Archive 1125

←

Archive 1128

Archive 1129

Archive 1130

Archive 1131

Archive 1132

→

Archive 1135

A few minutes ago I asked for help here. It was quickly and efficiently given. Thanks! I came here because I could not work out how to use the Help section. My problem was that I could not find a place to ask a question. There was no apparent place that responded to my typing a message. Where do I type a message on that page please? 2601:646:4102:8AC0:ACF7:18CD:1BEC:9241 (talk) 14:14, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello IP editor! I believe you are referring to a button where you can ask a question? Some help pages are jerks and don't make it obvious, so if you can't find a "new question" button or something similar to one, in the top right corner select the "New Section" button, near the "Read" and "View History" tabs. This button shares the same purpose. If this button isn't there either, you have to make a new section manually; hit the "Edit" button, and at the bottom of the text field put in a new header using two equal signs (==Title of your question==), and write what you want below it. Hope this helps! Panini!^🥪 15:02, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

 77.99.184.113 (talk) 14:18, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Rock. Panini!^🥪 14:51, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what your name is. --Khajidha (talk) 15:05, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Currently, 77.99.184.113. If you create an account then you can name the account. Richard M William (talk) 15:29, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Do you think this tool can be under the Web Colors article? https://gethexcolor.com/ Article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_colors Thanks in advance. Dan DandiJ (talk) 15:41, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello, DandiJ, and welcome to the Teahouse. No, I don't think that would be appropriate: see WP:ELNO. Remember, Wikipedia is not a how-to guide. --ColinFine (talk) 15:48, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

hi

please resend the email confirmation for new editors

the autoconfirmation msg was sent to the correct address

i, clicked the wrong button, so my bad, not wiki's

thank you

necrodharma

p.s.

no rush Necrodharma (talk) 16:08, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi! You should read Help:Email confirmation. Hope this helps. WhoAteMyButter (📨_talk│📝^contribs) 16:25, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

I have posted an article at the end of October month behalf of Dr Rama Rao, here I have small doubts. 1. How many days article will published. 2. How to know this article was created by me as Wikipedia standards. Drpaturiramarao (talk) 05:47, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Drpaturiramarao. User:Drpaturiramarao/sandbox was reviewed on 3 November. It was declined because it lacked inline citations of reliable, published sources. The use of ALL CAPS was not appropriate, making it resemble an advertisement. Biographies should not be constructed in list format, as they are not a CV. Also, please read advice about autobiographies.--Quisqualis (talk) 06:06, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

For any article or draft, clicking on View history shows the User name of the editor who started it. David notMD (talk) 17:56, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

how do I make pages Citycountryball2000 (talk) 17:41, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

@Citycountryball2000, hello and welcome to the Teahouse, when you say “pages” I presume you mean how to make “articles” right? both aren’t the same but are erroneously used interchangeably, without further ado, what you want to do is look at How to create an article. Having said it is better to start slowly, article creation isn’t difficult (some of my co-hosts may challenge me on stating this) & they would be justified as article creation is also far from easy. For example, you need to know our policy on WP:NOTABILITY, WP:GNG, WP:CTW and a host of other policies & guidelines, if you have a particular article you want to see created, for now I think you should go to WP:RA and input the name of the article in the relevant section, pending the creation, you should bookmark the Teahouse, look at question asked, their responses, and also simultaneously reading some of our policies and guidelines which I’m going to leave on your talk page now. Celestina007 (talk) 18:54, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

This is regarding the celebrity list that many newspapers and magazines publish annually, e.g. Most Desirable Men, Most Desirable Women, etc. Though these types of lists are being mentioned in the media section of many living people but still want a brief explanation and clarification about that can such lists be included on personality's article? For instance, given these lists which are by Times of India for Most Desirable Women 2020- [1], [2]. Can these lists be included if notable and has a reliable source? ManaliJain (talk) 17:47, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

They aren't notable, and Times of India is often inappropriate in biographies (for reasons that are obvious if you follow the two links you provided). --bonadea contributions talk 18:58, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you everyone for your helpful comments. So the bottom line, based on the current information I have for San Francisco Mandarin Baptist Church, am I correct to say that it seems that there may not be enough information to have a Wikipedia page for this? I do not have much more information than what is currently mentioned. Theomizuhara (talk) 18:57, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

I agree. Draft:San Francisco Mandarin Baptist Church has no valid references. All the three website listings do is confirm that it exists. If there are no reliable source references to support it being an article, it cannot succeed. Either tag it for deletion or abandon it. If the latter, it will be deleted at the end of a six month waiting period. David notMD (talk) 19:03, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello there, Im wondering how to link a specific section in an article. for example if i wanted to link the section woody's roundup in the article Golden Horseshoe Saloon how would I do that or can i not do that? Kaleeb18 (talk) 19:25, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi Kaleeb18! The easiest way to link directly to a section from another page is to follow the article name with a number sign (#) and the name of the section. For example, Golden Horseshoe Saloon#Woody's Round-up. The {{section link}} template can also come in handy: {{section link|Golden Horseshoe Saloon|Woody's Round-up}} will result in the following: Golden Horseshoe Saloon § Woody's Round-up. There is more information about section linking at MOS:SECTIONLINKS. Hope that helps! DanCherek (talk) 19:42, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

@DanCherek: Thank you that is exactly what I was looking for. Kaleeb18 (talk) 19:56, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Why in the COVID-19 pandemic in Canada article references, it just says "The time allocated for running scripts has expired". How does one fix this? Is it just me who is seeing this? Thanks - RandomEditorAAA (talk) 18:37, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

@RandomEditorAAA: Welcome to the Teahouse. I've answered you there as well, but the most likely issue is that the article has exceeded limits of some sort, most likely PEIS, in which case the use of templates will need to be reduced. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 20:46, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

The "Region Aquitaine" logo in this website or this website. It also exists in French Wikipedia. Excellenc1 (talk) 15:58, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

• What constitutes "fair use" depends on context, I can't really say either way without knowing the purpose for which it is to be used. But if you know which article it would be used for, WP:NFCC will show you the criteria it would have to meet in order to count. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 16:10, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

  @Excellenc1: Were you thinking about using it on the Regional Council of Aquitaine article? I noted that the infobox website link is dead. GoingBatty (talk) 16:39, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

• @Excellenc1: There's a page at Wikipedia, WP:MCQ, that is patrolled by people who have particular expertise in copyright questions. Perhaps that would be a good place to ask this question? --Jayron32 16:40, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

@GoingBatty: Yes, I am using it for Regional Council of Aquitaine. The website link is dead because this council, since 2016/2017, is a part of the Regional Council of Nouvelle-Aquitaine. Excellenc1 (talk) 04:53, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

@Excellenc1: It seems that you could use Wikipedia:File Upload Wizard to upload the logo as a non-free file for the Regional Council of Aquitaine article. Maybe you could use the websites you found for references for the articles as well. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 22:49, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

@GoingBatty: Please check File:Regional council of Aquitaine (2015 logo).jpg. I think it violates the copyright laws mentioned here. Excellenc1 (talk) 07:08, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

@Excellenc1: I am not an expert in international copyright laws. You might be interested in Wikipedia:Logos for more information. GoingBatty (talk) 20:57, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello, May i Create an article that was deleted before because it was created by Blocked or banned user? See Hindu Army it is notable but was deleted because created by Blocked user. This NGO is Active in Uttar Pradesh. Please help me i wants to contribute. Bihariboy Rahul (talk) 12:24, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

@Bihariboy Rahul:, it might depend. If the blocked user was attempting to create a page not suitable for Wikipedia, then no. Otherwise, I think so.

• @Bihariboy Rahul, hello and welcome to the Teahouse, the answer to your question is yes you can. Since the G5 wouldn’t be applicable to you. Celestina007 (talk) 20:41, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
• @Celestina007: Actually, i don't know who created it for the last time. But at this time The Subject is Well Notable in India. I think it should be on Wikipedia. Can you help me? Bihariboy Rahul (talk) 09:15, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

@Bihariboy Rahul: If the topic meets Wikipedia's notability requirements for organizations, then you may follow the guidance at Help:Your first article to make a draft. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 21:01, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi, I am editing a football season page of DSA Senior Division and I want to add the map of Delhi and locations of the participants clubs I tried to copy from Kerala Premier League but I am unable to do so. How to find the map and add locations with lat long. Bharat0078 (talk) 03:54, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

@Bharat0078: Welcome to the Teahouse! I have never made a map, but it appears there is a lot of good information on Wikipedia:Maps for Wikipedia for you. Hope this helps, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 21:04, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

I am Jody Stecher, the subject of a Wikipedia page I did not create. I have looked at the page once every 2 years or so and I see that people keep removing misinformation and replacing with different misinformation. I have never interfered before. But the replacing of the correct spelling of my name with a wrong spelling has provoked me to interfere. My birth name is Jonathan Allan Stecher, not Johnathan Allen Stecher. I cannot work out how to correct it. Can someone tell me —in plain non-technical English - how to correct the spelling at the top of the page where there is no apparent edit option. Or can some capable person please change it? 2601:646:4102:8AC0:ACF7:18CD:1BEC:9241 (talk) 13:59, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

hi ip user! seems to have been  Done and Polyamorph. if you have any requests to the page, you may notify editors interested in it using the talk page, in this case Talk:Jody Stecher. happy editing!   melecie   t 14:05, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I have corrected this for you. As you are the subject of the article it is inadvisable to edit the page yourself, although obvious errors like your name I think you are permitted to do so. You can open a discussion at Talk:Jody_Stecher to list any other inaccuracies in this articles so that others can make the required changes for you. Polyamorph (talk) 14:08, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Just for your information, Mr. Stecher: If you want to correct something in an article's lead (the part "at the top of the page where there is no apparent edit option"), you just click on the "edit this page" tab at the very top of the article. Deor (talk) 16:36, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Autobiography#If Wikipedia already has an article about you. GoingBatty (talk) 21:19, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

so the first thing is how do you put in pictures when editing? and how do you type when editing but in a different language? Jazeily (talk) 18:33, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

@Jazeily: Welcome to the Teahouse! There's a how to guide at Help:Pictures. Most text in the English Wikipedia should be in English. On the rare occasions when I need non-English words that I cannot type on my English keyboard, I copy them from the source and paste them into Wikipedia. Hope this helps, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 21:30, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

 EzraCyrusmerleCarey (talk) 21:18, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

@EzraCyrusmerleCarey: Welcome to the Teahouse! I see you added a large amount of data to George B. Curtiss and attempted to add a source, but it's not clear what your source is. Per the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, I suggest that you discuss your suggestions on the article's talk page: Talk:George B. Curtiss, along with more information on your sources. Remember that Wikipedia articles are generally written based on what independent sources have written, not on what the subject of the article has written. Please also assume good faith, and don't presume that any edits are politically motivated. Hope this helps, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 21:45, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi, the team of the subject i created was fully paid me as im creating the article, how can i remove the notification that stated about disclosure? Thank You. Sassamiss (talk) 18:59, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

As written on your Talk page, you must declare the paid connection on your User page, given situation for Draft:Sassa Gurl. David notMD (talk) 19:06, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Sassamiss - You have created three drafts and all have been declined. You have also been asked on your Talk page to clarify your paid status for any of these articles. You have continued to edit without doing so. Undeclared paid editing is cause for being indefinitely blocked. David notMD (talk) 22:38, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

I noticed on the Grand Prix Motorcycle Racing page the Infobox lists NTS as a Moto2 GP constructor. The mention is RED therefore there is no presumed article for the company.

I was in the process of commencing a draft article for NTS CO., LTD until I came across an existing obscure article hosted by Wikipedia. How does one go around updating infoboxes so that the company mention is linked to the page?

Please see summary of details below.

Published Page: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Prix_motorcycle_racing Page component: Infobox

Reference: NTS Reference type: Company Reference Existing arricle: https://zims-en.kiwix.campusafrica.gos.orange.com/wikipedia_en_all_nopic/A/NTS_Co.,_Ltd. T&co coo (talk) 18:53, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello, T&co coo. Are you talking about the existing article NTS Motorsports? If so, you can make the infobox in Grand Prix motorcycle racing point to it by making the link contain its exact name, so [[NTS Motorsports]],. If that's not it, you'll have to clarify what you mean. (The link to zims-en does not work for me, but even if it did, it would not be a Wikipedia article: at best it would be an article that had been forked from Wikipedia; this may or may not be legal, depending on whether they observed the licence conditions about attributing the source properly). --ColinFine (talk) 19:16, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

NTS Motorsports is a stock car racing team. The redlinked NTS in Grand Prix motorcycle racing seems to be a Japanese motorcycle chassis builder. It does not appear we have an article on that company here. The link above is to some external site. MB 22:56, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

T&co coo (talk) It looks like it's a "forked" and I still have the page up on my phone but the link from this chat doesn't work for me as well.

Should I create a article for NTS Co? It's a Japanese manufacturing company. — Preceding unsigned comment added by T&co coo (talk • contribs) 22:46, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Can I use Internet Archive as a source? 2409:4063:4D8E:91EA:0:0:33C9:2306 (talk) 06:05, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

It depends entirely on whether the page that was archived is a reliable source. It's very unlikely you would actually be citing the Internet Archive rather than an archived page. We frequently use archived copies of pages as references. Meters (talk) 06:35, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

You could also use a book that was digitized at the Internet Archive as a source, the same way you could use a book that was on Google Books. GoingBatty (talk) 23:05, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Good point. The Internet Archive is not just the Web Archive that I was thinking of. Thank you. Meters (talk) 23:32, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

what is clue bot it message me i would like to know what it is Jazeily (talk) 21:25, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

@Jazeily: Welcome to the Teahouse! A bot is an automated tool that carries out repetitive and mundane tasks to help maintain Wikipedia. User:ClueBot NG works to revert edits that appear to be vandalism, such as reverting your edit to Real estate in the United Kingdom. To become a productive member of Wikipedia, I suggest Help:Introduction and The Wikipedia Adventure. Thanks for asking, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 21:51, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

You added "the queen lives in england" to an article that has nothing to do with the Queen of England. ClueBot identified this as inappropriate and reverted it. David notMD (talk) 22:44, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

thanks going batty Jazeily (talk) 22:40, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

What are the stages? How are individuals assessed to determine a stage?

( I appreciate additional information if it can be provided. )

^^^^ 47.146.115.248 (talk) 23:23, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello. The Teahouse is for asking and answering questions about editing Wikipedia. Begin by reading Parkinson's Disease, and if you then have questions, ask at the Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science. However, they do not give medical advice. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:47, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

CONTACT YOUR PHYSICIAN OR A NEUROLOGIST. We cannot provide medical advice or otherwise engage in telehealth. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 03:03, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Hey everyone, I am trying to participate and engage in discussions at Deletion Reviews (as an extension of my ongoing AFD participation work). I want to check if there is anyway to get access to previous drafts that were deleted. Reading those might help get better grip of situation and faster as well. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 03:20, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Nomadicghumakkad. I happen to be an administrator and any administrator can view the content of a deleted draft. As long as the draft was not deleted for major policy violations like copyright violations, violations of Biographies of living people policy or other major policies, and if the draft shows any promise of being developed into an actual acceptable article, most administrators are willing to restore the draft if an editor wants to keep working on it. I would restore a draft briefly if an editor like you asked in the circumstances you describe, as long as there is a good reason. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:44, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello,

I added vernacular name to Sacoglottis gabonensis and the references for them. However, the reference list keeps switching up references 1 & 2 in the order of the text (it does have the appropriate attributions, but the order in the text is 2, then 1). I tried fixing it, but upon saving, it went back to being out of order. How does one fix this?

Thank you in advance, MGatta (talk) 17:31, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Refs are numbered by the order of use. The first reference is in the infobox which is given #1. The next ref (#2) is in the first sentence of the lead. The third ref is in the second sentence, and is the same source as #1, so it is again #1. There is nothing to fix. MB 17:37, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

@MGatta: Welcome to the Teahouse. As MB noted above, the software keeps track of when references appear first in an article, and reuses that number if the reference is cited again. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 20:45, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

I see, I had missed the infobox reference. Thanks.

MGatta (talk) 07:19, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

I came across this article on the Tigray Defense Forces and it seriously broken. The facts on the page may be true but it is not using an impassionate and unbiased voice that is appropriate to an encyclopedia. The most notable example of this is where it attributes the motives of the Tigray Defense Forces (TDF) to the Ethiopian government's alleged actions. It sounds like a propaganda piece not an encyclopedia. Example from the Wiki article:

"The Ethiopian government’s scorched earth strategy in Tigray has all but ensured the alienation of most Tigrayans."

I have no skin in this conflict and landed on the page trying to understand what is going in Ethiopia. I am not established as editor so I am locked out of trying my hand at fixing it. Frankly I agree that an article describing an ongoing armed conflict probably ought to be locked. But it also should not be a propaganda tool for one side. It seems like someone with the right access should at least flag the article for having bias in the language. Quant0110 (talk) 03:48, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

@Quant0110, hello and welcome to Wikipedia! You have 2 initial ways to influence. 1: Make suggestions at Talk:Tigray Defense Forces. Bring your best WP:RS. 2:Become WP:AUTOCONFIRMed and edit the article yourself. Of course, others can edit what you edit, see WP:BRD. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:23, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

How do you submit a draft for review?Muhammad 08:25, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Muhammad225 Hello and welcome. I have added the appropriate information to your draft to allow you to submit it for review. This information is provided if you use Articles for Creation to create a draft. In quickly looking at it, I don't think it is likely to be accepted at this time, as it just tells about the organization and what it does. A Wikipedia article about an organization must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the organization, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable organization. Most of your sources seem to be announcements of the group's activities and findings, which does not establish notability. Please review Your First Article. 331dot (talk) 08:29, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

331dot Thank you. And I am not submitting it for review as of now because it is incomplete. I was just asking beforehand. Thank you again.Muhammad 08:35, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

please what is this tea House all about,I mean what do you people here 🤔🤔🤔🤔 Paulina victor (talk) 10:19, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

 Paulina victor (talk) 10:27, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

@Paulina victor, the Teahouse is a forum-page for new editors to ask questions about editing Wikipedia. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:50, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

FYI

 – Moved subsequent question to this section – ClaudineChionh (talk – contribs)

So how do I edit Wikipedia Paulina victor (talk) 10:53, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

@Paulina victor Start with these links: WP:ADVENTURE and WP:TUTORIAL. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:57, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

When an FA article gets demoted, it doesn't remain as GA, right? If that is the case, why are editors working so hard to get it to be FA when it will be demoted in the future and GA is easier? 61.84.62.63 (talk) 06:03, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

There is no guarantee that an FA will be demoted. In fact most aren't. Getting a featured article is a considerable achievement for an editor. An FA is held to much higher standards than a GA. Plus, an FA qualifies for being put on the front page. An FA is the highest quality that you can achieve on Wikipedia, and many editors want to create them so that Wikipedia is the very best it can be! That is a very laudable goal.

