What a person, company or organization writes about themselves can never be accepted as reliable sources. Not website, not blog, not social media. Not. David notMD (talk) 22:21, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Congratulations on getting a jump on warm weather and seeking publicity for your organization in January. Social media is designed for just such a purpose. Please use it!--Quisqualis (talk) 03:54, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Don't talk to me like that, I have put it in an article, it's in Scotland a cold country and its not my organization I'm a member of it and I want to write about it. HSBC account number is 4598 (talk) 09:22, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes, Q was being a bit snarky, but the other replies are to the point: Moravian Orienteers as an organization has not been written about other than its own website and social media, so what you proposed as a draft article cannot be accepted. In fact, it has been deleted as promotional. David notMD (talk) 14:21, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

And HSBC account number is 4598 has been blocked for making a death threat. Theroadislong (talk) 14:25, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

ARTICLES FOR CREATION

Hello, why are these drafts taking so long for it to be a proper article, i thought someone had already looked at it. HSBC account number is 4598 (talk) 12:53, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Those pages were only created yesterday. The new page review process takes days or weeks. Furthermore, you forgot to submit them for review. To understand how to do that, read WP:NEWPAGE and in particular, WP:AFC. Neither article is suitable yet as far as I can see, as you have not yet established WP:NOTE. But you'll get that sort of feedback once you submit it for review. --Yamla (talk) 13:01, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

And how do you submit it, I just created it, can you submit it for review. HSBC account number is 4598 (talk) 13:06, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

This is explained in WP:NEWPAGE and WP:AFC. You can submit it for review. I'm not going to, obviously, because I don't believe the article is ready yet. --Yamla (talk) 13:08, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Your first article draft has already been deleted as promotional and comments to you on the second one pointed out that if you submit it, it will be rejected, as the one ref you provided does not work. David notMD (talk) 14:14, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

HSBC account number is 4598 has been blocked David notMD (talk) 14:46, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

FWIW, I MFD'd the Culbin Forest draft, because Culbin Forest is a redirect to good coverage of the subject. -- a. ^{spam | contribs} 15:01, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Unavailability of Zee Keralam & Star Suvarna page

Today I have searched Zee Keralam (an Indian Malayalam General Entertainment Television Channel from Zee Network) & Star Suvarna Channel (an Indian Kannada language General Entertainment Television Channel from Star Network) but these pages are not present here. As I am new here, don't know how to create any new page. But I was trying again and again, but failed all the time. So, I have a humble request, to create both the pages regarding these two TV channels. Any kind of information related to this, I can provide. Please create as soon as possible. Thank you!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by A2Zabcd (talk • contribs) 17:41, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

You will need to be autoconfirmed (with 4 days and 10 edits) in order to create an article, but right now you can go to WP:AFC to make a draft. Please also read Your first article for more info. PorkchopGMX (talk with me - what i've done) 18:22, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Actually Zee Keralam is a protected title, so only administrators can create it. PorkchopGMX (talk with me - what i've done) 18:25, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Culbin Forest

Can someone please review the Draft:Culbin Forest article HSBC account number is 4598 (talk) 21:04, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Hello, HSBC account number is 4598. I don't think you've quite got the hang of Wikipedia yet. Please understand that Wikipedia is not interested in what you know, or what I know, or what any random person on the Internet knows. It is only interested in what reliable published sources say. So, while I'm happy to accept that the forest is where you say it is, and I don't doubt there are reliable sources that say so (though it would still be good to cite one), I would want to ask which reliable published sources has said that it ispopular for Orienteering; and more particularly which reliable published source has said the it is popular for orienteering because of its large size etc. If you can't find a source that says so, then the claim doesn't belong in the article. Also (in respect of the viewing tower) please see WP:NOTGUIDE and WP:TONE. --ColinFine (talk) 21:23, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I've got rid of the orienteering bit and put a reference. HSBC account number is 4598 (talk) 09:08, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Note: OP has been indefinitely blocked. — CoolSkittle (talk) 18:56, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

How to start my story

I want to know how to start my life story. And when to put pictures in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oomchai (talk • contribs) 19:26, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, User:Oomchai. You have already written a little bit about yourself on your user page, which is for the purpose of describing your work as a Wikipedia editor. If you are talking about an encyclopedia article about yourself, that is strongly discouraged. Please read WP: AUTOBIOGRAPHY for more information. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:31, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

An author's bibliography

When one lists the books an author has written on his or her article, what is customary to include? Title (of course) Publication year? Publisher? ISBN? Would someone give an example of what is considered the standard format (if there is one)? Regarding citing: Is the ISBN alone enough if the book has an ISBN? What about books without ISBNs (whether self-published or pre-ISBN)? How to cite? Thanks. --DiamondRemley39 (talk) 19:28, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, DiamondRemley39. Please read the appropriate section of the Manual of Style, which can be found at WP: BIBLIOGRAPHY. There is a section that describes how to handle ISBN numbers. Books without ISBNs should have other bibliographic information: Title, Author(s), Publisher, Date. You can also take a look at Template: Cite book Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:46, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Ice Circle of Vana-Vigala