I can't say I know whether it remains a GA even if FA is removed though, @Casliber (as one of the FAR coordinators) probably knows :) CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 06:30, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

No, if an FA is demoted it does not revert to GA. It will generally be a B or C class article. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:00, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Any right now I'm eligible to get? If yes then where to request for that right. २ तकर पेप्सी (talk) 09:05, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

It depends what it is you are intending to do. If you don't have a need for a particular right then there is no point in requesting it. Polyamorph (talk) 10:58, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

User talk:Polyamorph I love reviewing page and improving page patrolling.Can you check my edits and say I'm eligible or not २ तकर पेप्सी (talk) 11:10, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Participants and Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Reviewers for how to apply. Both require, at a minimum, 90 days as an editor and more than 500 edits to articles. David notMD (talk) 12:13, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

For now, you have a bad history. You moved other editors' drafts to be articles, since reverted, and you created an article without going through AfC, which an editor converted to draft. I strongly suggest you gain more experience, especially creating drafts that via AfC are accepted as articles. You should also go to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion to learn why articles end up at AfD, as that is one of the tasks of NPPs. David notMD (talk) 12:28, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm trying to figure out he best way of formatting some data/information. So there is this table in this page Expedition_65#Crew. The crew for this ISS expedition kept swapping commanders and new crew arriving and departing. It ends up the way we normally represent this information (see previous expeditions) doesn't seem to work very well this time and I'm trying to figure out a better way of reprsenting this information. The way of formatting the table is being pulled in multiple different directions.

1. We need to show the correct dates when each astronaut becomes Commander. (This is actually currently incorrect at time of writing)
2. We want to show the correct dates when astronauts arrive and leave
3. Ideally we don't want "gaps" above other astronauts such that you can look at the table and see during any time period how many astronauts were on board

Given these sometimes conflicting requirements I can't figure out a good way of representing this information. Does anyone have any advice? Ergzay (talk) 00:20, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Maybe you could create a chart like this? But it'll involve some work. Maproom (talk) 09:01, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

I considered that, but those charts don't look very good and are rather blurry with small font. Additionally they don't seem adapted to scaling based on HiDPI displays like mine so they look rather awful. Ergzay (talk) 13:01, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello... i intend to activate Salaf task force project, can i ask ur permission? Ahendra (talk) 03:11, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Ahendra, and welcome to the Teahouse. There is a link Dealing with inactive WikiProjects on that WikiProject page with advice how to go about reviving a project. --ColinFine (talk) 12:47, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

thank you Ahendra (talk) 13:16, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

O que é a atmosfera 2? Maria DDias (talk) 11:29, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Please see Atmosphere, or of course Atmósfera. -- Hoary (talk) 12:19, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

I think you mean Atmosfera, Hoary. --ColinFine (talk) 13:22, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

 2600:100A:B12D:82A:6782:484:147A:E59D (talk) 10:07, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. Did you have a question about user contributions? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 16:37, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Would you be interested in a brief article about M. Najibullah, a former president of Afghanistan, who was an outstanding student of mine at Habibia College in Kabul some decades ago? Richard M. Chisholm, Ed.D., Columbia University in the City of New York? RMC 100.40.45.252 (talk) 15:32, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

This man: Mohammad Najibullah? Or do you mean that you have published an article about him that you think WP should use as a source? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:41, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

How can I increase my edits quickly and efficiently? I mean what should I edit??/ Itcouldbepossible (talk) 15:09, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

@Itcouldbepossible Welcome to the Teahouse. It’s not about rapidity of making edits. A good editor is a careful editor. But little fixes like correcting typos and spelling errors is one such way. See WP:TYPO Nick Moyes (talk) 15:26, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Itcouldbepossible, quality is far more important than quantity. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:44, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

 AlaskaBarb8888 (talk) 16:42, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello, AlaskaBarb8888, and welcome to the Teahouse. It depends what you mean by "another author's page". If you mean an encyclopaedia article, then nobody owns these, and you are as entitled to improve them as any other editor. (But make sure that this really is a mis-spelling, and not a different variety of English being used in that article: see WP:ENGVAR). If you mean a page in another user's space - their user page, or a sandbox - then it is not customary to edit these pages without being invited. If you think it is important, put a message on the editor's User Talk page politely pointing out what you have noticed. Or just let it go. --ColinFine (talk) 17:00, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

How can I become an administrator Funkypunkyuser (talk) 16:42, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

@Funkypunkyuser: Hello Funkypunkyuser, welcome to the teahouse!

It's a bit early for you to be thinking about an administrator yet, you only joined today! To become an administrator you will need to pass an election by the community at WP:Requests for adminship. There's no firm rules on what you need to be successful, but generally at a minimum the community would expect at least a year or so editing here, 5000 - 10,000 edits, a few article creations and some significant content creation work, and a demonstrated understanding of Wikipedia policy (e.g. through getting involved in anti-vandalism work, deletion discussions and other behind the scenes areas). I hope this doesn't discourage you too much, but for the time being you would be much better focusing on writing articles. 192.76.8.85 (talk) 17:02, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hello, Funkypunkyuser, and welcome to the Teahouse. In answer to your question: Have a very clear idea of exactly what you intend to do to improve Wikipedia, and why you cannot do this without the janitors' tools that admins are granted access to: you will need to explain this (both parts) to have any hope of being accepted by the community as an admin (I have been editing for 16 years, and have never asked to be an admin). Then demonstrate that you have a good understanding of Wikipedia's policies in theory and practice, and get, say, 10 000 good edits under your belt, and read WP:RFA. If you are asking this because you think being an admin is about status, please read hat collecting. Wikipedia editors are generally much more impressed by the quality of your edits to Wikipedia than whether you have been granted access to some tools. --ColinFine (talk) 17:10, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

I am not a Wikipedia editor. I want to submit a page for a business I’m running. What is the timeframe for a page to get approved and published? Dennizen (talk) 10:55, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

In your case, almost certainly forever and a day. Writing a new article on Wikipedia is easily one of the most difficult things to do, and having a conflict of interest only amplifies the difficulty immensely. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 10:57, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Because Wikipedia is a volunteer-driven encyclopedia, we don't operate on deadlines. It could be that it takes a couple days, it could be a couple months, or sometimes on the first of never Victor Schmidt (talk) 11:03, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

@Dennizen Adding to the above that for you to submit an article that "sticks" about a business you're running is probably a waste of time. However, if after reading these links: WP:GNG, WP:NORG and WP:COI, you conclude "Yeah, I have those sources, no problem!" you are welcome (sort of) to try. WP:YFA is next to read. See also WP:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:10, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

JC's and GGS's answers are the most useful (and the least sarcastic). It is not impossible for a person to create an article ("page" has wrong connotation) about their own business. Those blue links explain how to declare a conflict of interest, define how an organization can qualify as notable in the Wikipedia sense, and how to create and submit a draft, to be decided upon by an experienced reviewer. However, unless your business has been written about at length by people with no connection to the business, i.e., reliable source references, you will fail. David notMD (talk) 11:55, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Please note, Dennizen, that promotion - telling the world about something - is strictly forbidden in Wikipedia. If there is an article about your business (whoever writes it) that article will not belong to you, will not be for your benefit, will not be controlled by you will not necessarily say what you would like it to say, and should be based almost 100% on what people unconnected with your business have chosen to publish about it in reliable places, not on what you say or want to say. --ColinFine (talk) 13:19, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

@Dennizen, I have to respectfully disagree with the above comment by @ColinFine, it’s not true that it’s "strictly forbidden", and that idea is not supported by the link ColinFine provided (promotion), Where it says in part: "the standards for encyclopedic articles apply … This includes the requirement to maintain a neutral point of view, which can be difficult when writing about yourself or about projects close to you." However, editors often develop (and enforce) their own ideas, apart from any guidance, and it may be a common belief among editors that it's "strictly forbidden" for anyone to write about a company they’re connected to. The way to do it would be to be careful to use a neutral-point-of-view, use good sources that indicate the business is notable, and to not mention your connection. Then you could probably just post it and see if it sticks. Also, Dennizen, you say "I am not a Wikipedia editor," but it appears that you are. Right? Åüñîçńøł (talk) 17:31, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello,

I am currently working on cleaning up the bare url citations on the L.A. Paul article. I've come across a few instances where a previous editor has cited the fact that Paul has written a book, and the citation is just the book's page on the publisher's website. Is this necessary? can those "citations" just be deleted completely? Just wondering how best to go about this.

Thanks in advance. Trillkat (talk) 15:23, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

In my opinion, Trillkat, the subject's own works should not normally be cited, unless there is particular material in one of them that is being discussed in the article (which will necessitate there being independent sources for the discussion, so citing their work will be in addition to the secondary sources). --ColinFine (talk) 16:42, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

@ColinFine: right, this was my thinking as well. They aren't actually quoting the books at all just citing that they exist. I think I can just add them to the "selected works" section of the article and remove the citations all together. Thanks for your help! Trillkat (talk) 19:22, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

I was looking at recent changes using wikiloop-doublecheck and I found 2 edits on the page Tekhelet made by the same user. The edits both appear to be good faith, however the tone they are written in doesn't seem normal for a wikipedia article, as well as some statements appearing to not be properly sourced or referenced. I would revert, but the edits, especially the first one, look like they took a long time, so I'm wondering if leaving as-is or trying to edit the page to better fit wikipedia's style would be better? Many Many thanks. DirkJandeGeer (talk) 17:57, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

I've made a few edits to Tekhelet, so maybe you mean me. But I'm surprised how many more edits have been made since. Anyway — the best place to raise your concerns is the article's talk page. Maproom (talk) 22:39, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

@DirkJandeGeer Welcome to the Teahouse. I looked at both the edits you are referring to and reversed the second one - see my edit summary. As to this one, I do not profess to be interested in, or to understand the subject well enough to say. I do, however, not that it was written by a new user who, very pleasingly, took the time to prepare what they wanted to add in the sandbox (see User:Zackdu/sandbox). So my approach might be to contact them via their talk page and express your concerns, and see if they are agreeable to addressing them all. If you genuinely disagree with the content and feel it is not supported by the cited sources, then remove it and start that discussion. But there is usually no harm done to leave it where it is and discuss with the editor first. You do always have to chance to remove it later if you can't agree, or to take it to the article's talk page. I did a very similar thing with another editor today, and I tend to feel that facilitating a spirit of collaboration is so much more pleasant than one of instantly removing someone's work because it was not written in the right tone of voice, or is uncited. I hope this rather waffly answer is of some assistance. Nick Moyes (talk) 22:42, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the Reply, I don't disagree with what's been said because it looks mostlywell researched to me, beyond one or two things. Its mainly the formatting and tone I thought may be an issue. @Maproom the person I was reffering to was Zackdu, my bad, should have specified. I think I'll do what you suggested and message them on their talk page, and if they agree we can work together on converting their information to better fit Wikipedia's tone.DirkJandeGeer (talk) 22:50, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi all,

I am very new to wikipedia as a contributor and have to say it´s very compplicated as a newcomer. I used the past few days to practise in my sandbox and tried to read up as much on how to use wikipedia as I can.. I actually wanted to go on with this a bit longer, but now I accidentally created a premature Draft (several tabs opened and thought I was still in my sandbox when I hit save changes) which still has several issues and am not sure how to delete it. I am very sorry. But now as it is already out there, maybe I can use it to get some help.

There is the Draft: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Laevicaulis_stuhlmanni

• I ran into some problems of referencing. I wanted to use Reference 1 several times in the text, but I am not sure how to do it. The references always appears several times in the reference list as new reference. How can I cite a reference already in the list several times?
• I also actually wanted to add more Synonyms in the species sandbox, but it appears that I am as a new user not able to edit there?

Thanks for reading and helping :-) Ajottel (talk) 19:25, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

I named your first reference .... you can use a named ref many times and it will appear once in the reference list ---- with a,b,c,etc for the various callouts. See WP:REFNAME. Regards, Ariconte (talk) 19:43, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Ajottel, and welcome to the Teahouse and to Wikipedia. There's no problem having a draft and a sandbox, but having duplicated content is not a good idea. I suggest you blank your sandbox (or put {{db-author}} at the top of it, and an admin will come along and deleted it) and just work on the draft.

I'm not sure what you mean about adding Synonyms "in the species sandbox"; but if you're talking about editing a shared page, I suggest you don't worry about that until your draft has been reviewed and accepted. --ColinFine (talk) 19:48, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Latin binomials, in Wikipedia as elsewhere, should be italicised. Laevicaulis stuhlmanni, not Laevicaulis stuhlmanni. Maproom (talk) 22:43, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

@Ajottel: well I, for one, am impressed! A great job for a newcomer to achieve. I'd be quite happy to see (or move) that draft to mainspace as it is right now. It could be tweaked a little, of course, but sourcing is fine (see WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES). My only observation would be to say that I'd like to know more about where the taxon is native to, and only then read about it's introduction as a pest species to Egypt and the subsequent identification and naming of a new subspecies there. It looks (from this) as though it is native to parts of Africa (Kenya?). One very minor point: you have added a link to introduced, rather than to Introduced species, so this should be fixed, and you can make the correct link appear as introduced by writing it as [[Introduced species|introduced]]. But, quite honestly, well done! Submit the draft and I'll happily move it into mainspace for you if nobody else does! Nick Moyes (talk) 00:02, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Nick Moyes. I usd your tipps to improve the internal referencing and I also researched a bit more on original distribution and added it. Will submit the draft now :-)

Thanks everyone for your help! The referencing problem is resolved and also the issue with the Synonyms in the speciesbox (I just started over new, as I did not know how to edit). Thanks also for the comment on the italics , it´s done.

ColinFine Can you elaborate on why I should not use my sandbox as personal draft space? I actually thought about (re)using it for whenever I want to create an article before putting it to the official draft version) Ajottel (talk) 19:25, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

@Ajottel Don’t worry. You’ve done the right thing by blanking the duplicate content of your sandbox, ready for the next draft you want to work on. Normally, we might ‘move’ our sandbox to a Draft page, rather than simply copy/pasting it, as that retains all your initial editing history. But your way works ok. BTW you’re allowed to create multiple sandboxes, should you wish to work on more than one draft at a time. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:34, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Nick Moyes I actually do not know how to make multiple sandboxes, but I guess I will figure it out if needed :-)

Ajottel, click on User:Ajottel/sandbox2 and perhaps User:Ajottel/sandbox3, or you may prefer User:Ajottel/sandbox_bis and perhaps User:Ajottel/sandbox_ter, or indeed User:Ajottel/just_about_anything_you_care_to_add_here (as the word "sandbox" has no great significance), and enjoy using it. -- Hoary (talk) 02:37, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

How do you merge cells on a table? 108.88.82.1 (talk) 14:34, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello (your name)! Welcome to the Teahouse! It is possible to create cells that stretch over two or more columns. For this, you can use |colspan=n | content. Similarly, you can create cells that stretch over two or more rows. This requires |rowspan=m | content. In the table code, you must leave out the cells that are covered by such a span. The resulting column- and row-counting must fit. More at Help:Table#Cells spanning multiple rows or columns. Happy editing! Richard M William (talk) 15:24, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse! Merging cells in a table is super easy if you're using the VisualEditor - see Help:Introduction to tables with VisualEditor/2. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 21:23, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

how to start a new template? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.88.82.1 (talk) 16:30, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

There's a lot of information at Wikipedia:Templates. If you would like to tell us what type of template you would like to create, we can give you more detailed information (or maybe find an existing template). Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 03:07, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi, I want to join cells for writers in episodes that follow each other so I can make it easier to read. There's also a conflict with this template and the info box which make the episode box way lower than it needs to be. Can anyone help me? Shexantidote (talk) 18:56, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi Shexantidote, welcome to the Teahouse. Please link pages you refer to and only ask questions in one place. I guess it's about pt:Glória (Série). This Teahouse is for the English Wikipedia. You can ask questions about the Portuguese Wikipedia at pt:Ajuda:Tire suas dúvidas. Each language has its own templates and practices but I will try to answer. I don't think {{Episode list}} or the Portuguese version has a way to make rowspan on writers. An episode table uses the full page width by default, meaning it's displayed below the infobox. You can add |total_width=auto in {{Episode table}} to make it fit to the left of the infobox but when it's more narrow, the cells will get more line wraps and the table will be longer. I don't think editors of the English Wikipedia would like it. I don't know the Portuguese Wikipedia. You could also shorten the infobox or add more content before the episode table. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:08, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

 1100035309hi (talk) 19:19, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

@1100035309hi: Welcome to the Teahouse! What would you like to make? GoingBatty (talk) 21:34, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

 1100035309hi (talk) 23:24, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

+_+ bruh — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1100035309hi (talk • contribs) 23:27, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello, 1100035309hi. If you are talking about a Wiki based website, please read MediaWiki. If you are talking about writing a Wikipedia article, then read Help: Your first article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:51, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

@1100035309hi: If you have follow-up questions, please post them in this section instead of creating a new section. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 03:11, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Due to his Judaism vs As a Jew Which would be better? Materialscientist reverted my edit where I changed "As a Jew" (which sounds like mocking the subject for being Jewish) to "Due to his Judaism". 62.165.255.110 (talk) 10:37, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

FYI: The edit in question ClaudineChionh (talk – contribs) 10:52, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

In my opinion, this is a stylistic choice that could go either way. I do not interpret "as a Jew" as mocking, and I am a Jew myself. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:42, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

I'd actually think that "as a Jew" works better than "due to his Judaism" – let me know if I'm wrong about this (as I am not a native speaker of English), but as far as I understand it, "Judaism" refers to the religion. "Due to his Judaism" sounds, to me, as if his being sent to a labour camp was because he practised his religion, rather than because of his ethnicity. --bonadea contributions talk 18:02, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

That is also a good point, Bonadea. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:52, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse! Per the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, the best place to discuss this would be the article talk page: Talk:István Örkény. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 03:21, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

There is no primary topic for "Erie". Saying the primary topic is the city in Pennsylvania is as offensive towards Canadians who live near Lake Erie as it can just get. --62.165.255.110 (talk) 18:03, 5 November 2021 (UTC) 62.165.255.110 (talk) 18:03, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia has an article on Lake Erie. The lake is nearly universally referred to by the name "Lake Erie" in reliable sources and never by the bare name "Erie", except in colloquial speech. --Jayron32 18:08, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

I support the OP. As a Brit, I'm neutral here. When I type "Erie" into the search box, I would expect to be taken either to a disambiguation page, or to an article about the well-known Great Lake, not to an article about a small city. Maproom (talk) 08:30, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm with Jayron. The lake is not "Erie", it is "Lake Erie". Only after context has been established can it be called just "Erie".--Khajidha (talk) 15:00, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Maproom I actually live a few miles from Lake Erie. I have never heard anyone refer to it that way in my entire life. When we Clevelanders hear "Erie" we all think of the city. OP, you should probably take your concerns to the talk page for Erie, Pennsylvania and ask about a Move request. However, I don't think you will get your way. Scorpions13256 (talk) 03:32, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi TeaHouse! Thanks for the opportunity to ask for help, I would have some questions:

1. With the help of the Edit source, I wanted to provide János Grimm’s existing wikipedia page with more information and a few sentences about a member of my family, the long-deceased athlete. There is little data on Wikipedia, the links are good, I note I can’t write a link because my information is from my grandmother, but the ClueBot NG Vandalism automated computer program withdrew my edit. I edited this, I didn’t commit vandalism, my writing was constructive, so I tried to type in the restoration of vandalism. I can see that the word reverted was included in all my editing attempts when I viewed my View history. I can't go wrong with that anymore, can I? 2. I edited the page yesterday, today there is only the original text on the page, the extra information I entered is gone, does that mean that what I edited is no longer there? How do I enter data for retention? 3. I created an account, but what I edited earlier showed my IP address instead of my name. Is there anything I can do to rewrite this in my name, if so, how do I do it or leave it that way? Could this be a problem? 4. What is even more interesting is that the English text still appears correctly, but if I translate it into Hungarian, the text He competed in two events at the 1924 Summer Olympics will disappear. Can this be solved in any way? 5. Please don’t be angry at my question: do I have to pay for your help because your help involves a lot of work, I calm down because I can get help.