I reviewed Draft:Ice Circle of Vana-Vigala and rejected it because it did not establish notability, with no references and no context without a link to Vana-Vigala. Perhaps I should have declined it rather than rejected it. User:Kruusamägi asked whether I think that the draft is worth pursuing with improvement. I would like the opinions of other experienced editors. I think that, since we have an article on ice circle, it has been agreed that an ice circle is an interesting natural phenomenon that is worth a stub when properly documented. Since we do not have an article on the river, only on the village, a stub mentioning the river is also in order. Comments? Robert McClenon (talk) 15:54, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

For comparison: that ca 100 km long river has an article in 11 wikis (d:Q773001). Ice circle has an article in Estonian, German and Võro wiki. Ivo (talk) 18:04, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

I created a sub-article for the river and moved the ice circle draft into the main namespace. Please review. Ivo (talk) 19:22, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for creating the stub on the river. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:02, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Šaip Kamberi and User:Špajdelj/sandbox

I reviewed User:Špajdelj/sandbox and declined it, as duplicating Draft:Šaip Kamberi, and as an autobiography and because it has no references. User: Špajdelj replied and said that they did not understand, and that every article on a person is more or less an autobiography. Can someone please explain the difference between a biography and an autobiography? Maybe it isn’t as obvious to some editors as it is to me. I may have been mistaken in thinking that the username of the author was a form of the name of the subject. The draft has no references. However, the subject appears to have ipso facto notability under political notability if a reliable source documents that they served in the Serbian parliament. Do other experienced editors have comments? Robert McClenon (talk) 15:55, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: Hi and thanks for contributing!

• A biography is a written account of a person's life written by another person. An autobiography is a written account of a person's life written by the same person.
• I think the subject meets WP:NOTABILITY by virtue of the fact that he has held national parliamentary office and is a party leader and is a mayor. Now what's needed is some more reliable sources for that. Informata ob Iniquitatum (talk) 20:51, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

The explanation of the difference was intended for User:Špajdelj. I know the difference, and I agree with the assessment that the subject is notable. See political notability guide, which states that he is ipso facto notable as a member of a national parliament. (Being a party leader and a mayor are addressed by general notability, which requires substantial coverage.) Was the draft written either by the subject or by someone working for him? If so, there is a conflict of interest. If not, not. As the above post says, a reliable source is needed to state that he has been a member of the Serbian national parliament. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:00, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

“Member of the National Assembly of the Republic of Serbia | MP” [[1]]

The party has had its MPs in the Parliament of the Republic of Serbia for many years, too. Riza Halimi was an MP for several terms of office, Saip Kamberi for one, while Fatmir Hasani is the current MP. [[2]] hope, you can open the links.--Špajdelj (talk) 22:01, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

He is an important person representing the interests of the Albanian minority in southern Serbia. [[3]]--Špajdelj (talk) 22:17, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Reference Tooltips

Hi,

I am putting together some text in my sandbox, and I want to use the functionality of the contents of a footnote are shown, without having to click. I can't seem to get it to work though. I'm using {{efn....}}. It works if i look at an existing article which uses the same note, but not when I try to do it. Can anyone help? Thanks!--Jopal22 (talk) 21:27, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

For instance

--Jopal22 (talk) 21:28, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

References

Hi Jopal22. User:Jopal22/sandbox says: <ref name="List of Winners/Venues"/><ref name="Open - 2018"/>. This is code to reuse references defined by those name elsewhere on the same page, but the page never defines them so you get an error. The Open Championship does define them elsewhere with this: <ref name="List of Winners/Venues">{{Cite web |url=https://fansided.com/2018/07/17/the-open-complete-list-winners/ |title=The Open Championship 2018: Complete list of previous winners |last=Norris |first=Luke |website=Fansided |access-date=9 January 2019}}</ref> and <ref name="Open - 2018">{{cite web |url=https://scores.theopen.com/Heritage/PreviousOpens#!/2018/ |title=2018 |publisher=The Open |accessdate=6 January 2019}}</ref>. You can replace your code with that if you only want to use the references once on the page. See Help:Footnotes#Footnotes: using a source more than once for the system to use references more than once. You can write {{Reflist}} in the place you want references to be displayed. Does this answer your question? PrimeHunter (talk) 22:53, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi PrimeHunter, thanks for your answer, but that wasn't really what I was asking about ( those refs are from remnants from previous edits ). If you look at my sandbox at the table, and see "Scotland", I have copied a reference from a football page because I want to do the same thing here, i.e. if you float you cursor over the reference I want it to show you the content of the reference without needing to click on it. Like is demonstrated in the right top corner of https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Reference_Tooltips. --Jopal22 (talk) 23:06, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

@Jopal22: I know two such features at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets. "Reference Tooltips" only works in mainspace articles and not user pages like User:Jopal22/sandbox. "Navigation popups" works in all namespaces. Don't enable them at the same time. You cannot control whether others use them on a page. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:23, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Oh ok, so I'm doing it right, it's just Sandbox does not show what it will be like in main space. Thanks talk!--Jopal22 (talk) 23:32, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Finding users for collaborations