I know I wrote many questions at once, but I want to ask for help because you’re a professional at this, I’m worried about everything, I don’t want to do bad or wrong.

Grateful thanks: Peteriancsa (talk) 21:54, 7 November 2021 (UTC) Peteriancsa (talk) 21:54, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi, and welcome to the Teahouse! In order:

1. Unfortunately, information from your grandmother will be original research. We don't like OR because we can't verify it later on. I'm sure others can tell more about the specifics of information like that.

2. It means that your revision was reverted, hence the tag: reverted in the edit history. This does not mean it is gone! This just means it's not the current revision anymore, and that a user went back and restored the revision before yours. You should ask that user for why, if you want clarification.

3. IPs do not convert to account names when you create an account, as this would be abused to connect IPs to users, which is a priviledge extremely restricted to checkusers, a special role.

4. This may be an issue with the translator. How are you translating? If you're going to hu.wikipedia.org, that is different and will have entirely separate articles. If not, make sure you have the revision you wish to translate up.

5. No. And if any editor asks for money, this is a SCAM! Don't do it! Wikipedia is entirely volunteer and no one here is paid by a Wikipedia overlord.

I hope I answered most of your questions. WhoAteMyButter (📨_talk│📝^contribs) 22:09, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Peteriancsa (talk) it is understandable that you want to add information about your relative, but you made some mistakes. Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia, and the writing should be the same as if you were writing a school book, or some other reference book. You can't write "I would like to add to the above", or "Since the biography of my great-grandfather was not known on Wikipedia, I wrote the missing data. All this information was told to me by my grandmother." You should have just written the facts – your relative competed in certain Olympic events, and later on in life he was in a serious accident. And as others have told you, you can't write about what your grandmother told you, you will need to get information from published sources, such as newspaper and magazine articles, or from a history book.

Newspapers keep old issues, either bound copies, or on microfilm or other means of preserving the issues. Do you live near where your relative lived, so that you can make an appointment at the local newspaper to search for old issues from the time of the Olympics, the time of the accident, and the time of Grimm's death? Are there books about the 1924 Olympics, or a local history book that tells about your great grandfather?

If you find good published information read Wikipedia:Citing sources to find out what you need to properly cite the printed facts you have found. Then go to János Grimm, click on the Talk tab at the top of the article (right above your great-grandfather's name) then click on the New Section tab, write down the information found in the published sources you located, and the information on how to cite your sources, and ask someone to add it to the János Grimm article. This will take a lot of work, but that is the only way that you can get added facts into the article. It may take a lot of time to get the information you need from published sources, but the Wikipedia article isn't going any where. It will be there when are ready to ask others to add to the article. Karenthewriter (talk) 05:14, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Can an expert kindly extend me some assistance to improve this draft - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Ruwanthi_Gajadeera Liyamu21 (talk) 04:27, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Some comments:

• The text of an article should not contain direct external links.
• References should follow punctuation, not precede it.
• When a simple uncontroversial statement is followed by ten references, it can make the reader suspect that something fishy is going on.
• Why does an article about a Sri Lankan need sources in Chinese?
• The article would be better without the list of non-notable awards.   Maproom (talk) 09:19, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi Maproom! Thank you for your valuable feedback! I will fix those issues in the article, kindly note that I initially only had one reference for one sentence from reliable sites such as Vogue and Texdata, however, my reviewer declined the article saying there are not enough references in the article that's why I have added those references, moreover, this designer was featured in few competitions in Hong Kong and Taiwan, that is why you may find the article in the Chinese language. I have referenced the awards using the original press releases/announcements from the organisers who are based in London, Hong Kong and Taipei, along with an independent third-party source. These awards are truly independent of the recipient as these are highly competitive awards in the fashion industry. Thank you once again for taking the time to help me with my first article. :) Liyamu21 (talk) 12:28, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

The reviewer didn't say there weren't enough references. They said the references didn't establish that the subject was notable. They hoped for better references, not more references. Three references can be enough to establish notability. A source stating that the subject has won an award, without discussing the subject, doesn't help at all. Maproom (talk) 22:28, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

@Liyamu21: For the statement followed by 10 references, see WP:REFBOMB. GoingBatty (talk) 03:17, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

HiUser:Maproom & User:GoingBatty! Thank you for your valuable input… :) yes, the first reviewer mentioned that there are not enough references to establish the notability of the subject. However, you review my article you may see that in the initial draft I wrote I only included reputable sources such as Vogue, Texdata and announcements from Governmental agencies and award issuers. However, as User:Maproom suggested these sources only mentioned that subject won a specific award, therefore, I included more references supplementary to the original sources from reputable and independent news outlets based in Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Taiwan. However, as per your suggestion, I removed the excess references. Could you please suggest if I could make any other changes to it? Thank you very much for taking the time to help me out. I truly appreciate it. Liyamu21 (talk) 05:20, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

The reviewer declining your draft because, in their opinion, it didn't establish the subject's notability by citing enough reliable independent published sources with extensive discussion of her. I've now checked the first four cited sources. The first is based on an interview with her, and so not independent, and the next three don't discuss her at all, they just state that she won an award. None of them helps establish notability. And the reference bombing mentioned above by GoingBatty is still there. Maybe some of the other references do establish notability, I haven't checked; if they do, you could make it easier for a reviewer to find them by removing most of the worthless and superfluous ones.

tl;dr: References are judged on quality, not quantity. Maproom (talk) 08:45, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

A new user is incorrectly using their talk page as seemingly a sandbox. Should I tag that for speedy deletion? Lightbluerain❄ (Talk | contribs) 09:52, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Unless the content is actually harmful, why don't you simply move the content to their sandbox, let them know you have done so and that they can ask you if they need any assistance? Polyamorph (talk) 10:33, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

@Lightbluerain: If you feel this is just a misunderstanding regarding the purpose of a user talk page and that whatever they’re working on is not a clear-cut violation of WP:NOT, then maybe posting a friendly message explaining your concerns would be a better thing to do in a case like this. An new user might not be aware of WP:SANDBOX or WP:USERSANDBOX. Speedy deletion is probably only really needed if the content on the page has no real value to Wikipedia or is otherwise clearly inappropriate per relevant some Wikipedia policy or guideline like WP:UP or WP:NOTWEBHOST. — Marchjuly (talk) 10:44, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Any administrator check my today's contribution I have nominated few articles for speedy deletion as per created by banned user, if interested please check my recent contributions २ तकर पेप्सी

@२ तकर पेप्सी: I am not an administrator, but here's my two öre anyway: an article created by a sockpuppet of a blocked or banned user is not eligible for speedy deletion under that criterion if other editors, who are not sockpuppets, have made substantial edits to the article. "Substantial" is open for interpretation; Barsha Chatterjee is probably speedyable but Aritra Das is definitely not a G5 candidate. (But it will be the reviewing administrator who makes the final call, of course.) --bonadea contributions talk 18:24, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

yes senior as Aritra Das was created by sock but it was improved by quite good editors, waiting for the decision of administrator २ तकर पेप्सी — Preceding undated comment added 18:31, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

The version of Aritra Das created by the sock was merely a redirect, and the current content was generated by other editors. In any case, the sock had not been blocked at the time of the redirect creation, so in two ways WP:G5 is not applicable. --David Biddulph (talk) 10:54, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

I have been adding content and thus additional citations to the page on Catherine Parr (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catherine_Parr). However, my citations are not automatically populating in the reference list as they should. I am wondering why this is happening and if someone could assist me. I have done every tutorial and read every article on wikipedia citations, I think something is wrong with the existing reference list as none of my trouble shooting is working. Thanks. DrMichelineWhite (talk) 13:52, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

See Help:Footnotes#Footnotes: using a source more than once. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 13:57, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Looking at this edit, you're adding the citation as though it were an inline citation, but at the end of the ref list. If you want that reference to verify a specific passage of text, the same code you added in that edit is fine but it should be placed in the article body at the point where it supports the text; it will then automatically generate a footnote in the reference section which is pointed to by the inline citation. So add that text to the sentence to which it refers and you're good. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 13:58, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

There's this user named EverestMachine 4001 who has been regularly editing articles involving the Talking Tom & Friends franchise, and is usually constructive. Over the past 2/3 days, I reverted edits at List of Talking Tom & Friends (TV series) episodes that claimed that an upcoming episode would air on 26 November because there was no proof anywhere. I also explained that the information wouldn't be accepted per WP:VERIFIABILITY twice, but the third attempt to reinsert the information included what seems to be a personal attack by Everest (icehole = asshole if you change the pronunciation slightly). The edit summaries are as follows:

• First addition (by another editor whom I messaged using Twinkle): →‎Season 5 (2020–present)
• First revert: Reverted good faith edits by Theangrybird10 (talk): Rv unsourced addition
• First readdition by Everest: →‎Season 5 (2020–present): Tube of Light, leave the unconfirmed source alone.
• Second revert: Reverted good faith edits by EverestMachine 4001 (talk): The date is not confirmed by anyone, so it can't be accepted per WP:VERIFIABILITY
• Second readdition by Everest: →‎Season 5 (2020–present): IT DOESN'T FREAKING MATTER YOU ICEHOLE 😡!
• Third revert: Reverted good faith edits by EverestMachine 4001 (talk): WP:VERIFIABILITY is an important Wikipedia policy. No one can be allowed to add information that is not sourced. PS - watch your words

I am aware that this could be considered to be an edit war in which I am involved, but I am also not sure about how I should deal with this editor (or whether I even have the time to deal with them) since edit warring is not the only issue. I don't believe this incident is serious enough to warrant a block, but I have noticed that Everest also seems to not actually understand many notices on their talk page (like this one by me from last month, judging by their response, or most of c:User talk:EverestMachine 4001). So what should be done here (hopefully it's not going to be a block)? In short, Everest seems to not correctly understand talk page notices, loses temper when repeatedly reverted, and clearly insisted on retaining unconfirmed information even after I pointed to WP:VERIFIABILITY. Tube·of·Light 05:53, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

@Tube of Light: You could try discussing on the article's talk page, which hopefully would get other editors to help with the discussion. Good luck! GoingBatty (talk) 14:05, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Every time I upload an image in free use, I'm afraid if it violates copyright laws, especially this file. Its original resolution was 1791*884 px, which I reduced to 450*222 px. But that doesn't look like I reduced the resolution, it's still big.
Some other queries I have:

1. Is it necessary to always convert the extension of logo images to .svg?
2. Is there a 'forum' where I can ask if a file is ok to upload before uploading?
3. Is there a WP:LOGOS for other jurisdictions (countries other than the US)?

 Excellenc1 (talk) 08:35, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

@Excellenc1 Check the edithistory [3] of a logo I recently added. Bots tagged it for reduction, reduced it, and then deleted the old version a few days later. I didn't do anything except uploading. This will probably happen to your logo as well.

1. I think it's just one of the formats allowed, but I don't know much about svg. Perhaps you can find something helpful at WP:SVG.

2. Try WP:IMAGEHELP. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:19, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

@Excellenc1: That particular logo you uploaded doesn't in my (non-lawyer) opinion reach the threshold for originality so you don't need to worry in any case. See WP:Logo Copyright/Trademark for a discussion. There is no need to convert to .svg — and arguably if you did so the resolution as a vector graphic could become too large — so most of the "fair use" logos on English WP are .jpg or .png. Also, I think that our fair use rules apply to logos from any jurisdiction, since the material will be hosted on WP servers located in the US. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:09, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

I'll share you the link it's a biography too and it's been shown on the search result.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_(film_editor) Preethim93 (talk) 11:13, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Sure, other stuff exists, but that doesn't mean it should. (And you don't need to repeat yourself.) ClaudineChionh (talk – contribs) 11:36, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Why do you believe Anthony (film editor) is an autobiography? It was started 13 years ago and has been edited by many people. Even if you found an existing article that was created by the subject of the article, that does not mean that everyone qualifies for an article about themself. The rule of notability applies. David notMD (talk) 15:07, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Dear community,

I am writing to inquire about the process of creating a page about a local artist. I have written the content and submitted it for publishing. Will the page go under review before it is approved for publishing?

Thank you in advance for any feedback.

Best, Flora Mejzinolli Fxm11 (talk) 12:07, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Fxm11, if you are asking about User:Fxm11/sandbox or User:Fxm11/sandbox/Ilir Blakçori, you haven't submitted either for publishing. If you submitted the former, it would be rejected for a lack of references (as well as promotionalism); if you submitted the latter, it would be rejected for not saying anything. I suggest that before you continue your attempt to create a draft about Ilir Blakçori, you become accustomed to Wikipedia by improving articles that aren't relevant to him and in ways that don't mention him. -- Hoary (talk) 12:23, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

You have the beginnings of an article in one place, and a reference in the other. You submitted the latter and it was declined. I suggest you study existing articles about artists to learn what is needed as content and references to support notability. David notMD (talk) 15:14, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

@Fxm11: I recommend you review Help:Introduction, The Wikipedia Adventure, WP:PSCOI, and Help:Your first article. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 15:48, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

How do you start a new tempate? 96.5.248.100 (talk) 15:13, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

There's a lot of information at Wikipedia:Templates. If you would like to tell us what type of template you would like to create, we can give you more detailed information (or maybe find an existing template). Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 15:53, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

I want to write an article about the Argentinian band SIAMÉS. Numerous songs of theirs on YouTube have reached one million views, with two hitting over 15 million and one music video even achieving 130 million.^[1]

I ran into a roadblock when I realized that there's a significant drought in secondary sources, let alone ones with editorial integrity. My only independent leads were an article written by a small blog^[2] and a car interview by a microscopic YouTube channel.^[3]

This band partially meets notability requirements by maintaining a fanbase and prolonged interest in its music, however given the lack of reliable independent sources, I'm conflicted on whether I should make an article about them. Thoughts?

New Editor Cadenrock1 (talk) 14:19, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

@Cadenrock1: Welcome to the Teahouse! I suggest you read the notability criteria for bands, and note that the number of YouTube views are not one of the criteria. If you cannot demonstrate that the band meets one of these criteria, then it may be too soon for an article. I also suggest you review Help:Your first article if you haven't done so already. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 15:52, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

In a case like this where the band is Argentinian, I'd hope that there would already exist such an article in the Spanish-language Wikipedia that would have useful sources (even in Spanish, which is acceptable). However, it appears that SIAMÉS translates as Siamese (mainly in the cat sense) and there is no article on the band. That name is going to give you problems when seeking sources via search engines, so it's going to be tough.... Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:57, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

@Cadenrock1 @Michael D. Turnbull Google search allows you to exclude certain terms with a minus sign, so for example siamese musica -cat -gato would 2,000 results for me which is much more manageable. Playing with other terms that are unique like siamese rock band -cat -gato could help as well. Happy editing/researching! ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 17:20, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

I usually find enough print sources for subjects I am editing, but I wonder how can I specify that what I using the PRINT version—regardless of whether there is an online version/archive of the source or not; If there is no online archive of the source, can I just omit the url parameter—or is it mandatory? What is the best template to accomplish this? Should I use Template:cite news? SX3001 (talk) 15:07, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

If it's a newspaper, {{cite news}} is suitable, journals can be cited with {{cite journal}} and the URL parameter left out. It's not mandatory to use an online version of a source and many well-research articles will have print-only sources. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 15:12, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, this clarified the whole thing. SX3001 (talk) 15:35, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

SX3001, if the print source is also available online, then best practice is to include the URL. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:20, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

uh how do i make an actual page TrevorHenderfan (talk) 18:47, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello, TrevorHenderfan, and welcome to the Teahouse. The answer is, by thoroughly understanding what are the fundamental requirement for an article, and how to write one. You can find information at your first article. But I always advise new editors interested in creating an article to put the idea aside for at least six months while they 'learn the trade' of editing Wikipedia. In my experience, an editor who starts with small improvements to articles that interest them, and gradually expand their scope as they grasp more of Wikipedia's strange policies and practices, generally starts adding value to Wikipedia straight away, and gets satisfaction from doing so. Editors who try the extremely difficult task of creating an article bafore they understand what that takes typically have a disappointing and frustrating time, and often end up taking value out of Wikipedia, as they take up more experienced editors' time in sorting out the problems they inadvertently cause. --ColinFine (talk) 19:36, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

When I try to visit my article, "Black Death In China", I am always redirected to "Black Death". Can anyone inform me why this is happening? IntellectuallyOlder(Alt. Account) (talk) 18:51, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi, User:IntellectuallyOlder(Alt. Account), welcome to the Teahouse. If you look in the article history, which is here, you will see that the last edit of the article, by User:Mccapra on November 8, turned it into a redirect to Black Death, giving the reason "this mostly repeats material from the main article. The one sentence that’s actually about the topic has no source supporting it". Bishonen | tålk 19:01, 8 November 2021 (UTC).

Hello, IntellectuallyOlder(Alt. Account). To add to what Bishonen has said, if you think there is enough material to ground a separate articler, I suggest opening a discussion on Talk:Black Death and see if you can attain consensus that this is worthwhile. --ColinFine (talk) 19:38, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

So I proposed moving Sheriff Woody to Woody (Toy Story) and everyone has supported it with good reasons as you can see at talk:Sheriff Woody. So when will the page be moved to that name. I can’t do it cause their is already a redirect page called Woody (Toy Story). Kaleeb18 (talk) 13:35, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

@Kaleeb18: The page will be moved once the discussion is closed, which will be 7 days (1 week) after either the discussion was first opened or the last comment/vote was made. I can't find the page that details which one it is, however I think it's most likely after the last comment/vote is made. Either way, you have to wait until the discussion is closed. ― Blaze The Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 14:15, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

@Blaze The Wolf: when you say it will close after the last vote was made do you mean like it will close after a week if another vote hasn't been cast. Kaleeb18 (talk) 17:06, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

@Kaleeb18: Yep! If after the most recent vote no one else votes for a week than it is able to be closed. There are other circumstances that allow discussions to be closed early (such as WP:SNOW) but generally it's 1 week after the most recent vote was made, and usually it's an admin that closes it as Wikipedia doesn't really do a majority vote. WP:VOTE provides a bit more detail on the "voting" process. ― Blaze The Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 17:53, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

@Blaze The Wolf: Thank You! Kaleeb18 (talk) 19:22, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

No problem! ― Blaze The Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 19:43, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

I just recently posted my second article, and when I went to google to see it, it was nowhere to be found. The article is titled Christianization of the Roman Empire as caused by attractive appeal and normally any part of that title would get a hit, but even when you go to the bottom of the google search page and click on related questions, it is still a no show. It's as if it doesn't exist. I don't understand. Can you explain this strange phenomenon, and is there anything I can do about it? Change the title? Is something hidden on the page that shouldn't be? Am I in an alternate universe? Please help! :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:48, 8 November 2021 (UTC) Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:48, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

We don't control when articles start appearing in search results on Google. That's up to Google themselves and there's nothing we can do to make it appear faster. ― Blaze The Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 20:50, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Okay Blaze The Wolf, sorry, I thought maybe there was something I had done or not done that I was unaware of (too inexperienced to know about). I've made a couple of flubs that way! I wonder what google's standards are! Oh well! Ce la víe! Thanx for the quick response. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:58, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

No problem! This is definitely not a fault on your part. ― Blaze The Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 21:01, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi Jenhawk777, the article needs to be marked as "Reviewed" by a new page patroller before it is sent to Google for indexing. The purpose of this is to try to ensure that articles are in decent shape before they start showing up at the top of a Google search. There are currently over 8,000 articles in the New Pages Feed awaiting review, but there is also an NPP drive going on this month to try to clear out some of that backlog. DanCherek (talk) 20:59, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Dang DanCherek!! I knew it was my fault somehow. I was told that I didn't need to have an article reviewed before publishing any longer and could just go straight to article myself, so I did. Then someone came along and rated it B class, and that was okay - I will do more later - but it needs to be reviewed after all it seems, so I will put it on that list! I hope... I think... I'll try! How about volunteering for that Dan?  :-) You have provided me with half the citations I used I'm sure! Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:09, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

It's a bit of confusing terminology. By "review" I don't mean going through the Articles for Creation process and submitting it as a draft. It is totally fine to create it directly in mainspace as you did. All new articles, whether or not they go through the Articles for Creation process, are put in the new pages feed for review (unless the article creator has the autopatrolled right). DanCherek (talk) 21:12, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

DanCherek Okay. I think I understand. Does the fact it was rated B mean it was reviewed or does the fact it doesn't show up anywhere indicate it hasn't been? Where would I find that? Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:16, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

The talk page assessment is an unrelated thing. When the article is reviewed, it will probably show up in the page log (for example, see this page log for your Religious responses to the problem of evil split). DanCherek (talk) 21:31, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi, we are looking to create a Wiki page for one of our clients and wanted to understand the best way to do this?

While we usually suggests edits to our other client Wiki pages, how do we actually create/suggest a page on Wiki? SSuggests (talk) 21:56, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

SSuggests Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. You may make a suggestion at Requested articles, but the backlog is so severe it may be a long time before it is acted on.

Creating a new article is the hardest thing to do on Wikipedia, and it's even harder with a conflict of interest. Your clients may not understand what Wikipedia is actually for, and that a Wikipedia article is not necessarily a good thing. Any article about a topic is in no way for the benefit of the subject. There may be benefits, but those are on the side and not our primary goal. A Wikipedia article must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the subject, showing how it meets Wikipedia's special definition of notability. Wikipedia has no interest in what a subject says about itself(this includes press releases, brief mentions, announcements of routine activities), only in what others completely unconnected with the topic choose to say about it. Please read Your First Article. If you still wish to attempt to create an article, please use Articles for creation. We also usually recommend that you first gain experience by editing existing articles. 331dot (talk) 22:16, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello,

I'm editing Brest Tramway and I want to add signs for corresponding bus stations just like the French article, could this be done in English wikipedia? I found similar symbols in articles like Lusail LRT, such as this "M1" for a metro station.

Thanks for your effort! Elhady514 (talk) 20:38, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Elhady514. Do the templates documented in Template:Rail-interchange/doc/FR help? --ColinFine (talk) 20:53, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Repinging Elhady514 --ColinFine (talk) 20:53, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

That's helpful! Thank you! Elhady514 (talk) 22:54, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello, I was wondering what is the policy for referencing sources that are behind a paywall. Is it enough that I have access to these sources and accurately cite them? Do all sources need to be available to the public? Smerdyakov911 (talk) 22:47, 8 November 2021 (UTC)Smerdyakov911 Smerdyakov911 (talk) 22:47, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

You're entirely free to use paywalled sources; WP:PAYWALL is the relevant guideline here. It is useful to denote sources behind a paywall with either the {{Subscription required}} template or with the relevant fields if you're using a citation style 1 template. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 22:54, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Terrific thanks exactly what I needed Smerdyakov911 (talk) 22:57, 8 November 2021 (UTC)Smerdyakov911

 2601:644:202:E060:6152:DF11:C337:773A (talk) 21:51, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

As explained here. -- Hoary (talk) 23:05, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not have pages. Instead it has articles. The distinction is subtle but important. You will be guided if you follow the process at WP:AFC Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 23:08, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

In a draft article I was writing, I was looking for the tag "Dance" as in "Dance music". So, when I searched "Dance" in the tag searcher thing, I found a tag titled "Dance". So, I clicked on it, adding it to the page's talk. I didn't suspect anything was wrong, only to find out later that it was the wrong "Dance". Instead, I had entered the "Dance" as in dancing and ballet or stuff, and unfortunately, I didn't know how to remove it. Can someone help me to remove this? WaterflameIsAwesome (talk) 23:06, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Do you mean wikiproject banners? If so, to remove the Wikiproject Dance banner, just delete the text which reads {{WikiProject Dance}} and save the page. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 23:18, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Ok, thanks! WaterflameIsAwesome (talk) 23:20, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

I would like to enter the doi of the book and the doi of the chapter.

Failure example 1;Grothendieck, Alexander; Raynaud, Michele (2002). "Revêtements étales et groupe fondamental§XII. Géométrie algébrique et géométrie analytique". Revêtements étales et groupe fondamental (SGA 1). arXiv:math/0206203. doi:10.1007/BFb0058656. ISBN 978-2-85629-141-2. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |DUPLICATE-doi= ignored (help)(. doi:10.1007/BFb0058656. {{cite book}}: Missing or empty |title= (help),. doi:10.1007/BFb0058667. {{cite book}}: Missing or empty |title= (help))

Failure example 2;Grothendieck, Alexander; Raynaud, Michele (2002). "Revêtements étales et groupe fondamental§XII. Géométrie algébrique et géométrie analytique". Revêtements étales et groupe fondamental (SGA 1). arXiv:math/0206203. doi:10.1007/BFb0058656. ISBN 978-2-85629-141-2. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |chapter-doi= ignored (help) SilverMatsu (talk) 02:45, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

@SilverMatsu: I don't think you can have multiple doi values in {{cite book}}. If you don't get an answer here, you might want to ask at Help talk:Citation Style 1. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 03:34, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

@GoingBatty: thank you for teaching me. I will post.--SilverMatsu (talk) 12:29, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

@SilverMatsu: I think that the problem is that you should be using chapter-url not chapter-doi (see documentation at cite book linked by GoingBatty). So the following works correctly, I believe:^[1] which uses the doi for the book and the url for the chapter (which becomes linked via the title) Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:57, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

@Michael D. Turnbull: Thank you for teaching me. I missed that doi is a url. --SilverMatsu (talk) 15:56, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

(outdent) A doi link of the format doi:123 can consistently converted into a url as https://doi.org/123. I am not sure if there are consistent conventions re Chapter DOI's, but if you had to do only one link, it will still lead to the larger book/publication and as a rule of thumb, the more precise, the better. The suggestion above of a chapter url is great. This was a really interesting question, thank you! ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 17:29, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

If you're citing the chapter, use the DOI for the chapter. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:30, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi so I want to link a user's userpag, it says it is not created, even though the userpage is created. Can you please tell me how to fix this problem. Lol78231469 (talk) 01:19, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

@Lol78231469: Which page are you trying to link to? RudolfRed (talk) 01:21, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm trying to link a user's homepage. Lol78231469 (talk) 01:23, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes. Which user? RudolfRed (talk) 01:25, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

User ButteronBread Lol78231469 (talk) 01:29, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. You can do [[User:ButteronBread]] which links to User:ButteronBread RudolfRed (talk) 01:31, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks so much. Have a good day. Lol78231469 (talk) 01:32, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Can I make this template? Faster than Thunder (talk) 03:27, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

What would the template do? Is it intended as a user warning? You should see WP:UW for that. WhoAteMyButter (📨_talk│📝^contribs) 04:58, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

@Faster than Thunder: Are you intending the template to be used at the top of articles, or on user talk pages, or something else? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 14:01, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

I intend to use it on user talk pages. Faster than Thunder (talk) 23:31, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

@Faster than Thunder: I'm not aware of a user warning template for that topic. I suggest posting on Wikipedia:Requested templates with the exact wording you would like to have the template produce. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 03:53, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello friends! I'm very new to Wikipedia and really enjoying editing. I'm curious about the use of social media, Instagram in particular, as a source for information. I recognize that social media can be sketchy at best, but in my attempt to make an article for Club Quarantine, I've found myself citing Instagram as the only source for certain pieces of information. Perhaps I need to review certain items relating to sourcing or what qualifies for an article - if so please provide the appropriate links. Generally, I'm curious to discuss Instagram or other social media platforms as citations - are there instances where this is ideal? What sort of Instagram posts could/can be cited? Thanks for reading, and I look forward to reading your thoughts. Pteridaceae (talk) 02:41, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for asking! User-generated content is generally not acceptable as a source. ClaudineChionh (talk – contribs) 02:51, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you! On reading the section you linked to I see that user-generated materials can be acceptable when certain criteria are met. The main reason I was hoping to source information from Instagram was to compile information about what performers have been a part of Club Quarantine - and one of the criteria for including user-generated content is that it does not make claims about third parties. Thanks - I'll go tidy up that article. Pteridaceae (talk) 03:46, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Happy to help! It may also be worth asking on the talk pages for the LGBT and Toronto WikiProjects to see if members of those projects can help with sources. ClaudineChionh (talk – contribs) 03:54, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

― Blaze The Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 18:10, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

How do you get other editors to help improving an article or draft on Wikipedia? I'm trying and failing to help improving an article/draft of Draft:Michael Rainey Jr., help. Motlatlaneo (talk) 18:06, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

@Motlatlaneo: This is the place to do it, but you got to be specific with what problem you may have. Editors here will not write your draft for you, but we will give you tips and direct you to relevant policies that you should be familiar with. My general advice to new editors is to complete The Wikipedia Adventure, which is a pretty good crash course for newbies. You're also free to drop by the Teahouse at any time for any time; there are no stupid questions. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (talk) 18:26, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

@Motlatlaneo: I hope you can provide some independent WP:reliable sources that provide significant coverage about Rainey. Since the infobox mentions 50 Cent, that's something you should also explain in the draft. If you haven't done so already, see Help:Your first article. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 03:59, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

I got a notification about client payment. I would like to say that I DO NOT want to be paid for anything I do on Wikipedia. If necessary, I will no longer make any edits. The message was from VViking. DuneEditor (talk) 01:08, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello, DuneEditor. Apparently, Viewmont Viking interpreted your addition of many plot details to the article Dune (novel) as being promotional. I cannot see any promotion. I hope that VViking can respond here with an explanation.--Quisqualis (talk) 02:13, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

I suspect it was because the username is DuneEditor and all edits of the account were to Dune (novel). Paid editors often have a username similar to an article they edit promotionally. I agree the actual edits don't look promotional. Wikipedia:Username policy#Promotional names says that "Usernames that unambiguously represent the name of a company, group, institution or product" are not permitted. It can be debated whether "DuneEditor" breaks that. Dune (franchise) is old and famous with many fans. I would permit the username. PrimeHunter (talk) 04:03, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello, I want to know about my Wikipedia page how can I make it better and how can I get it approved https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:MariusCatalinPredut MariusCatalinPredut (talk) 19:52, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

See the advice at WP:AUTO, don't try to write about yourself. Also, articles here must be in English. RudolfRed (talk) 20:18, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

MariusCatalinPredut (talk) If you read Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English you will learn the importance of writing English Wikipedia articles in English. If you are able to translate it yourself it would lessen the work others will need to do. Karenthewriter (talk) 23:35, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

@MariusCatalinPredut: I suggest you also review WP:NBIO, WP:EASYREFBEGIN, WP:EL, and Help:Your first article. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 04:06, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

so the page i want to create is a placeholder for other wikipedia editors to edit is this allowed?  Clock broken (talk) 04:07, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

@Clock broken: Welcome to the Teahouse! You can create a draft and ask other editors to help you develop it to become an article. See Help:Your first article for lots of information. GoingBatty (talk) 04:13, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

All I'm doing is replacing a WREX source with its original AP source, and for some reason, I'm getting the error message: "The following link has triggered a protection filter: b ". I have absolutely no idea what the hippity-hoppity heck is going on with this, but it's clearly erroneous, as nothing I've changed has had a blacklisted link. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 23:21, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi, TheTechnician27, I suspect the problem was a typo in a change to the local spam blacklist; the typo has already been fixed, so try the edit again and see if it works now. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 23:33, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Ouch. Somebody (with "Black" in their name) accidentally blacklisted every url containing a 'b'. Special:Log/spamblacklist suddenly got busy for 15 minutes. PrimeHunter (talk) 04:36, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

My teammates and I used Wikipedia for presenting our university article, so that everyone could have access to the content and even they could modify them under the topic of decentralised and distributed archives. Is there anyway to recover it? 188.189.240.163 (talk) 07:45, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

This query is the only edit made by IP address 188.189.240.163. Did any of the 'teammates' create an account that shows a history of working on a draft or article? Was it given a name? After working on it, did people click on "Publish"? Because that means Save. David notMD (talk) 07:53, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

I was about to ask for the revocation of rollback rights due to having concerns that the lag I am experiencing when using the web browser version of Wikipedia may cause accidental clicks of the rollback function when browsing the history logs of articles. The problem is that, by default, the rollback function is lacking a preview mode/confirmation dialog that would prevent such accidents when there is a lag. Therefore, and until these web browser performance issues are addressed, I am trying to find a solution to this. While reading this page here: [4], it came to my notice that there is a script created exactly for this purpose: [5] and I just followed the instructions and created this here: [6] but, this is unusual for me, I am not sure I did right, or if I have missed something. Does really the Wikipedia Project function that way? By creating new pages just to configure the behavior of a gadget for a certain user? Thank you. - ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 03:58, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

common.js (and common.css) are indeed the pages/files that allow users to add many customisations to their MediaWiki experience – you can find out more at Common.js and common.css (which links to more documentation) ClaudineChionh (talk – contribs) 04:09, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Fascinating. Thank you! --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 13:01, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

 41.114.159.26 (talk) 13:23, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, is there a question we can answer for you? --Jayron32 13:37, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Please tell me how I can reply to comments by an editor. I find this site almost impenetrable.

Liffernet (talk) 08:41, 9 November 2021 (UTC) Liffernet (talk) 08:41, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Here I am, replying to you, Liffernet. You asked a question; I answer it (I hope) below, indenting the reply. (I indent by using one more colon to start a line than you used. You used none, so I use one.) If on the other hand you're asking about the content of a reply ... well, please elaborate here a little. And are the comments in an article talk page or on your talk page? These are straightforward; by contrast, comments on a draft do present some complications. -- Hoary (talk) 08:50, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

@Liffernet At Preferences > Beta features > Discussion tools you can enable a tool that makes it easier. WP:TUTORIAL can be of help. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:57, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Answered on your Talk page. David notMD (talk) 14:44, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi friends, I'm working on the page below, the biography of a deceased person.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Oswald_George_Powe

I've leaned heavily from two sources that are written by his daughter and his wife. I'm worried about the neutrality of those sources. I don't need them to establish notability, that is already done, but still, have I relied on them too much?

All/any help on this or any other aspect of the draft is welcome.