Is there a way to see the user who made an edit without scrolling through the "View history" page? I want to collaborate with some users, but can't find who wrote the edits. GTBlakeman (talk) 23:33, 12 January 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GTBlakeman (talk • contribs) 21:22, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Hello, GTBlakeman, welcome to the Teahouse. Yes, you can get genereral information and an idea of the main contributors via 'Page statistics', which is a link offered to you when you click on the 'View History' tab. For example, you made an edit to Masaccio, which is quite a large and long-established page. Here is a link to the Page statistics for that article. It tells you all you need to know about the page, including who are the main contributors, and when they made their first and latest edits there. Having identified them, you could discuss any issues either with them indivually on their own talk page, or, perhaps better, raise any issue on the article's talk page and 'ping' them so that they receive a notification alert. Come back and ask again if you need guidance on how you do that. Do please remember always to sign every talk page post you leave in future. Just type four consecutive keyboard tilde characters at the very end of you post (like this: ~~~~). Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 22:39, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi GTBlakeman. You can also use the Wikipedia:WikiBlame facility to find who added a precise piece of text to an article by going to a page's history and clicking on the Find addition/removal link at the top off the page, next to "External tools:". Here's a direct link to the tool. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:47, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

reverting

I will obviously revert an edit if obvious vandalism/trolling. I will also do it if something is wrong. My dilemma is what to do if the editor is extremely senior >25,000 edits. I truly felt the material was relevant but decided no point being contentious. My question is simply " In the long run, is it best NOT to stand one's ground if it really risks being contentious? " § — Preceding unsigned comment added by GRALISTAIR (talk • contribs)

If you add or subtract content and another editor reverts your edits, the proper place to continue is to start a discussion at the article's Talk. You can ping the other editor to bring to their attention your comment. In this particular example, I agree with BilCat - the fact that Airforce 1 used an airport (once or more than once) is not a useful addition to the article. Please remember to sign your comments by typing four of ~ at the end. David notMD (talk) 23:37, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Move protection

If an article is not semi protected, but move protected, such as these articles (History of art, Oceania, Sea, South America, Literature), is it OK to add a move protection lock for that page? Mstrojny (talk) 23:10, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Mstrojny. Move protection can only be applied by an administrator and is used when there have been repeated incidents of vandals moving the article or there is disruptive edit warring about the title of the article. It is not applied routinely, but all the pages you mentioned have been subject to page move vandalism. Since I see no plausible need to move any of these pages, I also see no need to mark them openly as protected. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:29, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Hello Mstrojny. There's a bit of a judgment call to make about how useful or distracting the icon will be. Most of those articles already have the {{pp-move-indef}} template, as you can see by the categories they're in and the source of the page. That was probably deliberate. To make the icon visible you use {{pp-move|small=yes}}. Like others I'm not usually a fan of the padlock where there's never going to be a reasonable expectation that the page can be moved. It just adds noise for readers. However if there's neither template nor category (like Literature), then feel free to add the template of your choice (after reading the above). -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 23:40, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, Cullen328 and zzuuzz for that information. Mstrojny (talk) 00:10, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Subject

I want to create my own subject matter. How do I do this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Troysmith33 (talk • contribs) 01:03, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

You are off to a start, but not a good start. Your User page is for a few things about yourself and your intentions as an editor. You put the identical content in Draft, which is a right place (as would have been your Sandbox). What you have written looks like your own original thinking. Wikipedia is not a place for that. As an encyclopedia, it is for articles about topics that have been written about in multiple published places = references. For example Hypnosis 187 references. David notMD (talk) 01:19, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

WP:PEACOCK tag on new Olive Grove Records wiki page

Hi,

With reference to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olive_Grove_Records

I have been trying to start wiki pages for my local independent record labels. New page editor gave generally positive feedback on my effort but pointed out I had WP:PEACOCK language which needed removed.

I've made a small edit which hopefully removes this issue. Would someone be able to verify my edit and lift the WP:PEACOCK tag if appropriate. If there's still WP:PEACOCK i'm going to need some feedback. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Itm 20a (talk • contribs) 20:41, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Catalogue numbers do not belong in the table, and might as well get rid of release date, too. David notMD (talk) 02:08, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

` and ' as diacritic mark

Hi, I was wondering if both marks are considered as a diacritic mark and both do the same job which one is preferred in Wikipedia? Thanks.--SharabSalam (talk) 00:49, 13 January 2019 (UTC) Oops forgot to ping SharabSalam

I can't think of any instance in which one would use`. It is virtually unused, and thus is lower class tilde. Just curious in what instance(s) would you have need to use the ` ?Oldperson (talk) 03:02, 13 January 2019 (UTC):: Oops forgot to ping @SharabSalam:

@Oldperson: well there are many examples primarily in Arabic Ayn letter but I did change all of the `a letters to 'a in this article I didn't know whether I did the right thing or not. thanks for your help. --SharabSalam (talk) 03:22, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

@SharabSalam:As-Salaam-Alaikum. I thought that the ` was used primarily in Arabic. But your audience is English as native language, and using this diacritic ` will simply confuse them, or at least have them stop in their tracks, mentally. When in Rome do as the Romans and use this '. Also if you are using a word processor, especially MS Word and wish to create a citation, be aware that wikipedia program doesn't recognize the curly " that are generated by Word, so you will problems if you copy and paste.So create your references in your article or if using a software program don't forget to replace them with the straight apostrophes "Oldperson (talk) 03:56, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