CT55555 (talk) 13:05, 9 November 2021 (UTC) CT55555 (talk) 13:05, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Removed the subsection titles and reordered content David notMD (talk) 15:11, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello. Tell me how to submit an article for review? Nikeek (talk) 07:33, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Courtesy: Nikeek has created a draft in User:Nikeek/sandbox. David notMD (talk) 07:51, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia! You can read about the steps to create an article, and you are strongly advised to read your first article as well. It's also a very good idea to spend some time on other tasks here before creating a new article, which is one of the more difficult tasks in Wikipedia. ClaudineChionh (talk – contribs) 07:53, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Sandbox content copied to Draft:Klepikova Svetlana Arkadyevna and submitted to AfC. David notMD (talk) 15:15, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

@Nikeek and David notMD: Moved to Draft:Svetlana Arkadyevna Klepikova and did some light copyediting. Also tagged a section with no references. GoingBatty (talk) 15:31, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello i have tried to remove “needs update” on a wiki page but idk how please help. Thank u! 178.22.207.254 (talk) 07:40, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Which article? David notMD (talk) 07:42, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse! If you're referring to the ^{[needs update]} in Tetra Pak, I see you recently provided 2021 data without providing a reference for that data, so David notMD reverted your edits. You can remove {{update inline}} when the 2017 data and its reference has been replaced with 2021 information. Thanks for asking, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 15:36, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

How do you use the different tools for a post on Wikipedia? MagicalWinx (talk) 15:23, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

@MagicalWinx: Welcome to the Teahouse! If you're asking for resources to learn how to edit Wikipedia, I recommend Help:Introduction and The Wikipedia Adventure. If not, please clarify your question. Hope this helps, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 15:49, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_B._Curtiss I need to know how to put in references to add that certain people who have bio entries on Wikipedia were protectionists, because the bland bios are not saying it. They are not making people see that there was a protection story. Can I please be instructed on how do I reference something so the truth can be known about Americans who were protectionists. CurtissSmith (talk) 10:59, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi CurtissSmith Before you try and add any such content to a Wikipedia article, please take a look at WP:RGW, WP:VNT and WP:UNDUE. In addition, might want to look at WP:BLPSOURCES (if the persons in question are still living), WP:NOTEVERYTHING and WP:CAUTIOUS for reference as well. If the content you’re trying to add is considered contenious by other editors, you may have establish a WP:CONSENSUS to add it through article talk page discussion even if it can be reliably sourced. — Marchjuly (talk) 11:15, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Help:Referencing for beginners on how to. You embed the ref in the text and the ref program automatically numbers it and places the ref in References. I have found that creating a reference in my sandbox until I get the format right, and only then paste it into the article, is a good habit. Also, if there are people who are already the subject of Wikipedia articles, their names within double brackets name creates a link to those articles without the need for a ref. David notMD (talk) 15:02, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Inferring from your comment at User talk:Rotideypoc41352#Question from EzraCyrusmerleCarey (11:53, 8 November 2021): a friendly reminder to please put the names of any other accounts on your userpage and stick to one account. Thank you! Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 15:53, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Is there a Wikipedia page that shows a list of articles most viewed on that particular day? Like the 'trending videos' on YouTube? Excellenc1 (talk) 15:35, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

@Excellenc1: You may be interested in Wikipedia:Top 25 Report, which is a weekly report. Happy reading! GoingBatty (talk) 15:51, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

@GoingBatty: Thank you! Also another question, not related to this: If suppose I edited an article such that its quality is probably increasing, how do I ask someone to review it to change the quality in the talk page? Say for example I improved Departments of France, currently rated C-Class. If I made it a Good Article, how do I know I did; how do I know it's not B-Class? You get me? Excellenc1 (talk) 16:22, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

@Excellenc1: There's a nomination process before an article can be considered a Good article. Lower assessments are more informal - you can reassess yourself or contact the related WikiProject (e.g. Wikipedia:WikiProject France/Review). Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 16:35, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

I recently edited Congressman Diaz Balart page to include the fact that he voted against the Infrastructure Bill, that would provide hundreds of millions of dollars to his state of Florida in areas such as roads and bridges repairs, and to bring the Internet to poorer areas. I cited as my source the New York Times that published on November 5, 2021 a roll call of all votes for the Bil. However my Editing was removed and I am being called disruptive . I really do not understand whhy. Chalaju (talk) 16:34, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

@Chalaju: Welcome to the Teahouse! While one of your edit summaries mentioned the "New York Time", you did not include the information about the specific NYT article in your edit as a footnote. You should not repeat your unsourced edit again and again. If you would like to learn how to add a reference, you may be interested in WP:EASYREFBEGIN. Or, per the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, you may discuss it on the article's talk page: Talk:Mario Díaz-Balart, with the URL of the NYT article or the information about the printed version (e.g. article name, date, author, page number). Thanks, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 16:41, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hello, Chalaju Your edit to Mario Díaz-Balart was not a neutral summary of what happend, but editorialising in tone, so somebody reverted it. Then instead of discussing the issue, you reapplied your edit: that is called edit warring and is a kind of disruptive editing. It is almost certain that the information you want to add can be added, but you need to reach consensus with other editors about how it is worded. Please read neutral point of view, and WP:BRD. --ColinFine (talk) 16:44, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Is there a way to get attention of new page viewers in a draft? BruhOfficial (talk) 17:04, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse! Why do you want to get their attention? Do you need any help? Lightbluerain❄ (Talk | contribs) 17:15, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

@Lightbluerain: I thought you might want to know that BruhOfficial is a Confirmed block evading sock awaiting a block. Best, M.Bitton (talk) 17:35, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

How can I request a consensus change on a talk page? There is this article which I believe has been violating Wikipedia's manual of style; I brought up the issue on its talk page more than two months ago, and after a failure to discuss have sought other alternatives (which ultimately led to no result) and the editor who contested the change has stated that they've taken the article off their watchlist, so no chance of further discussion. It's a pretty complex issue and I would really appreciate some advice. Do let me know if concrete details would be helpful. Coconutyou3 (talk) 17:38, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Coconutyou3. The Request for comment process may be helpful, because it draws uninvolved editors into the discussion. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:59, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

 2.26.61.32 (talk) 17:56, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello IP! Did you have a question that you wanted to ask us related to editing Sheffield? ― Blaze The Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 17:59, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

I recently posted the above referenced article. I would like to ask if it is actually considered orphan, given that there exists within numerous links to related Wikipedia articles. The following template message is placed above the article:

"This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page. (Learn how and when to remove these template messages) This article is an orphan, as no other articles link to it. Please introduce links to this page from related articles; try the Find link tool for suggestions." (November 2021) Tonymartin (talk) 18:25, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

@Tonymartin: hello Tony! The article would still be considered an orphan because it's not linked to by any other articles on Wikipedia. You can use Special:WhatLinksHere/ARTICLENAME to see what pages link to a specific page. The WhatLinksHere for the article you linked (seen in Special:WhatLinksHere/Donald Arthur Hatch) shows a log for the editorial team, your userpage, a subpage of your user page (Which redirects to the article), and the article's own talk page. ― Blaze The Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 18:31, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

• @Tonymartin, hello and welcome to the Teahouse, yes the article was an orphan but it no longer is, as I have de-orphaned it. Furthermore you may want take a look at both WP:REFB & WP:CITE. Celestina007 (talk) 18:38, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

I believe the page Miss International Queen Vietnam is partially or wholly translated from VI Wiki (with at least some copyedits). Should this attributed and, more importantly, how should it be attributed? I’m having difficulty finding this information in what I thought would be relevant policy pages. Thanks! :-) postleft ✍ (Arugula) ☞ say hello! 18:12, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi @Postleft! Yes, translated material should be attributed. The relevant page is a bit difficult to find since it isn't at WP:TRANSLATION, its at Help:Translation. If you check the first section of that page, called "License Requirements," there's an edit summary template and a template to add to the very top of the page as well. Happy editing! :) ThadeusOfNazereth^{Talk to Me!} 18:21, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Okay, thank you!! postleft ✍ (Arugula) ☞ say hello! 18:24, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

@Postleft @ThadeusOfNazereth That is confusing indeed! I WP:BOLDLY updated WP:TRANSLATION to more conveniently reference Help:Translation and encourage you both to make content changes that would have helped you find it more easily. The two pages possibly could be merged to reduce WP:ASTONISHMENT ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 19:06, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, that is very helpful! postleft ✍ (Arugula) ☞ say hello! 19:38, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

I live in Seattle and vote. As such, I research people running for office in any way I can. I noticed that Nikkita Oliver- who recently lost another election here- has a wikipedia article but Sara Nelson- who is now the winner of the election for Seattle City Council- is not represented in Wikipedia. Since Sara's name is potentially more common, I did try to make sure that I just didn't see her, but indeed all the Sara Nelson's listed on Wikipedia are someone else.

I read the guidelines for a biography and I read Nikkita Oliver's biography. She is not notable. There is nothing in her accomplishments that is notable. For example, her claim to be a leader in BLM is at best questionable. Many people have made that claim only to have others in the movement dispute it. For example, she live-streamed a conversation with city officials and that is notable? It sounds vaguely illegal to me if done without their consent, and a form of trying to entrap or catch people saying something that could be interpreted out of context in a bad way. Many people in Seattle have run for office and failed and many people have contacted city officials to enact change. If all those people were listed that would be fair. I know people who waited in line for hours to address the city council but were not granted that request. The fact that Nikkita got the privilege of meeting with officials and gets the privilege of press coverage is truly unfair. The idea that she has done something notable is not borne out by the facts. My question is- why is Nikkita Oliver listed at all in Wikipedia? How do I nominate someone to be removed from Wikipedia. Ruth Berge 19:21, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Rberge0108, and welcome to the Teahouse. The answer to "Why is there an article about X in Wikipedia" is always "because somebody wrote it and nobody has successfully nominated it for deletion". On the face of it, the article appears to be well sourced, but I haven't looked at the references to see if they are reliable and independent of Oliver. If you are conscientiously persuaded that the subject does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability, then it is open to you, or anybody else, to nominate the article for deletion: see WP:AFD for how the process works. --ColinFine (talk) 19:38, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Rberge0108 Welcome to Tea House! In addition to what @ColinFine said, if you believe an article should exist, as long as you can establish Wikipedia:Notability or subject specific guidelines like Wikipedia:NPOLITICIAN you can create the article. I first checked Sara Nelson which is a disambiguation page, and from there found Sara Nelson (politician) which you are more than encouraged to expand! Also please sign your posts, by using four (not five) tildes; see Wikipedia:4TILDES for extra advice. Happy editing! ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 19:49, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing me to the information on notability. I believe I read it in 2021. It says "The common theme in the notability guidelines is that there must be verifiable, objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention from independent sources to support a claim of notability."

I do not see a measure of what constitutes "significant" and that is part of notability. Ms Oliver doesn't meet the criteria listed in WP:ANYBIO nor Category:Wikipedia notability guidelines.

I didn't look for every failed candidate for Seattle city council person's page and it looks like Sara nelson's page was edited on Nov. 8, the day after I made my comment.

From what I understand, I could submit for deletion of the page and then actively watch this chat for 7 days to debate. Thanks. Ruth Berge 04:38, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your information. Ruth Berge 04:13, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

I actually have no experience with computers. I am ready to learn but finding it difficult to get a start. I am actually interested in research and would like to work with wiki with some companies that are affiliated with wiki I think. I don't know I was manic when it came across for me to read. I would like to research child predators and start a project to reach out to children and teens. Teach parents how to promote healing environment for them etc. But I'm guessing if there's already one you can point me in the right direction. I wouldn't mind editing and helping where I can. I've just spent most my life in the search for advancing myself for this purpose, I'd like to work in that arena 😅 Down4it4ever (talk) 20:06, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

@Down4it4ever: welcome to Wikipedia. I'm afraid Wikipedia is not the place for the kind of project you propose. Wikipedia is not a place for advocacy or to "reach out" to any group of people to help them. However, if you are interested in editing Wikipedia's articles, there are many ways to help out. You'll find some tutorials here. Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 20:15, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

• @Down4it4ever, hello and welcome to the Teahouse, to expound on what my colleague Bonadea already told you, if you are looking to understand what Wikipedia is then please take the Wikipedia WP:ADVENTURE & feel free to read WP:TUTORIAL also. You mentioned also that you do research work, I’m afraid Wikipedia has a policy against original research being on any article. You can contribute to Wikipedia by reading WP:CTW. Furthermore Wikipedia is not a WP:FORUM. Take a look here; WP:NOT to show you what Wikipedia isn’t. Celestina007 (talk) 20:20, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello there fellow wikipedians, I’ve been working on the article Sheriff Woody a lot recently and I’m just wondering if someone can check over the work I have done to make sure I’m doing things right. I would really like someone to look over the section development specifically. I’ve been looking at the article Elsa (Frozen) to help me with examples on what I should add and get rid of. Kaleeb18 (talk) 18:25, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

@Kaleeb18 Welcome to Tea House! I looked over your edits and they look like improvements to me! I noticed this was your second question about the article on Tea House, and would encourage you to continue seeking feedback directly on the relevant talk page Talk:Sheriff Woody in this case. I'd also encourage you to read the essay WP:Other Stuff. The available sources, WP:V information will differ for every article. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 18:56, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

I was just using Elsa (Frozen) as a guideline of what my writing should somewhat look like I also used WP:DISNEY character guideline. Kaleeb18 (talk) 21:13, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

How do I link a source about a sentence or paragraph without making a separate area? Lancelincoln214 (talk) 20:08, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

• @Lancelincoln214, hello and welcome to the Teahouse, In order to learn to do INLINE citations properly you may want to see WP:CITE. Celestina007 (talk) 20:23, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

@Lancelincoln214 You might also like to read WP:REFBEGIN. I'm afraid I'm not quite sure what you mean by "separate area". All inline citations are inserted immediately after the relevant statement, and both appear as a superscript number at the end of the relevant sentence/paragraph, whilst the full details are displayed within a separate area at the bottom of the page, titled 'References'. This requires a special template ({{reflist}}) to be inserted into that section which makes all the inline citations appear together there. Hope this helps. Nick Moyes (talk) 21:42, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

I would like to help clean up the Diana Nyad WP entry, but I'm not sure where to start or even if I ought to. I'd very much appreciate some guidance.

I have devoted much of the last six years to unearthing information about Nyad's career. Much of what I've found can be unflattering to her. I have lots of opinions about Nyad. However, I have no interest in sharing those opinions in the edits. I'd just like to help get things right. The facts need no help from me.

Still, if I edited her page, would that be considered a conflict of interest? Here are my two Nyad sites:

1. Diana Nyad Fact Check
2. Diana Nyad Fact Check Annex

Here are a few (but not the only) examples of problems in the introductory paragraph of the Diana Nyad entry:

1. Citation [3] links to an article that no longer exists on the NY Times site. However, you can still find it at AP News.
2. "In 2013 . . . she became the first person claiming to have swum."
   Peculiar construction, though I'm not sure how I'd fix it.
3. [The Cuba-Florida swim] "has not been formally ratified by any recognised swim body."
   This is no longer technically true. In 2019, Steven Munatones, Diana Nyad's main supporter in the marathon swimming community, edited Nyad's Openwaterpedia entry to retroactively ratify her crossing under the auspices of the World Open Water Swimming Association (WOWSA). Munatones founded and remains the driving force behind both Openwaterpedia and WOWSA. The ratification contradicted a statement he made two weeks after the feat: "Diana's swim was . . . off-the-grid, with no organization regulating it. The classification of her record may never be resolved."^[1]
4. "Nyad was also once ranked thirteenth among US women squash players."
   Even if this were verifiable, does it belong in the introduction? And the sole source — Ahead of Their Time: A Biographical Dictionary of Risk-Taking Women — contains multiple conspicuous errors. Other references to Nyad's squash ranking, including two from the dictionary's own Nyad entry, give it as 12th.^[2] Others give 14th.^[3] Many websites give 30th, though that's probably a mix-up with 13th. I've searched for the actual rankings without success. IMO, any statement that relies solely Ahead of Their Time for verification should be excluded. Examples of other problems with Ahead of Their Time:
   • The first sentence — "For a decade Diana Nyad held the record as the best marathoner in the world for both distance and speed" — would be too vague to be verifiable even if it weren't false.
   • "Her father died when she was an infant." Diana was born in 1949. William Sneed died in 2015. He'd changed his surname to "Blake," though, so this can be confusing.^[4] Diana's entry included her biological father's premature demise until December 24, 2013. Ahead of Their Time was the source.
   • "Nyad practiced both sports [swimming and squash] with the hope of competing in the Mexico City Olympics in 1968." As far as I know, Nyad never held a squash racquet until well after 1968.
5. Reference [4], "Nyad Completes Cuba to Florida Swim," does not address the ratification issue in any way.

 

---

Two problems from the first paragraph of "Early Life and Education," and then I'll stop.

1. At some point, an editor added that Nyad's biological father, William L. Sneed Jr., was a stockbroker. The editor gave no source. Ahead of Their Time is the only source I know of for the stockbroker "fact." The reference given at the end of the sentence, the Social Security Death Index, doesn't give Sneed's occupation.
2. Regarding "Charlotte N. Winslow, the inventor of Mrs Winslow's Soothing Syrup." The question of who concocted the stuff is a fascinating but far-from-settled issue. Not to mention that the given reference only provides the partial name, "Soothing Syrup." The reference says nothing about its inventor. Most sources hedge. For example:
   • the Mrs. Winslow's Soothing Syrup WP entry gives "supposedly compounded by. . . ."
   • Museum of Healthcare blog - "Said to be originally created by . . ."
   • Wood Library-Museum of Anesthesiology - "The story goes that Mrs. Charlotte N. Winslow . . ."

So getting back to my original question: Would it be reasonable for me to begin editing Diana Nyad's entry?

Thanks! Danslos (talk) 20:32, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Danslos Welcome to Tea House! Without having looked in depth at the sources/suggestions you've made, I'd recommend making {{Request edit}} suggestions on the talk page, one edit at a time. You have a strong agenda and your edits are more likely to be well received if you do not edit directly. There are exceptions for example demonstrably false information that violates WP:BLP (she's alive from what I can tell) and blatant vandalism. There are some relevant WikiProjects you could seek feedback from as well, like WP:SWIMMING. Happy editing! ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 21:15, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

@Danslos to be more direct, yes there is a Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, even if it is not necessarily paid, so as I suggested earlier, make {{request edit}}'s on the talk page. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 21:19, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

@Shushugah, thanks for your responses. Would this apply even to more benign sorts of edits like repairing the link to the no-longer-existent NY Times article (which lives on at AP News). Danslos (talk) 21:36, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

WP:COIU does say that editors with a conflict of interest may make unambiguously uncontroversial edits such as repairing broken links. I would think you could make this particular change if you are absolutely sure it is the same article – and, looking at the date and aponline in the NY Times article, I suspect it is. ClaudineChionh (talk – contribs) 21:54, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

please friend i need a help in creating my wikipedia page please help me David Osmond (talk) 22:54, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: User:David Osmond/sandbox

What is your connexion with School Boy Husler (talk · contribs)? —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 23:00, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Status: DO's Sandbox Speedy deleted for G11 (promotional) and image at Commons deleted. David notMD (talk) 02:13, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello, my name is Uma Sori and I am originally from Monrovia and am a direct descendant of Prince Abdulrahman Ibrahim Sori (Prince Sori). I was privileged to meet two of my cousins from the United States at an event honoring my Great Great Grandfather Prince Sori. A reference to this event can be found in the documentary "A Prince Among Slaves". I have tried numerous times to add the names of my cousins Dr. Artumus Gaye the son of the famous football(soccer Player Bourba Gaye and who was also shown in the movie with Karen Chatman. In the year 2018 Gaye and Chatman both met with the leaders of Morocco, Monrovia, and the United States Congressional office stating their claims of Royal lineage. Although no Government such as the US where Chatman is a citizen can demand a Title; she was recognized as an Heir to Prince Sori and as his direct descendent along with Gaye.

My intent was to create individual pages for Gaye and Chatman as they are leading the initiative of informing the world of Prince Sori's story and existence. Black American history is often not documented or committed from the history books. I would like this community to assist me with the correct way to reference both Gaye and Chatman to ensure our family legacy is not lost.

I thank all readers and contributors, it was not my intent to take over or add erroneous facts, but the stories are ours to tell as my family and my US family from Natchez were left behind as Prince Sori sailed to freedom unable to take what he loved most with him.

Please assist me if possible. Uma Sori 2600:1700:FB5:81B0:606D:4611:7EC5:8447 (talk) 01:39, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Abdulrahman Ibrahim Ibn Sori exists. There have been additions and reverts going back more than three years - heated up recently - as to whether Gaye and Chatman, his great-grandchildren, deserve mention in the article. Given that they are not themselves subjects of articles, my opinion is no. (That he left children behind - yes; about their descendants - no.) Other editors may disagree. The proper place to try to reach consensus is the Talk page of the article. There, an editor has requested page protection, which would block people without accounts from editing the article. David notMD (talk) 02:31, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

I was going to try to add a source to a page, but I don't know if either Dictionary.com or Wiktionary are reliable. Thanks! Michael.Ringo (talk) 03:25, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

It depends – see Primary, secondary and tertiary sources and Dictionaries as sources for some considerations. ClaudineChionh (talk – contribs) 03:36, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Wiktionary is not a reliable source, it is user generated content. RudolfRed (talk) 03:56, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

I guess 50 of my articles are just translations from French Wikipedia and rest are mostly stubs I made on my own. Is Wikipedia fine with translations or it discourages it? Excellenc1 (talk) 08:37, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

A faithful translation is no better than the original, and an unfortunate fact is that a huge percentage of Wikipedia articles are pretty bad (or really bad). Their problems include mis-citations: confidently implying that such-and-such assertions are presented in this or that source, when in reality they are not. Do you check that the cited sources actually say what they're presented as saying? If the original is good, and you are conscientious, okay; otherwise not. And of course see Wikipedia:Translation. -- Hoary (talk) 08:50, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

For me when it comes to translations, I try to find topics and articles that are already decently sourced in other language Wikipedias. That way, I know that when I translate them for English Wikipedia (which has more stringent guidelines on sourcing and notability) that there is a better chance of it staying. Bkissin (talk) 14:23, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

@Hoary: I mostly do my own research for translations. Just sometimes, if I don't find a source, I rely on the sources in the original article. Excellenc1 (talk) 15:37, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

@Excellenc1 In short, not only is it absolutely fine, it is very much encouraged!

The more complicated answer is, each language Wikipedia has their own standards for notability of subjects, sourcing etc... for example German Wikipedia has stricter standards than say English Wikipedia. As an editor who may fall upon one of your translated articles, while knowing it is translated may be helpful (and required for licensing), I will solely review/edit it based on what I see inside the enwp (English Wikipedia) namespace. English Wikipedia does allow non english sources, as evident by the thousands of articles in Category:Articles with non-English-language sources. It does make it harder for other editors to review an article, but is often necessary for niche/regionally specific topics. I for one, am a huge fan of connecting intra-language articles and wish I spoke more languages. Happy editing! ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 19:27, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

So I think I can conclude that translations are very much accepted till they abide by the guidlines (reliable sources, verified translation etc.) Excellenc1 (talk) 05:41, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

I work for The Violin Channel, so want to flag this and ensure I am not breaching anything.

We did this video interview with Blake Pouliot and he said in it: "I'm absolutely obsessed with Ella Fitzgerald". I think this is a very interesting fact about his character, with him being an accomplished classical musician, and would like to add it to his article and and cite that point in the video.

Wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blake_Pouliot Youtube video where he says it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=buXFVAASHQQ (at 19 seconds).

The potential conflict is, this is a Violin Channel interview.

Blake does not work for us in any way, or has not, or never will pay us. I am also not doing this as a traffic driving exercise.

I've been updating and fixing many violinist's pages the last few days, but to this point never linked to any of our sources. But our site is referenced hundreds or thousands of times on Wikipedia already by others. Violinchanneljohnjohn (talk) 16:57, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello @Violinchanneljohnjohn! I really appreciate how careful you're trying to be about this. You've disclosed your conflict of interest on your userpage already, which is great - You can also do that using the template at Template:UserboxCOI. As long as you've done that, you should be totally fine adding that as long as you properly cite it. One thing to be aware of, however, is that one of the reliable source guidelines we have says that websites that mostly have user-generated content, like YouTube, are generally considered unacceptable (WP:UGC). If you can link to an article on your actual site, that would be preferable to linking the YouTube video itself. Happy editing! :) ThadeusOfNazereth^{Talk to Me!} 18:30, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

The entry for YouTube at WP:Reliable sources/Perennial sources says, "Content uploaded from a verified official account, such as that of a news organization, may be treated as originating from the uploader and therefore inheriting their level of reliability." Since the YouTube video was posted by The Violin Channel's official account, it should be OK to cite it. Deor (talk) 19:09, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

@Violinchanneljohnjohn: While it may be OK to cite it, a person with a COI should not add a citation to an associated source. Propose it on the talk page and let others decide. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:32, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

@Anachronist Are you basing that on WP:COIEDIT's suggestion that editors run all possible COIs through talk? I'm not sure that this meets the criteria, since Violinchanneljohnjohn doesn't have a COI with the article subject, just the source. My initial answer was based on WP:SELFCITE, which indicates that it's acceptable as long as its not given undue weight. ThadeusOfNazereth^{Talk to Me!} 22:22, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

@ThadeusOfNazereth: No, I am basing that not on the article subject, but the fact that one can have a COI with a source. Regardless of SELFCITE, citing oneself just looks bad and typically gets reverted as far as I've seen it happen. Proposing your own link on the talk page is just good practice. Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should. There should be no rush for a COI source to be cited. There are no deadlines here. ~Anachronist (talk) 07:03, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

 Sevilha2015 (talk) 12:09, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse Sevilha2015. It's not clear what sources you mean. Are you looking for WP:Reliable sources?--Shantavira|^{feed me} 12:33, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

I recently wrote my first article. I did not understand notability, encyclopedic style and a lot of other things and after a lot of feedback I managed to develop the article to a point where it got accepted. I noticed that after it got accepted, parts of my article which was already there before the article acceptance was removed by citing promotional fluff. And now I've got a twinkle tag for the article being promotional. (I haven't add anything to it for a long time before I left it to review)

Where do we draw the line between being promotional vs factual? Is there something concrete we can bank on?

Elenatina (talk) 10:03, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Congratulations on getting an article accepted, and don't be discouraged; but also note (as mentioned in the previous section) that Wikipedia is a collaborative encyclopedia. This means that everything is a work in progress, nobody owns articles, and subsequent editors may identify concerns that were not identified by the article-for-creation reviewer. If some portions of text or sources are called out for being 'promotional', have a look at Reliable sources, if you haven't done so already. And while we try to be generally encouraging and helpful in the Teahouse, the article's talk page is usually the best place to discuss specific issues. ClaudineChionh (talk – contribs) 10:32, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Elenatina, this edit, which perhaps is one of those that you are referring to, removed a sentence starting "He donned the sandals of the character of Christ for the first time". My guess is that this means no more than "He first played Jesus"; I'm sorry but, whatever the intention, it does rather sound like Variety-speak. It's better to avoid metonymy and the like and instead be concise when writing articles. -- Hoary (talk) 11:19, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Jonathan Roumie TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:40, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

I want to write a article about this person. which is mentioned in below link. if possible then please let me know how I can write it. Kanwarpartap Singh 2409:4055:182:CA21:D1E8:ADC2:2D58:C53 (talk) 12:59, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for asking rather than just trying to do so. You could certainly draft such an article (read WP:YFA and use WP:AfC) but based on the sources I could see in the search engine you linked there is little or no chance the draft would be accepted into the encyclopedia because there is no evidence he is WP:notable in the sense used here. There are over 6 billion people on this planet and most of us are not notable. Hence we use Social Media or sites like Linkedin to communicate. WP:NOT pretty much covers this. Note that autobiography is even less likely to succeed, as it would be difficult to write in the neutral tone required. Why not contribute to some of our existing articles instead? You'll find that's a much more satisfying experience. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:20, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

are joke questions allowed on this board? since i dont exactly want to vandalize anything, i felt like it might be good to ask first. Apexelite3303 (talk) 15:08, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Not that Teahouse hosts have no sense of humor, but the purpose of this page is to reply to queries about how to be better Wikipedia editors. David notMD (talk) 15:16, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

In other words, technically yes (They won't be considered vandalism), however it tends to be seen as a waste of time as it takes time for volunteers here to answer your joke question when that time could be used for a new user with a question that is not a joke. ― Blaze The Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 15:20, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

@Apexelite3303, hello and welcome to the Teahouse, jokes aren’t necessarily disallowed but the problem with “joking” here is that it tends to distract us from the core aim of the Teahouse. The purpose of the Teahouse is to provide assistance for editors who require our aid when in doubt or want to learn something new as stated by my co-host David notMD and joking about here does us a disservice as it takes up valuable time that would have been used for other productive purposes. Celestina007 (talk) 15:29, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

When I have made sure that the content is reliable and the particular person is notable it is still getting deleted. It is not a article about myslelf. Please be specific while giving the answer. Preethi Mohan Film editor (talk) 14:15, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Preethi Mohan Film editor Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. You say the draft is not about yourself, but your username would suggest otherwise. 331dot (talk) 14:19, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

If you're talking about Draft:Preethi, the explanation on the draft as to why it was deleted is pretty clear: "Unambiguous advertising or promotion: self written vanity page". - X201 (talk) 14:22, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Courtesy ping to @Jimfbleak: - X201 (talk) 14:24, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

331dot, thanks, I'll post further guidance at her talk page Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:40, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

 41.223.76.61 (talk) 07:50, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Try the Article Wizard. ––Formal ^talk 07:51, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm afraid your question is a bit like "I want to build a house but I'm not a builder. I need someone to help out" - except that, where knowledge of building is necessary to build a house, knowledge of programming is not necessary to create a Wikipedia article. What is necessary, however, is a substantial understanding of many of Wikipedia's policies. My advice to any new editor who has the idea of creating an article is to put that project aside for at least six months, and spend the time "learning the trade", by making small improvements to some of our six million exiting articles. That way you can start adding value to Wikipedia straight away, and minimise the disappointment and frustration you experience, by not trying to take big steps before you understand the small ones. Most people who try to create an article before they have an understanding of what that entails have a very frustrating time, and often in the short term put negative value into Wikipedia because of the time that experienced editors have to spend sorting out the problems they unwittingly cause. When you are beginning to understand the requirements for a new article, you can rad your first article. --ColinFine (talk) 16:13, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

While I have not come across any of these, I believe some may exist. There might be some articles that are old and forgotten (don't ask me how), and the last edit was over years ago. And it might have spelling errors, or maybe you just want to help and improve it. Either way, the page is protected, and you can't edit it to do whatever. So what would you do if this happened? Do you contact an admin or somebody? Do you just wait for the person to respond to you? Or create a new page? 68.50.116.194 (talk) 19:00, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Evert article has a talk page. If you want to edit a protected article, you can post to the talk page of that article and make suggestions for edits. If nobody reacts to your talk page post in a couple of weeks or so, you can always ask here again. --bonadea contributions talk 19:10, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Welcome to Tea House! It's always encouraged to solicit feedback/discussion on the talk page, especially on protected articles. You can alert other editors to review your edit requests by using the template {{request edit}}. If you have follow up questions, you can reply here or ask a new question again. Happy editing! ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 19:16, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Many articles talk pages list the WikiProjects that are interested in that article. A posting on the talk page of the Wikiproject can also bring attention to issues with a particular article. Mjroots (talk) 12:50, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

@Shushugah: Note that {{request edit}} is to be used when the requester has a conflict of interest. The documentation at Template:Request edit states "For edits to a semi-protected page, see Template:Edit semi-protected. For edits to an extended-confirmed protected page, see Template:Edit extended-protected. For edits to a template-protected page, see Template:Edit template-protected. For edits to a fully-protected page, see Template:Edit fully-protected." Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 16:57, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello. I've come across edits to my work, deletion of content, in an article that are not called for and seem to reflect in the short explanations of why they were made a lack of in-depth knowledge of the particular subject matter by the editor. I don't mean that unkindly, but the information that is deleted is based on documented and published research that is new to the larger subject matter. I can go through the deletions and Undo them (though the deletions were not accompanied by deletion of related footnotes and the whole reference section is out of sync), but the reasons for my Undos can't be simply explained in short descriptions, nor do they lend themselves to the larger subject matter without taking the article off track.

I can find no way of directly addressing the editor involved, and I suppose that I could just Undo the problem without explanation, but that would invite starting the process all over again.

Advice? Or a method I'm not aware of. I've gone through the deletions and documented the deleted material to be restored for my own purposes, but it's a several page document which I will retain in my file for this article.

Thanks Vabookwriter (talk) 16:32, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

@Vabookwriter, hello and welcome to the Teahouse, could you be so kind as to express yourself better? That is, can you just ask precisely what it is you want help about in fewer words? Celestina007 (talk) 16:43, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

@Vabookwriter This seems to be an ideal case for starting a discussion on the talk page. You will have all the space you need there to explain your position, but I highly encourage you to be succinct. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:46, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

@Vabookwriter: is this to do with editing at Commonwealth_War_Graves_Commission, where Labattblueboy (talk · contribs) disagreed with a paragraph you added about how US citizens had been returned to the US for burial? If so, it looks very much like a content dispute between two editors both of whom feel they are well-informed, and who disagree with the other. The correct thing to do in the first instance is to discuss on the article's talk page. If you make sure you use a template that refers to Labattblueboy by name (as I have here), they will be informed that you've mentioned them, and can respond if they choose (you can also post on their talk-page, but this has the enormous disadvantage that any other editor who gets involved in that article will be unaware of the discussion). If you still can't agree, there are various further options, such as seeking a third opinion and requesting expert attention. Elemimele (talk) 17:17, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Vabookwriter (talk) 17:24, 10 November 2021 (UTC) Thank you. Succinct: when an editor comes along and deletes content incorrectly, how do you reinstate it without starting the process all over again. In a normal exchange reasons and documentation would be offered, but there seems to be no mechanism for doing that. Now you've given me a method. I'm relatively new here. That's helpful.Vabookwriter (talk) 17:24, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm editing information about Cutler Bay Senior High, a high school in Miami, Florida.

I noticed that there were numerous news articles related to the high school describing two teachers who were faculty at the school being arrested for separate reasons.

• The case of Bernardo Osorio, a former teacher at Cutler Bay Senior High accused and convicted of sexual assault^[1][2]

• The case of Alphonso Thomas, a former athletic director at Cutler Bay Senior High accused of stealing more than $3,000 from students for at least two years^[3]

Should I add information about these cases to the school's Wikipedia page? Cadenrock1 (talk) 14:56, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

As neither of these people have articles on Wikipedia (although there is one on a deceased Alphonse Thomas) I would say "no", because they and their offences are not WP:notable enough. However, other editors here may disagree and the correct place to discuss this is at Talk:Cutler Bay Senior High School, as I see you have started to do. Incidentally, mere allegations of an offence would be unlikely to reach an article about a person, per WP:BLP policy. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:55, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Welcome to Tea House @Cadenrock1 @Michael D. Turnbull if there is no conviction, do not include it per WP:BLPCRIME and even if there was a conviction, if it's a one time event Wikipedia:BLP1E may apply as well. Thank you for asking, and happy editing! ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 17:00, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Welcome! Also, you have to think about whether, overall, the article then truly reflects the school. Does inclusion of these create an undue impression that the school is particularly famous for having scandalously bad behaviour on the part of its staff? If it's just a normal school where a few teachers have been convicted of awful things, but this is not a general reflection on the school's history, present and accomplishments, I would not be keen to include much, if anything, on controversies. If the school made major headlines as a hotbed of scandal but is otherwise completely unknown, i.e. the school is notable only for being scandalous, then you must include a section on the controversies. Elemimele (talk) 17:23, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

• @Cadenrock1: Criticism and controversy sections are generally discouraged. The main consideration is WP:NOTNEWS. Most schools have regular controversies of one sort or another, but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia rather than a newspaper, and our goal is to summarize information of historical importance rather than to provide detailed coverage of every controversy. Think about whether or not someone ten or even fifty years in the future would find the level of detail provided on an incident appropriate in a several paragraph—length account of the school's history, and keep it only if so and only at a reasonable length, merged into the overall history section. Hope that helps! Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 18:05, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Dear all, A few days now I have some trouble with a member of this society with a page on this English site, the page is Xiaocao'ezhen (or Xiaocao'e), the name of a town in China. Communication is a problem and I have sugested to talk over the talkpage, but that does not work up till now. What are the rules for naming a city, town or village on this Wikipedia site? Where can I find the real name as prove of authenticity? JCBS (talk) 12:38, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Xiaocao'e TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:42, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

@Arno Jacobs: From the edit summary, you’ll need a better source than Google Maps, which can be crowdsourced. I suggest if you can find a source, start a discussion on User talk:Yinweiaiqing. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:49, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. On the official site of the government of Yuyao stated every time 小曹娥镇 (Xiaocao'ezhen) when they refer to the town, here is the link to the page of their government: http://www.yy.gov.cn/col/col1229143566/index.html , the link is also on the Xiaocao'e(zhen) page. Wouldn't that be not prove enough? What more prove can I get? JCBS (talk) 13:15, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

@Arno Jacobs welcome to Tea House! Regardless of what article name is decided in the end, having redirects from all the different spelling variations/names makes sense and including the different names. I'd be happy to help with that if you want. In general for article names WP:COMMON applies (commonly used names as opposed to official subject names in English), and a geography specific flavour of this policy is Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names). For an iconic example, see the multi year discussion about Danzig vs Gdansk naming Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2005-02-21/Gdansk or Danzig. Happy editing! ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 15:50, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

In addition to Shushugah's comment, doesn't 镇 mean "town" or "village"? It's possible that it's not included in English when being translated because of that. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 16:27, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