@Oldperson: Walikum Assalam :) thanks for your help I wasn't sure about that I found some articles that contain `A if it's okay to replace them with 'A but now I think I can do that and that there is no problem. Thanks for your help I really appreciate that. --SharabSalam (talk) 04:05, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Rename article Tienhoven, South Holland

The town of Tienhoven, South Holland is now officially called "Tienhoven aan de Lek". It is no longer a part of the province South Holland since its former municipality Zederik (South Holland) merged into Vijfheerenlanden (Utrecht) in 2019. Can someone be so kind to rename this article to "Tienhoven aan de Lek"? Source: https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=nl&tl=en&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rtvutrecht.nl%2Fnieuws%2F1827620%2Ftienhoven-heet-voortaan-tienhoven-aan-de-lek.html (original source in Dutch: https://www.rtvutrecht.nl/nieuws/1827620/tienhoven-heet-voortaan-tienhoven-aan-de-lek.html) --Jashaj (talk) 09:41, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

@Jashaj: Hi and thanks for contributing! The page has been moved.Informata ob Iniquitatum (talk) 21:41, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! Jashaj (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:30, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Image of a living person

I want to upload an image of a living person (I mean a couple of wife and husband). Then what license should I give? If the license is image of a living person (unacceptable fair use) then what should I do? And what is bollywood hangama attribution used here and here? How can I use that? Can I use another reliable website here? AnkurWiki (talk) 08 January 2019, 03:16 (UTC)

Hello AnkurWiki, an image of a living person must be licensed under a free license. You use the license which the copyright owner has granted. If you take a photo yourself, you are the copyright owner; so you can choose which free license to grant. Apparently Bollywood Hungama grants a free license under limited conditions (listed on the file description pages you linked to) on photos taken by their photographers. To use that license you make sure that the photo fulfils those conditions and then upload the photo to Commons with the {{Bollywood Hungama}} tag. Most images from other websites are not usable. —teb728 t c 14:00, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Editing a declined article

Hello,

I can't seem to able to edit a declined article - there's an 'Edit Source' button rather than an 'Edit' button to edit the content. Is there another way to edit the article or is it through the 'Edit Source' button (if so, how?)?

Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Faridakarimk (talk • contribs) 11:08, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

@Faridakarimk: There should be a button in the top right corner of the source editor that should allow you to switch to the VisualEditor. Alternatively, you can append ?veaction=edit to the URL of any page to open it in the VisualEditor. Regards SoWhy 15:18, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

@Faridakarimk: I dived in without asking, just to give you some prompts. Let me know if you are still unable to edit and save. cygnis insignis 16:01, 13 January 2019 (UTC) Actually, I am not willing to help a paid editor, not that you asked for that. Thank you for disclosing that, it is nothing personal, just my position as a volunteer. Best regards, cygnis insignis 16:07, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

digital dependencies and global mental health and social media addiction

Hi I'm a little bit concerned that these top importance articles are being nominated for deletion, having MEDRS compliant articles deleted without discussion, but digital addict and screen time which are not compliant with MEDRS anywhere near as much as mine are, are just let be. This is a top importance current issue, and no one ever answers a single question for the RfCs other than that they are reliable sources. Linguistic gymnastics is causing this issue to give false balance to the non existence of a medical correlation with ADHD, and that is not fair for women suffering from the condition. Why does no one comment? E.3 (talk) 13:52, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Disengenuous for you to describe these as "top importance articles" given that you created one and have extensively edited the other. And that you have nominated digital addict for deletion. In my opinion, editors interested in the topic are adequately addressing same via edits to the articles, Talk pages of the articles, and at the three AfDs. David notMD (talk) 15:59, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Also, earlier today you posted requests on more than 20 editors' Talk pages, asking for them to look at and help edit the two articles you have been working on, including in some a mention that the articles are in AfD. David notMD (talk) 16:17, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

You Learn sample of Mr Loverman

Hello I would like to add to the Wikipedia article for the song You Learn by Alanis Morissette. What I want to note in th earticle is that the beat heard throughout the song is a sample from the song Mr. Loverman by Shabba Ranks. How would I go about doing this given that the sources I have are the songs themselves? I'm trying to also find more sources but how do I go about doing this since the sampled beat is notable. I cannot link them due to my screen-reader not picking up on the captchas BTW. thanks. 23.151.192.180 (talk) 04:28, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, IP editor. You must provide a reference to a reliable source such as an article by a notable music critic that makes the connection that you describe. Your own interpretation is original research and that type of interpretation is not allowed on Wikipedia. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:42, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

I hate it when people say Reliable source, as reliable is relative. Please define what a reliable source is in a TLDR version. also I can't link things as I said. The sample is notable in the way that it is th eentier beat of the song. A similar case can be found in Ariana Grande's Breathin which uses a beat that is lifted from Drake's Hold On, We're Going Home according to the article entitled "Ariana Grande's 'Sweetener' Is a Leap Forward for the Pop Star ..." from observer.com. 23.151.192.180 (talk) 04:48, 13 January 2019 (UTC) I also point to this song which has been compared to a notable Deadmau5 remix in terms of the sampled beat. As for the case for you learn, whosampled.com has an entry on this song meaning its beat is not original. 23.151.192.180 (talk) 04:53, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

If you want to contribute to Wikipedia, you must learn to love reliable sources because they are the building blocks of this encyclopedia and you cannot be successful editing Wikipedia until you understand that. In brief, reliable sources are published and have professional editorial control, a reputation for accuracy and a record of correcting their errors openly. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:56, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

But what about the examples I mentioned above of The Time (Dirty Bit) and Breathin both of which have sources. also whosampled.com states that the beat to You Learn is a sampled beat. Grande's beat for Breathin as stated by observer.com in the article I mention above is from a Drake song called Hold On, We're Going Home. 23.151.192.180 (talk) 05:11, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Also thanks for defining the term Reliable source for me. I do appreciate it. The reason why I don't like the term is not because I don't like reliable sources per say, rathe rthe term is relative. Some see BBC as reliable, some do not. IN my case, some find whosampled.com and observer.com reliable such as myself, others do not. All of those sources check and verify all their stuff, hence why I say they are all reliable. 23.151.192.180 (talk) 05:14, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Well, let me make things clear for you, then. The BBC is a reliable source for most things, most of the time. Context matters. On the other hand, sites like whosampled.com are absolutely, positively not reliable sources by Wikipedia standards, because they are based on user-submitted, crowdsourced content. They claim 20,000 users. You can consider it reliable for your own purposes, and I have no doubt that it is useful to you. But not for an encyclopedia. Please take this to the Reliable sources noticeboard if you disagree. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:23, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

I bring up The Time (Dirty Bit) as an example due to it having a whole section on the vary same thing that Morissette and Grande did. what about the observer? Also what do you suggest I do in the future given that I cannot see a captcha when I go to post a source for things? My GF Nina's always out doing gigs and what not, so I can't just run pu to her and say, "read this visual code for me". JAWS (screen-reading software I use) does not read images. 23.151.192.180 (talk) 05:31, 13 January 2019 (UTC) Impeach the President is an example of an article that mentions a plethora of songs that sample it. Guess where all the data comes from? whosampled. I will for sure take it to the reliable sources noticeboard, thanks for the suggestion. Yes things are case by case. also You Learn does not sample Impeach the President it samples Mr. Loverman, which samples Impeach the President. if one listens to the beginning of mr. loverman and the beat from You Learn, they are the exact same beat complete with the tambourines in the exact same positions, the exact same BMP, etc. no different than what was done with The Time (Dirty Bit) vs. [[You and I (Medina song)|You And I (Deadmau5 remix) which Wikipedia has an entire section about in the article for The Time Dirty Bit. 23.151.192.180 (talk) 05:38, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

I guess what I'm saying is, why is it okay for you to let others do something in one place, but when I want to do the same thing, it's bad? 23.151.192.180 (talk) 12:54, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Cullen has already answered your question about reliable sources. As for captchas, create an account and login, make 10 edits over four days, and you will never get captchas again. —teb728 t c 13:15, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

The beat sampling section in The Time (Dirty Bit) is referenced to an article published in Digital Spy. David notMD (talk) 15:02, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Hello, IP user. The argument that other stuff exists is never very persuasive in Wikipedialand (follow the link for a discussion). If somebody reverts an edit you make, one possibility is that you can argue the case for your change on its own merits according to Wikipedia policies. (If you are new to Wikipedia, it is likely that others will have a better handle than you on Wikipedia's policies, but that doesn't mean that you can never get consensus for your change. Remember that the aim of discussion is not to "win", or to convince people that you are right, but to reach consensus).

Sometimes the case you are pointing out is different in a way that you might not notice, but is significant to Wikipedia: David not MD has given you an example above. But the most common case is that whatever you are pointing at is indeed unsatisfactory, and should be removed or changed. Wikipedia has six million articles, and many of them could do with some TLC. Something unsatisfactory in an article means that nobody has changed it (likely, nobody has noticed it), not that it is acceptable. --ColinFine (talk) 17:16, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

User name issue

Hi Teahouse,

It's Kanika this side. I created my account with the user name "Waliakanika" and now I wish to write an article with a different name. So, is it possible to publish the article which has a different name from my own user account? And if not, what should I do?

Thank you, Kanika — Preceding unsigned comment added by Waliakanika (talk • contribs) 2019-01-13T16:27:37 (UTC)

Hello, Kanika, and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm not sure quite what you are asking: there is no connection whatever between your user name and the names of articles you are working on. Indeed, it is worrying if people work on articles with names similar to their usernames, because it suggests that they may have a conflict of interest. Please look at your first article to find out about the (difficult) task of creating a new article. --ColinFine (talk) 17:29, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

What is the basic guideline to publish my page

What is the basic guideline to publish my page?

Just need to publish basic information related to Premjit Sen, the renounce Indian Karateka. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Premjit sen (talk • contribs) 16:43, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Premjit sen. If you are talking about your user page, it is not, and never will be, a Wikipedia article. The amount of material currently there that is not related to Wikipedia is acceptable, but beyond that, it should be about you as a Wikipedia editor. Wikipedia is not for advertising yourself, whoever you are.