镇 means town, 小曹娥镇 translation is "Small Cao E town". It can be that the town part does not count in English, I do not know. Small Cao E is a young girl of 13 years old, for me the term "zhen" (town) belongs in the name of the town, you can't apart them. Looks rather silly if you say you are in Small Cao E, there must be a further explanation with town. But I am no debater and will end the discussion and leave the page as he want to have it, without town in the title JCBS (talk) 18:10, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi Happy TeaHousers! Could someone please point me in the direction of the Film Forum here at WP? I just wrote my first film (stub) article and I'm running up against a few obstacles that I didn't think I was going to run up against and wondered if there may be a WP film editor that may assist me in a few pointers - or - if there is an editor here that has edited articles on films, maybe they could take a quick jaunt on over to the page and lend a few pearls of advice. Voices (1995 film) Thanks! Maineartists (talk) 18:38, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

@Maineartists: You might want to check out Wikipedia:WikiProject Film and see if there are any interested editors in that WikiProject willing to take up your request. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 18:51, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

@Tenryuu Hey! Thanks a lot! I'll give it a try! Maineartists (talk) 19:10, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

How does one create a wiki-page of a living musician? 72.89.201.156 (talk) 18:55, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

By first looking for newspaper, news magazine, or music magazine articles (from outlets with strong editorial oversight that fact-checks, discloses, and retracts if need be) that have no direct connexion to the subject or their surrogates. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 19:05, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

WP:YFA guides the process in general, and Wikipedia:Notability (music) specific for musicians, but as just pointed out, reliable source references for all content is critical. If you cannot find refs, no amount of writing craft will succeed. David notMD (talk) 19:16, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

 LalMalMax (talk) 11:36, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello, do you have a question about editing Wikipedia? ClaudineChionh (talk – contribs) 11:40, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

What help do you need, LalMalMax. All you seem to have done is add unsourced information about an actor called SobuJ Ahmed to lots of articles, and to attempt to remove the record of Sockpuppet investigation from User:BalPakna2021. By a remarkable coincidence, BalPakna2021 made repeated attempts to create an article about SobuJ Ahmed (with the same weird capitalisation). Are you a sockpuppet of BalPakna2021? --ColinFine (talk) 11:50, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Blocked as sock. David notMD (talk) 19:23, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello, I'm a new user on Wikipedia. Can I make an article?. Regards 👻Casper𝙿𝚒𝚗𝚐! 19:18, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello,

• Casper: welcome to the Teahouse and to Wikipedia. The answer to your question is that you are permitted to try and do so; but in my view your question is a bit like "I have just started learning about building. Can I build a house?" Experience shows that when editors who do not have much experience in Wikipedia try to create a new article, they tend to have a disappointing and frustrating time. My advice - always - is to spend at least a few months "learning the trade" first. We have over six million articles, tens of thousands of which are seriously substandard: in my view you can add far far far more value to Wikipedia in your early days by finding things you can improve in some of these than by trying to "build a new house" of your own (when you probably don't yet understand how to build the foundations or even to survey the site for suitability to build on). When you you feel ready to move into creation, please study your first article. Happy editing! --ColinFine (talk) 19:30, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello, ColinFine: Thank you for helping. 👻Casper𝙿𝚒𝚗𝚐! 19:34, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Casper is not yet Autoconfirmed (first edit 7 Nov), yet has created an article Horas Amang: Tiga Bulan untuk Selamanya. David notMD (talk) 02:39, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Casper is autoconfirmed. The age is counted from account creation 2 November [7] and not the first edit. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:36, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

I sit corrected. I know the phrase is "I stand corrected." but I am sitting. David notMD (talk) 19:29, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

I have sent in multiple drafts for a page I want created. After the last submission was declined on September 21st I submitted the article again with additional sources. Many of these sources are big publications with articles specifically about the subject. I have still not heard back.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Charlie_Dixon_(television_executive) Chaseklein7790 (talk) 19:50, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

You just need to be patient. Lots of pending reviews, and few reviewers. "This may take 2 months or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 2,101 pending submissions waiting for review. " RudolfRed (talk) 19:54, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Chaseklein7790, hello and welcome to the Teahouse, following the comment left by the afc reviewers it appears the problem is the article doesn’t meet WP:SIGCOV. What you want to do is to be patient, there isn’t any deadline to submit an article, for now just keep gathering sources and including them in the article. If you want, after adding sources to the article you can leave a message on my own talk page asking me to review it for you and I would accordingly. Celestina007 (talk) 19:57, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

How do I write a wikipedia page for a topic I am interested in? Ericp 300 (talk) 20:33, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Ericp 300 ello and welcome to the Teahouse. Creating a new article (not just a "page") is the hardest thing to do on Wikipedia. It takes much time, effort, and practice. New users sometimes fail in their first attempts and get frustrated and angry that things they don't understand happen to something they spent hours on. This it why it is highly recommended that new users first edit existing articles, to get a feel for how Wikipedia operates and what is expected of article content. Using the new user tutorial will help too.

However, if you still want to create a new article now, please read Your First Article, then go to Articles for creation to create and submit a draft. 331dot (talk) 20:38, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

I just got my first article published and I’ve seen edits to it that aren’t notable and it might lead to vandalism unless someone keeps an eye on it. Also I noticed users removing stuff which is substantiated with references. Either way it’s bad. How do I lock the article? 

 Elenatina (talk) 08:51, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

@Elenatina you can ask for protection at WP:RfPP. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:27, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång Thank you! Spot on! This was exactly what I was looking for! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elenatina (talk • contribs) 09:38, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

@Elenatina However, assuming this is about Jonathan Roumie, per a quick look at the edithistory this month, you won't get it at this point. "Worse can happen" is not a reason they'll accept. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:43, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång Well noted! The article just got accepted a few days ago and maybe there needs to be more wrong edits to subsantiate my claim for protection. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elenatina (talk • contribs) 09:48, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

@Elenatina: yup, and also you'll need to remember that WP is a collaborative encyclopaedia. There is no concept of locking as such; the article you've written will remain, like all WP articles, open for further improvement by other editors, who will add things, take things away, change your wording. If you disagree with a change, you can of course revert it, but you should discuss this at the article's talk page, or at least in edit summaries. If you just undo everything anyone else does without explanation, it will cause friction. Elemimele (talk) 09:56, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Elenatina, please understand that sincere disagreements over content are not deliberate vandalism intended to harm, and that despite your having originated the article, you do not own it, are not the sole arbiter of what should or should not be in it, and should not edit war over other's additions, corrections or deletions to it. Instead, please participate in the standard Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle procedures.

(This mostly reiterates what Elemimele has already said above, but adds links to the relevant Wikipedia policies and procedures, which you should study.) {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.205.225.31 (talk) 11:57, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

And chiming in as an administrator regularly working in protection-requests: please have a look at our protection policy. The article wouldn't get protected, because essentially there is not enough disruption. Lectonar (talk) 12:07, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

@Elenatina: Welcome to the Teahouse! Please use the article's talk page - Talk:Jonathan Roumie - to have discussions with other editors about the content of the article to come to consensus. Thanks, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 20:58, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi Teahouse, Barbie Dreamhouse Adventures is a streaming TV series which thus uses the "Infobox television" template. But I looked across the "last_aired" parameter and it stated that "If such a program has not aired a new episode in 12 months, "present" can be changed to the date the last episode aired, using the "End date" template. Why then do I see "present" on its infobox when the series ended more than the said "12 months" prior/earlier, i.e. on April 12, 2020? The films/movies derived from it (which are stated in this section) are spin-offs from that series. Fooliard (talk) 16:16, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Fooliard, and welcome to the Teahouse. Why does an article contain out of date information? Because you haven't updated it! (and nor has anybody else). If you can find a reliable published source for the last broadcast date, you can edit it and insert the date in place of "present". --ColinFine (talk) 16:36, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

@ColinFine:, that's the problem! If it was/were a non-Netflix prodcution or a regular TV production, the source would have been there or provided, but it isn't! Unless, maybe I add that link which is related to that release. I've checked on search engines for it since seeing that "present" and that exact link isn't there! So much for citing/referencing something which has no citation ― even if it is/was archived and/or existed! I also fear an experienced user may link me to an edit of a blocked/banned user because I would edit in a likeable manner like that user ― that WP:BOLD article may force me to leave Wikipedia!! Fooliard (talk) 21:01, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

How do I make my own page? I want to make something on my own and I don't know how AmongNutBaby3426987523 (talk) 17:37, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

(talk) 17:47, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

@AmongNutBaby3426987523 Welcome to Tea House! If you're considering writing a brand new article, please read WP:YFA, but know that article creation is one of the hardest things you can do. We usually tell newbies to edit existing articles to gain experience before attempting to create a new article. Wikipedia is also collaborative, so as @Victor Schmidt mobil said, no one has exclusive Wikipedia:Ownership of content. Happy editing! ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 17:49, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

AmongNutBaby3426987523 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Creating a new article (not just a "page") is the hardest thing to do on Wikipedia. It takes much time, effort, and practice. New users sometimes fail in their first attempts and get frustrated and angry that things they don't understand happen to something they spent hours on. This it why it is highly recommended that new users first edit existing articles, to get a feel for how Wikipedia operates and what is expected of article content. Using the new user tutorial will help too.

However, if you still want to create a new article now, please read Your First Article, then go to Articles for creation to create and submit a draft. 331dot (talk) 17:45, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

@Shushugah Thank you for elaborating. Could you inform me about other information? All I want to do is write an article about a small game and explain how it works, the items, etc. I'd appreciate it if you could help me more. I joined yesterday, and I thank you for your hospitality.

 AmongNutBaby3426987523 (talk) 18:06, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

AmongNutBaby3426987523 What you have described here is exactly what Wikipedia is not. Creating information based on what we know is considered original research, and is forbidden. All content needs to be referenced. If you intend an article about a computer game, look at existing articles as examples. David notMD (talk) 18:19, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

David notMD So essentially, you just take information from the internet and put it on Wikipedia? Also, I have already searched for the game in question and have found nothing.

Absolutely not, AmongNutBaby3426987523: you take information from reliably published sources. These may be, but do not have to be, on the internet; but they must have been published by somebody with a reputation for editorial control and fact checking: not blogs, personal websites, wikis, iMDB. Material published by the subject or someone very close to them can sometimes be used to support uncontroversial factual information (see PRIMARY) but the bulk of the sources should be wholly unconnected with the subject. If there is little or no such reliably published independent material, then the subject does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability, and no article is possible. --ColinFine (talk) 18:28, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Not press releases by the company that created the game, not interviews with the programmers who wrote the code, etc., etc. David notMD (talk) 19:19, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes, Wikipedia is not a place to just tell about something. 331dot (talk) 20:37, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

AmongNutBaby3426987523 (talk) it may help you to read Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not in order to learn about what is (and is not) a good Wikipedia article. Karenthewriter (talk) 22:14, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

I am trying to get some info right in the Lie page. The page says it was released on April 17th, 2018, when it's album, Perception, was released on October 6th, 2017! This is very confusing. I'm not really sure how to approach this. Can someone help? WaterflameIsAwesome (talk) 02:06, 10 November 2021 (UTC) WaterflameIsAwesome (talk) 02:06, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Change the sentence in the Lead to "...was released as a single..." Singles are often released after albums. David notMD (talk) 02:33, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

@David notMD: But what would be the point of releasing it again if it already was on the album? ??? WaterflameIsAwesome (talk) 02:42, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

WaterflameIsAwesome To make more money. Often, an album is released, one or more of the songs rise in the charts, and those are released as singles for people who do not want to purchase the entire album. Sometimes the other way - a single becomes a hit and is then released on an album. These practices make more sense in the era of physical vinyl records. David notMD (talk) 03:02, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

@David notMD: oh I see. I had only heard of the second way before so I didn't understand. Thanks! For some reason though, some sources point to it being on a different date, like for instance, Alexa says it was released on October 6th, 2017, for whatever reason. Alexa gets a lot of release dates wrong though, no wonder it's the dumbest among the three smart speakers. A site, rateyourmusic.com, says it was released on March 18th, 2018. And, to make it even more interesting, NF released it on his Soundcloud a day prior to the album, on October 5th 2017. So I'm not really sure what the actual release date it. Hmm... anyways, thanks for your help. WaterflameIsAwesome (talk) 22:46, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

I'd like to know how to add the note that says that the source is in a different language (for example: (In German.), (In Spanish.), (In Swedish.)) when you hover over it. I've been experimenting a bit trying to get it to work but it's late and I'm tired and I can't seem to work it out. Any help with this would be appreciated, thanks. TylerBurden (talk) 22:21, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Sure! Use the appropriate citation template, and add language= followed by the two-letter language code or the language name, and (if possible) trans-title= followed by the title translated to English. ClaudineChionh (talk – contribs) 22:29, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! I'll be sure to save this so I can use it later. --TylerBurden (talk) 22:39, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Happy to help! There are so many types and options for citation templates, it can be quite overwhelming. ClaudineChionh (talk – contribs) 22:53, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Help!

The main source for the first two sections ("Divisions" and "Subdivisions") of the article "Great chain of being" is

Baofu, Peter (2012). The Future of Post-Human History: A Preface to a New Theory of Universality and Relativity. Cambridge Scholars Publishing. pp. 211–212. ISBN 978-1-4438-3836-8. which in turn cites "WK 2011"

Unfortunately, said "WK 2011", from which both article and book quote liberally and literally, turns out to be the selfsame article "Great chain of being", in its 2011 incarnation (eg [8]). Worse, the vast majority of the material there isn't directly attributed. So this snake is swallowing its own tail with a vengeance.

Generally, the main source for that version seems to be

Arthur O. Lovejoy (1964) [First published 1936], The Great Chain of Being: A Study of the History of an Idea, Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, ISBN 0-674-36153-9

To see whether the material originates there, I picked the sentence "In the family, the father is head of the household; below him, his wife; below her, their children" and tried fulltext searches in that work for the whole thing and then for each of the nouns, "family", "father", "head", "household", "wife", "children", to no avail at all.

Now what?

- 89.183.221.36 (talk) 18:11, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Well, this is a very interesting problem - Oftentimes when there's problems with self-referential citing, its obvious (a Wikipedia article directly citing Wikipedia), but this is hidden in legitimate academic literature. Kudos to you for finding this! Ideally, the best thing to do is to try and verify the existing information before removing it. It's likely that there are plenty of other sources out there discussing the idea of a "Great chain of being," so hopefully some of that literature will support what's in the article as-is. If it doesn't, then we would want to remove the unverifiable material. Because the book with the circular citation may still have useful information on the source, Template:Failed verification will be useful here to get the attention of editors who focus on this issue as well. I've taken the liberty of adding this - Please add more if I missed anything! ThadeusOfNazereth^{Talk to Me!} 22:04, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

And a quick note here - While the source "verifies" the information, because it's looping back to Wikipedia itself, my understanding is that WP:CIRCULAR kicks in and we should attempt to find something else. ThadeusOfNazereth^{Talk to Me!} 22:07, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

"Legitimate academic literature" is what a company name like "Cambridge Scholars Publishing" superficially suggests, anyway. The content of the work wasn't really up to scratch, however - the portion I looked at, at any rate, pretty much consisted of a bunch of long passages lifted from Wikipedia, held together by the bare minimum of original connective tissue. AFAIK, that would be considered unacceptable in a school essay, which makes me think that none of the labels "legitimate", "academic", and "literature" may actually apply here.

The article on the company isn't too complimentary, either. Plus, I tried a Wikipedia search for the author, "Peter Baofu", in the meantime, and apparently he published an entire series of works with that "future of this, new theory of that" theme.

And alas, in at least one other case, the pattern I spotted above repeats: The article "Connotation" contains the claim that "in logic and semantics, connotation is roughly synonymous with intension", which was originally unattributed, then tagged as needing an attribution, then attributed to "The Future of Post-Human Semantics: A Preface to a New Theory of Internality" (titles courtesy of Postmodernism Generator, surely), which contains not just that claim but the complete paragraph and points straight back to the article.

It occurred to me that this might be akin to product placement, with someone connected to the author or publisher adding these circular cites to the articles in order to draw attention to their books. After tracking down the edits responsible for the first handful of hits, though, it's different editors in each case, so it doesn't look like it's quite as dodgy as that.

Still, quite the tangle!

- 89.183.221.36 (talk) 00:01, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Can someone look at draft:Ichon and explain why it does not meet criteria #1 for notability of musicians? I cite three publications that devote entire pieces to the musician, including one of the largest daily newspapers in Switzerland.

I just don't see where the article falls short -- so your thoughts on how to improve it are welcome. Thanks!

Jayintheusa (talk) 03:45, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Refs 1, 2 and 3 are interviews. Wikipedia does not accept interviews as confirming notability. Ref 4 confirms he performed at an event. Ref 5 is his discography. So, nothing so far. Find more. David notMD (talk) 04:01, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Jayintheusa, and welcome to the Teahouse. Please understand that Wikipedia is not interested in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is only interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. --ColinFine (talk) 10:55, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks to you both for your explanations!

Jayintheusa (talk) 02:30, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello. How can I use this tool? I've installed this. But it doesn't work! Thank you. Richard M William (talk) 02:43, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

@Richard M William: The MOSNUM dates script becomes active when you go to edit an article – the links will then appear in the sidebar under Tools, as seen in the screenshot. Did you try editing an article with this script installed? ClaudineChionh (talk – contribs) 02:53, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

@ClaudineChionh: Yeah. I've tried in an article. But didn't work. Richard M William (talk) 03:26, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

@Richard M William: First, be sure you bypassed your cache. Next, go to the article and click the "Edit source" tab. Then click the "DATES to dmy" or "DATES to mdy" link. Then you should see your changes, which you should carefully review before clicking "Publish changes". The official place for bug reports is Wikipedia:Date formattings/script/MOSNUM dates/bugs. When filing a bug report, it would be helpful to provide the name of the article you tried to edit, and what you saw when it didn't work. Hope this helps, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 03:43, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

 StarHakimi (talk) 05:07, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

The best place for this question is the talk page of the relevant article/s. ClaudineChionh (talk – contribs) 05:22, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

AgVa_Ventilator is reinvented by Diwakar_Vaish and Dr. Deepak Agrawal, but unfortunately Dr. Deepak Agrawal is not in wikipedia.