If you want to try the difficult task of creating a new article, please study your first article; but I advise you to not even try to create an article about yourself: see autobiography for why not. --ColinFine (talk) 17:33, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

how to get a page verified

Hey everyone, I am new to wiki and published a new article yesterday but it's still a draft. Just wondering how to get it approved? Do I have to add code into the source? Would really appreciate any help whatsoever... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paradise lost 90 (talk • contribs) 16:51, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Link: Draft:Fredrikson Stallard

Hello, Paradise lost 90. You would submit a draft for review by adding {{subst:submit}} (with the double curly brackets) at the top. But I'm afraid that theroadislong has already told you why it would not be accepted (sourcing and tone), and has proposed it for speedy deletion as a copyright violation. I recommend you read your first article before embarking on trying to create one. I also wonder if you are associated with Fredrikson Stallard? If you are, you also need to read conflict of interest. --ColinFine (talk) 17:38, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Hello, ColinFine. i am rewriting based on the feedback - i am not affiliated with fredrikson stallard - just fans of their work and would like for them to have a presence on wiki.

Deleting pages

There are a lot of pages one Wikipedia that I see that are about a dead former low level athlete from the 1800s or early 1900s that have like one sentence in the entire thing. I also don’t think anyone really looks at those pages ever besides people looking through Wikipedia randomly trying to improve it. I also don’t believe that there are many sources on the topic. I was wondering if it would be smart to propose that they be deleted or if i should just leave them as stubs that likely no one will ever improve? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Twooeight (talk • contribs) 19:33, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Twooeight. Welcome to the Teahouse, and thank you for your question. Personally, I don't think that would be smart, at all (though you didn't link to any particular page). I am, however, always saddened when I see people rushing to propose deletion of content that they consider no-one looks at it, instead of trying to improve it themselves. We should never remove content from Wikipedia just because it has a low visitor count, or because we don't think it's of interest, or that we happen to think it can't be improved. Just one visit by one interested reader means that Wikipedia is delivering useful content to someone. Of course, these days online sources for 'low-level' personalities are virtually two a penny and almost instantly retrievable, whereas for people who lived over a hundred years ago you'd be lucky to find anything published in print at all - maybe the odd newspaper report, perhaps. So (in my opinion) it's quite unrealistic to expect the same level of available references as we do for modern-day notable people - yet that is how Wikipedia often treats them. The key, of course, is notability, and for athletes meriting a page here, you should ensure you read and understand WP:NSPORT, as that is a key guideline for their notability. As you've only been editing on Wikipedia for a fortnight, it might be better if you were to gain a little more experience, if you haven't already - perhaps by lurking at WP:AFD and seeing how others treat articles before suggesting pages for deletion yourself. I worry this may sound like I'm being harsh on you, but that is not how I intend it. I suspect some users think that by proposing articles for deletion, it gives them some sort of credibility or validity as an editor, whereas if they don't do WP:BEFORE prior to proposing deletion, they're simply risking the removal of potentially good content or wasting other editors time at AFD, rather than actually improving the encyclopaedia. Others (deletionists) may take a different perspective. See Wikipedia:DELETIONIST and Wikipedia:Deletion is not cleanup. Thank you for asking first, and for your interest in helping to make Wikipedia better. (Oh, and do please remember to sign all future talk page posts with four keyboard tildes (like this: ~~~~). Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 20:52, 13 January 2019 (UTC)       

Ok thank you. I didn’t actually ever suggest any to be deleted. I started to but then I realized I should probably ask here first because I’m very new. I’ll review the stuff u linked me and consider that in the future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Twooeight (talk • contribs) 21:21, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

@Twooeight: You did just the right thing. An impressive start (except for forgetting to sign this post. LOL!) BTW: have you done The Wikipedia Adventure yet? Nick Moyes (talk) 22:20, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Guidance regarding underlinked template

Hello. I'm trying to clear some of the articles that have been tagged with the {{underlinked}} template. I would appreciate some guidance regarding the number of links that is sufficient to remove the template. For example:

• Pashayan syndrome: This is a short stub article, and none of the technical terms have (or, given their similarity) need Wikipedia pages. Should I remove {{underlinked}} template?
• Campodea suensoni: Another stub, but both linkable terms are linked. Remove template?
• Susane Colasanti: It seems to me that this article is sufficiently linked. Remove template?

Thanks in advance for your guidance.

Jenniferz (talk) 22:47, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi Jenniferz, welcome to the Teahouse. Regarding Campodea suensoni: whilst this is a tiny stub about a species (with more references than content) it is indeed adequately linked. There are also links from the taxobox, so you can't ask for more links, given the paltry size of the article. Regarding Pashayan syndrome, you could also link it to facial, nose and ears, and possibly Musculoskeletal abnormality. As for Susane Colasanti, I think that template had sat there since 2013, despite further wikilinks being added since. I note that MarkZusab has just added further links and wisely removed that template. I think your assessment that the template needn't really still be there was reasonable. It's never a case of just adding links for the sake of it, but to help any reader rapidly understand terms or words used in that article, and to integrate each page into the whole encyclopaedia. Hope this helps. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 23:22, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you! Jenniferz (talk) 23:27, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Finalizing Page

Hello, I need to finalize and move Draft:Kalani Pe'a into main space. Can someone review and give me feedback? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Allanbcool (talk • contribs) 02:50, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I just added (Infobox Person) in your Draft:Kalani Pe'a . Fill Infobox Person information . Please add more references to make it more reliable article. 649pardeep (talk) 09:43, 4 January 2019 (IST)

Hi Allanbcool and welcome to the Teahouse. The references should be moved to WP:Inline references where each reference comes after the statement that it supports. This makes it much easier to check the facts. See WP:Referencing for beginners. Dbfirs 07:37, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi Allanbcool. One more thing that you need to take care of before this gets moved to mainspace is that you need to rewrite the entire "Early life" section. I noticed that a lot of it is copied from this website. Wikipedia articles have to be written in your own words--they cannot be copied from somewhere else, because this is a copyright violation. The tone used in the article is also very promotional, and should be rewritten to be more neutral. Once its rewritten, let me know and I'll be happy to clean it up and move it to mainspace for you. Mahalo. Mcampany (talk) 20:29, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks so much for the updates. I will work on links and maybe I will have to remove the early life section for now and later on write it and have you guys check it again when I have time to do so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Allanbcool (talk • contribs) 11:24, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Instead of removing it, you can expand the Early life section with more details. For instance, I found some information about his early education, a bit about his family, and the place he was born in this article. This LA Times story also cited some of his early musical training. I am sure you can find other info as well. Regards, Darwin Naz (talk) 01:28, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Looking to finalize draft and move it into live space - can you assist? I have finished many edits over past few days. Please advise - See Draft:Kalani Pe'a Allanbcool (talk)

Thank you Darwin Naz for your help. I'm updating it now. Allanbcool (talk) 06:50, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

I have updated the Early Life section but I'm having issues with the inline citations. Allanbcool (talk) 07:44, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Darwin Naz Can you check my inline citations. I have made more updates. Kalani Pe'a Allanbcool (talk) 11:59, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

I don't exactly know the issues you are having with inline citations. Anyway, I added some info to the draft (I hope its fine) with their corresponding sources so you could get some insights about citing sources. I also suggest that you refer to the subject as either Pe'a or Kalani and not both interchangeably for consistency. As previously cited, you should attribute used information, particularly those that are not general knowledge. For instance, Pe'a's speech impediment detail must be sourced as reflected in the new edit. Darwin Naz (talk) 23:46, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Question

How do I make infobox. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Expert at Windows (talk • contribs) 23:24, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Expert at Windows. Welcome to the Teahouse. Infoboxes are designed to summarise and present information that is mostly found elsewhere within an article. You can find a long list of available infoboxes at Wikipedia:List of infoboxes, including {{Infobox software}}, which might suit your interests. Creating yet another infobox for no good reason is not something I would wish to encourage. Indeed, if you visit Help:Infobox you can read all about them, including the statement which says: "It is a good idea to seek the opinions of other editors before embarking on a design of a new infobox or redesign of an existing one. Most requirements are already met by an existing infobox and most of the remainder can be met with a tweak."

On a different note, please would you remove the content on your Userpage which is still very promotional in nature? I see you already had that page deleted once already for the same reason. Whilst it's OK to say a bit about yourself and your interests, I fear you are straying over the line a bit too much. What you can't do is use Wikipedia pages to promote yourself or your off-wiki activities, nor may you use your youtube videos as sources of 'facts' that you then insert into articles, as it seems like you've tried to do. Finally, please try to remember to sign all your talk page posts by adding four keyboard tilde characters at the very end (like this:~~~~). Many thanks, Nick Moyes (talk) 00:01, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Problems with an Article Title

Hello everyone. I am paid to edit on Wikipedia as well on its sister pages but it appears that the article I have been paid to publish has been deleted twice. The article name is Kushal Moharaz, If my job isn't done, I'll be jobless, please guide me for the article Kushal Moharaz. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samcratt (talk • contribs) 10:53, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi @Samcratt: Thank you for disclosing your status as a paid editor. Note that since you have a strong conflict of interest it is strongly recommended that you do not create articles directly but instead use the Articles for Creation process, creating a draft to be evaluated by editors who are not connected to the person. Now, as for Kushal Moharaz, articles about that person have been deleted repeatedly, under different titles. Many different user accounts have been created against Wikipedia's policy about multiple accounts in order to promote him on Wikipedia, and have subsequently been blocked for disruptive editing. It is extremely unlikely that he is notable enough for a Wikipedia article at this time, and so the best thing he can do is to simply forget about Wikipedia. If and when he does become notable (here are the relevant requirements) somebody who is not hired by him will probably create an article. Sorry to have to be discouraging, but that's the situation at this time. --bonadea contributions talk 11:18, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It appears that many editors have tried to recreate this page which was deleted for its promotional content. The title is now "salted" to prevent any further waste of time. It is not wise to accept payment for creating an article unless you are sure that the subject satisfies Wikipedia's notability conditions. It's probably better to return the money than to waste your time on what might be an impossible task (though I haven't checked for notability). I note that you have declared your WP:paid status for a different article. Dbfirs 11:22, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Samcratt. I'm sorry to be blunt, but if you do not know enough about Wikipedia to understand why this article has been repeatedly deleted, and salted, why are you taking money to create it? You seem to be in the position of a builder who undertakes to build a house without knowing the local building regulations, or whether they will allow a house to be built on that site. --ColinFine (talk) 17:22, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Samcratt appears to have no history of editing English Wikipedia, let alone article creation. Begs the question of why hired to create an article. AND now a sockpuppet suspect. David notMD (talk) 00:28, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Drafts i need help with

hey, i started a draft Draft:Theodd1sout and i need help adding ALOT more information to this because i'm aiming to not be bias in this article. I also need to have cites in it since i cant seem to find a link for some information. if anyone is up for a challenge to add 80% of information. Jackotothemax (talk) 00:28, 14 January 2019 (UTC)Jackotothemax

Ten million YouTube subscribers and his own clothing line is not nothing, but you need references about him, not by him. Not YouTube, not his website, not other social media. David notMD (talk) 02:40, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

@Jackotothemax: There is another draft on this subject, Draft:TheOdd1sOut, which was created 2 months ago and is of better quality. You might want to help improve that instead. — CoolSkittle (talk) 02:42, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Pizzarias

I reviewed Draft:Pizzarias and declined it as not satisfying brand notability as written. User:Sedimentary then asked me on my talk page for guidance. Do other editors think, first, that the draft should be accepted, or, second, that the draft can be improved and then accepted? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:17, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon:, I think this would be better at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation which is meant for coordination like this and where there are more AFC reviewers than here at Teahouse aimed for new users. –Ammarpad (talk) 05:45, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Creating a Page for Musicians

Hello

This is my first time im writing on WIKI twice my publish has been rejected,so im here asking is there nay one who can guide me help me submit this its very well appreciated — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shenal92 (talk • contribs) 05:46, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Hello Shenal92 and welcome to the Teahouse. See WP:NMUSICIAN. Your article lacks independent, secondary sources and should be reorganized since it's very messy. Please familiarize yourself with our content policies and guidelines before you resubmit, or else it's a waste of time for us (AfC reviewers) and increase the backlog. More info left on your talk page. Regards, ―Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk • contribs) 06:01, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

gina rodriguez's page

Hi, i was looking at the awards section of actress gina rodriguez's wikipedia page and i was curious about something. most of the time when someone has won an award, next to it it says 'won' in the centre of the box and is green. but in the section where the awards she had won and been nominated for, a lot of the awards she had won didn't have a green box next to it, it was just the same grey colour and the word 'won' was at the left. they were insignificant differences, but i was wondering if there was any reason they were like that? are there two different ways to label awards people have won? thanks! Thebekahbird (talk) 21:38, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

@Thebekahbird: It seems the unshaded ones were added in this edit by an IP user who may not know how to format the shaded box. You can fix it yourself if you like by and changing Won to {{Won}}. –Ammarpad (talk) 06:18, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

How to edit

A page I found is not accurate. When I attempt to edit it says the page is locked so it is not vandalized. How can an edit happen? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Duluthbeauty (talk • contribs) 07:36, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

If the article has been semi-protected to prevent vandalism, you can use the article's talk page to give details of a requested edit, with reliable sources to support the edit. Include the template {{Edit semi-protected}} to tag the request. --David Biddulph (talk) 07:50, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Question about how to start a new word

Hay has anyone used wiki to start a new word? And if so how and did it turn out well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jameslape (talk • contribs) 17:29, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Hello Jameslape. The answer is no, for several reasons. (Or, more precisely, some people have tried this, and have all failed). Please see WP:NOTNEO for more information. --ColinFine (talk) 17:40, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Jameslape. May I take the opportunity to welcome you to Wikipedia? It's really great to have a young person like you interested and wanting to contribute to Wikipedia - from a small start today you could well be one of the great editors of tomorrow! We do have a page aimed at young users to help them avoid making any mistakes or put themselves at risk, so you might like to read this essay. Speaking as a retired biologist, I really love the idea that you're thinking about better terms to describe our planet's biodiversity - that shows a huge amount of promise. Unfortunately, as ColinFine says, Wikipedia is not the right place to create or promote such new ideas, or to coin new terms. Being an encyclopaedia, it can only reflect notable subjects that already exist 'out there' and have been written about in depth by others. So, I would hate you to be upset or put off by this, but I'm afraid I cannot ever see your draft article being publishable. So, rather than me simply barging in and arranging for it to be deleted, I was wondering whether might like to gain the experience by doing that yourself? If so, simply edit the page and add the text {{db-self}} to the top of the page and then click 'Publish changes'. This will add one of our templates (termed CSD G7) to the page, on the grounds that you, as the creating author now want to have it deleted. One of our administrators will then pop by and respond to your request. I hope this makes sense, and good luck on your Wikipedia Adventure. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 21:52, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi Jameslape. I like your protologism, and you could add it to Wiktionary's list of protologisms, but you will need to publish your suggestion elsewhere to get the word used. The formal way to get your new word into the language might be via an article in Nature or New Scientist, but it is very difficult to get published in such widely-read journals. Lewis Carroll introduced new words to the language via his novels and poems, and David X. Cohen managed to introduce a new word into American via The Simpsons. Dbfirs 09:30, 14 January 2019 (UTC)