Dr Deepak Agrawal with His work published on

• https://www.aiims.edu/en/2014-12-19-04-37-04/neurology_surgery_faculty.html?id=1414
• https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/in-battle-against-corona-doctors-turn-to-low-cost-innovative-ventilators/articleshow/74958213.cms
• https://www.financialexpress.com/opinion/breathing-innovation-indian-researchers-develop-low-cost-portable-ventilator/1778625/
• https://www.hindustantimes.com/science/delhi-robotic-engineer-develops-world-s-cheapest-pocket-ventilator/story-1g1Gpawlq8XVvODpAsN0AO.html
• https://www.newindianexpress.com/lifestyle/health/2017/sep/12/aiims-develops-less-expensive-pocket-ventilator-in-collaboration-with-private-firm-1656256.html
• https://fit.thequint.com/fit/aiims-worlds-cheapest-portable-ventilator#read-more
• https://www.financialexpress.com/india-news/awesome-delhi-based-duo-build-worlds-cheapest-and-smallest-ventilator-that-fits-in-pocket-price-will-floor-you/853355/
• https://medicaldialogues.in/bravo-aiims-doctor-robotic-engineer-develop-cheapest-pocket-ventilator
• https://www.financialexpress.com/lifestyle/health/now-a-portable-ventilator-for-just-rs-35000-aiims-team-develops-low-cost-life-saving-device/1409357/
• https://www.thebetterindia.com/166523/delhi-aiims-doctor-build-low-cost-portable-ventilator/
• https://speciality.medicaldialogues.in/aiims-team-develops-smallest-ventilator-costing-only-rs-35000
• https://www.scoopwhoop.com/news/indian-innovations-that-can-help-fight-covid-19-globally/
• https://www.newindianexpress.com/lifestyle/health/2017/sep/12/aiims-develops-less-expensive-pocket-ventilator-in-collaboration-with-private-firm-1656256.html
• https://www.dnaindia.com/science/report-this-new-ventilator-will-fit-in-your-pocket-2545251

My Questions: Can I create the Wikipedia Page of Dr. Deepak Agrawal, I found this, Please help me how can I do that or What name should I choose? SomnathHealth (talk) 07:26, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

@SomnathHealth: Hello. Welcome to Teahouse!

You created Draft:Dr. Deepak Agrawal on 4 September 2021. But after submitting for review on the same day, it was declined; didn't accepted. The draft was declined because this articles doesn't meet with WP:NBIO guideline. People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published^[1] secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other,^[2] and independent of the subject.

Some of the sources you mentioned are reliable, secondary, independent, but not in significant coverage.

You can create this article if it meets with the above criteria. Otherwise not.

And your username may not comply with Wikipedia's username policy. So you should request a change of username by completing the form at Special:GlobalRenameRequest, choosing a username that complies with Wikipedia's username policy. Otherwise you may be blocked from wikipedia. And you've already been warned by Drm310.

Thank you. Richard M William (talk) 08:30, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello:

I am a seasoned professional editor, but have only once made a contribution to over six years ago and it was a very brief addition to an existing article. I am now trying to turn a stub into a fully realized profile of over 2,000 words and while trying to do this on the fly in the midst of my efforts, I was directed to a lengthy troubling and complicated notices.

To wit: 1) Please do not draft new articles here—to do that, create a userspace draft. This is your user page, a place to introduce yourself to other editors to help them understand your contributions. It is not a personal website, and may be deleted if used inappropriately. Please be mindful of your privacy when deciding what to share here. 2) Wikipedia does not have a user page with this exact title. In general, this page should be created and edited by User:Mikehmac1949. To start a page called User:Mikehmac1949, type in the box below. When you are done, preview the page to check for errors and then publish it. 3) A page with this title has previously been moved or deleted. If you are creating a new page with different content, please continue. If you are recreating a page similar to the previously deleted page, or are unsure, please first contact the user(s) who performed the action(s) listed below. 04:44, 6 November 2021 Fastily talk contribs deleted page User:Mikehmac1949 (U5: Misuse of Wikipedia as a web host) (thank)

I’m flummoxed troubled and don’t know what to do. I've hit a brick wall. These messages have an accusatory tone as if I’m trying to do break some rules. Please help.

I need to get these changes made yesterday!

Thank you. Michael McCla Mikehmac1949 (talk) 04:50, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello @Mikehmac1949, you already have a draft at User:Mikehmac1949/sandbox on the same topic. It is too promotional and will likely be deleted if you try to add that material to Renée Victor. If you are being paid to expand the article (which is not the actor's profile, as you call it), you must declare your conflict of interest as instructed at WP:PAID. Then, you should make edit requests on Talk:Renée Victor proposing well-sourced changes (I recommend small incremental changes; I would expect an inexperienced editor to never be able to propose acceptable large-scale changes on articles they've been paid to beef up). You should also publicly declare all your past accounts that have worked on this topic; User:Mikehmac49 appears to be one. Finally, you should optimistically expect it to take months to expand the article as changes will have to be reviewed by volunteers on their own schedule. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 05:12, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Mikehmac1949, judging from the first sentence of User:Mikehmac1949/sandbox, you have difficulty writing in the neutral, factual style expected of Wikipedia articles. If you need to promote the subject by yesterday, you should use some other platform, such as Facebook. (and no, you're not trying to break some rules, you're just blundering about and breaking them anyway – hence the warning messages.) Maproom (talk) 10:17, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi! I am quite a newcomer to Wikipedia, and I would like to know the opinion of experienced editors on this topic. When you are working on expanding an article that has little to non-accurate information, what is better, do a large edit at once, or add information on shorter edits for tracking the changes easily? Thank you Mvcervi (talk) 05:32, 11 November 2021 (UTC) Mvcervi (talk) 05:32, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

@Mvcervi: It doesn't matter. Some like to do a lot at once to not break their train of thought; others like to do many small edits to not lose their work. What ultimately matters is the quality of your resulting content. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (talk) 08:59, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

@Mvcervi Welcome to Tea House! Policy wise, both are acceptable. I think the more controversial or widely edited an article is, the more preferable it is to make smaller edits, so other editors can review them in isolation and revert specific edits without undoing the positive contributions of other edits. Happy editing! ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 10:21, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi! I was trying to do some simple edits for practice and was looking to add some links to an underlinked article. I came across the article Menlo Report and on reading through just the first couple of paragraphs thought that the language used was a bit off. I noticed the use of "we expect" in one sentence, which made me suspect it had been copied & pasted from somewhere. When I copy and pasted that sentence into Google, it came up with the actual Menlo Report[9], and I noticed that someone had indeed copied & pasted directly from the Executive Summary of this report in their construction of the intro to this Wiki article.

So, my question is, what would my next step in correcting this be? Or how do I indicate my suspicions to a more experienced editor (other than in here, I suppose, but I suspect that there's a dedicated space for this)? Pteridaceae (talk) 04:42, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Hey - me again. Just wanted to add that I also noticed that several edits to this article were made by a user named ICTEthics, whose only contribs[[10]] are on this article. The Menlo Report involves ICT (Information & Communication Technologies) Ethics.. and this seems to suspicious to not be a COI in some way. Again, I'd ask what to do in such situations! Thanks :) Pteridaceae (talk) 04:48, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for helping out! WP:COPYVIO suggests adding the {{copypaste}} template to the article, bringing it up on the article's talk page, and maybe also reporting it to WP:COPYPROB. ClaudineChionh (talk – contribs) 05:11, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! ClaudineChionh! To report it to WP:COPYPROB - do I just add the article to the list of the corresponding date? Pteridaceae (talk) 08:17, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

WP:CPI (on the same page) has the instructions and templates for reporting a suspected violation – you will need the article name and the URL that you suspect it was copied from. I've never reported a copyright issue myself so I'm just reading the instructions. ClaudineChionh (talk – contribs) 09:23, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your help! I'm still finding some of these aspects of Wikipedia a little overwhelming so I truly appreciate the guidance. Take care ClaudineChionh. Pteridaceae (talk) 10:57, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

You're welcome! It really can be overwhelming but we're here to help. ClaudineChionh (talk – contribs) 11:09, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Can other contributors on Wikipedia help me in writing about Pixel Pictures Private Limited, a media company based out of Bangalore. This will not be a promotional page but will be a consolidated page to showcase the shows Pixel has produced. Prabel83 (talk) 11:27, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Prabel83 Hello and welcome. You may make a request at Requested Articles, but the backlog there is so severe it will be a long time, if ever, before it is (if possible) acted on. The best way to see an article created is to do it yourself- but I assume that you are asking because you have an association with this company. If so, please review conflict of interest and paid editing for information on required formal disclosures. Note that Wikipedia is not a place to merely tell about a company and what it does, and that Wikipedia is not a directory of companies where merely existing merits a company an article. An article about a company must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about a company, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. Wikipedia is not interested in what a company says about itself- such as on its own website, through interviews with staff, brief mentions in media, announcements of routine activities, and other primary sources- only in what others completely unconnected with the company choose on their own to say about it.

We usually advise that new or inexperienced users first gain experience by editing existing articles in areas that interest them before attempting to create a new article- the hardest thing to do on Wikipedia. However, if you wish to do so now, please use the new user tutorial, review Your First Article, and use Articles for Creation to create and submit a draft. 331dot (talk) 11:35, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

In addition I would point out that Wikipedia articles should not be used to "showcase" anything, as you put it. That would be considered promotional.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 12:19, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

 2601:204:CF01:DB30:EC4A:42A3:4A85:6265 (talk) 12:15, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello, that's not really something we can help you with. This page is for asking questions about using Wikipedia. 331dot (talk) 12:32, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

What is the difference between using letter noting like [a] and number noting like [note 1]? is there any? The Tips of Apmh (talk) 05:46, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

It's useful but not mandatory to group notes for citing sources and explanatory notes in different note groups. ClaudineChionh (talk – contribs) 06:02, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

@The Tips of Apmh Welcome to Tea House, maybe I misunderstood your question, but they're different styling and can be changed in Template:Refn by specifying the group option. Happy editing! ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 10:26, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

@The Tips of Apmh: notes and references are used for different things. Notes generally give supplemental information. See Bourn Windmill for an example. Mjroots (talk) 12:54, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

FYI

 – Added section heading – ClaudineChionh (talk – contribs)

 Hero Hasan (talk) 05:21, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Hero Hasan, where or how did you obtain your picture? Where did you try to upload it? Maproom (talk) 12:07, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Hero Hasan Welcome to the Teahouse. Looking at your user page I think you would find it helpful to read Wikipedia:User pages Wikipedia:Autobiography and Wikipedia:Images.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 12:14, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

@Hero Hasan: your upload was blocked by an automated filter. You tried to upload a small resolution (720x960) JPG file as a new user. Since such images are often copyright violations this was prevented. MKFI (talk) 13:56, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

To everyone who’s spent time answering my questions and helping me out with my first article, a million thanks! I managed to get my first article accepted thanks to all your feedback and guidance. Elenatina (talk) 21:29, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Elenatina (talk) 17:01, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

@Elenatina Congratulations. Creating an article (as you've probably now realized) is not an easy task. So, well done. Onwards and upwards! Nick Moyes (talk) 21:33, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

@Elenatina great work! I'm excited to see what you do in the future. :D Amazing job! WaterflameIsAwesome (talk) 01:58, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

@Elenatina: Hey no problem! I'm technically not a Teahouse host, however I do occasionally answer questions when I Feel I can give a good and accurate answer. I enjoy making newbies feel welcomed on Wikipedia because it makes Wikipedia seem more friendly and less like a place where everyone is super serious all the time (which isn't always a bad thing, but makes Wikipedia seem a bit... endearing to new users). _{Also for future reference, using the Template:Ping ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) template will notify users, although I'm not sure if that was what you did here or not since I probably missed this notification.}― Blaze The Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 15:37, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

No, @Blaze The Wolf:, you won't have been notified, because Elenatina did not sign the relevant post. See Help:Notifications. --David Biddulph (talk) 15:45, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Ah ok. That makes sense, didn't realize that wasn't part of the same post. (although I am curious why sinebot didn't sign it afterwards) ― Blaze The Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 16:54, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

@Elenatina: I see you just added a signature to the pings. That still won't ping the users as it requires the ping be added along with the signature at the same time. ― Blaze The Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 17:07, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Special thanks to @GoingBatty, @David notMD, @Blaze The Wolf, @Mikehawk10, @Anachronist, @Maproom for your time reviewing and editing the article and all the awesome hosts on the teahouse who make newbies at home in the Wikipedia world. Elenatina (talk) 07:15, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

♥ — Mikehawk10 (talk) 07:22, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

That did indeed work for the pings. ― Blaze The Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 14:10, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Dear Wikipedians,

When I first published my 2nd Wikipedia article, I forgot to link the English page to the Japanese text and also the categories cited at the end of the article. Hence this notice appeared -

>This article is an orphan, as no other articles link to it. >Please introduce links to this page from related articles; try the Find link tool for suggestions. >(November 2021)

I have rectified the problems mentioned over a week ago, but lack authorization to remove this nag message. How can that nag message be removed? (I understand the value of the message, but do not know how to delete the message after the request has been fulfilled.)

Also, for my 4th Wikipedia article, I tried to move the article from the Sandbox to the Wikipedia Main Article page, but the article got stuck here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mother_Farm

How can the article be moved from "en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mother_Farm" directly to "en.wikipedia.org/Mother_Farm"? (After it is in the Main Article page I will add the links to the Japanese page and the relevant categories.)

Thank you for your kind advice about these two questions

TNewfields (talk) 09:41, 11 November 2021 (UTC)TNewfields TNewfields (talk) 09:41, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

@TNewfields Welcome to Tea House! I moved Wikipedia:Mother Farm to Mother Farm where it is now. The Wikipedia namespace is for Wikipedia editor coordination, including this Wikipedia:Teahouse/Guests whereas what you wanted is called the Article namespace. I know it's quite confusing! Thank you for seeking help and your contributions! Happy editing! ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 10:32, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

@TNewfields Additionally I checked Special:WhatLinksHere/Aiseki Shokudō and there are no other Articles on English Wikipedia linking to it so unless someone searches for the exact name, they're unlikely to find the article by clicking around. Once you find some relevant/possible links, the orphan tag will be automatically removed. It is unrelated to being being linked with Japanese or other language Wikipedias, although that is very much welcomed/encouraged. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 10:36, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

@Shushugah: Unless something has changed that I don't know about, the orphan tag isn't removed automatically, but it can be removed by an editor when it no longer applies. --David Biddulph (talk) 14:27, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

You are correct, it has to be removed manually. ― Blaze The Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 14:30, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

@David Biddulph and Blaze The Wolf: My bot BattyBot will remove the {{orphan}} tag from articles with more than two incoming links, and I run the task a couple times a month. GoingBatty (talk) 16:05, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Ah interesting. So it will be removed automatically, just only when you run the bot, correct? ― Blaze The Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 16:06, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello. If I undo vandalisms and if it have already been undone by another user, "The edit appears to have already been undone. You may have attempted to undo a page move, protection action or import action; these cannot be undone this way. Any autoconfirmed user can move the page back to its previous location, and any administrator can modify or remove protection." is coming in the top of the undo page. But why? I haven't attempted to undo a page move, protection action or import action. Though I've moved a page today. Please help me. Thank you. Richard M William (talk) 16:23, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

This is normal, you're getting a generic error message saying that the change you're trying to make cannot be done. In your case it cannot be done because it's already been done! But the situation could also arise for various other reasons, much rarer reasons, explained in the message. Don't worry about it! It's also much better to take your time checking that the vandalism really is vandalism, than rush in hopes you get the kudos of being the person who zapped the vandalism. There will, unfortunately, always be more to zap. Thank you for your efforts in keeping WP vandalism-free. Elemimele (talk) 16:35, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

@Elemimele: Thank you for your help and encouraging me! Richard M William (talk) 16:39, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

I have spent several hours going through the various policy, pump, practices, etc. pages of the Wikipedia editor universe without success in getting close to an answer to this question: are there rules, mores, active discussions that can be used as guides for the citation by authors of their own traditionally published books written to academic standards and accepted as authoritative by their readership. My reading of it is that there are not, which would be in keeping with the “there are no rules” and “good faith” sentiments I saw on one of the Wikipedia guide pages I came across today. That was the answer when I asked the question of this good group several months ago. But in my experience as an editor and originator on Wikipedia and an active book author since then something more concrete is needed. I would very much appreciate any direction on how to get to, or initiate, firm guidance on the topic. Thank you.

Vabookwriter (talk) 16:57, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

My google search brought up the excellent advice: "Citing oneself is allowed on Wikipedia, but may represent a conflict of interest. Contributors should be careful not to place undue weight on their own work, and are discouraged from excessive self-citation." If in doubt, I would write my intention on the article's talk-page, and wait a few days to see if anyone comments, before inserting the citation. It is hard to assess the position of ones own work in the greater scheme of things, and useful to get an external viewpoint. Elemimele (talk) 17:01, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

So yes, if someone asks you, you could point them to WP's Confict-of-interest help at Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest#Citing_yourself Elemimele (talk) 17:03, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

The relevant guidelines are at Wikipedia:Spam#Citation_spam and Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest#Citing_yourself. What is 'excessive' is up to interpretation, but a good rule of thumb (in my opinion) is that you should be citing others at least as often as you cite yourself, and you should be sure not to cite yourself on every Wikipedia article you edit. MrOllie (talk) 17:08, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

When citing a source for what someone said about something, but you don’t want to put the entire thing they said do you do it like this ... ? For example Sioux City Journal says at the beginning of their article, “You can’t find a better friend than Sheriff Woody.” Than later at the end of their article is says, “ The ultimate toy? That’s Woody – loyal, dependable, trustworthy and steadfast.” So would I put it like this, “You can’t find a better friend than Sheriff Woody... The ultimate toy? That’s Woody – loyal, dependable, trustworthy and steadfast.”

Second question is Sioux City Journal considered a Journal or News when adding a citation for it. Kaleeb18 (talk) 13:59, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

I can answer the second: It counts as news. ("journal" explicitly means research journals such as The Lancet.) —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 14:09, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

@Jéské Couriano: Thank your for your answer to my second question. Also when it says put in URL access date does that mean the day I found the article, which would be today, November 11, 2021? Kaleeb18 (talk) 14:26, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

@Kaleeb18 yes exactly! And if you don't fill that in, a bot will automatically take care of that. The most important thing is the title, url, and if known, the author(s). ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 14:31, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

@Shushugah: - Again a feature of which I wasn't aware. Which bot automatically fills in the access date? --David Biddulph (talk) 15:01, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Actually, Shushugah, the important thing is bibliographic information that enables a reader to find the source: title, date, author, publication. A URL is a convenience for the reader, but unless the resource is only online, it is not essential. --ColinFine (talk) 15:31, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank You @Shushugah:Kaleeb18 (talk) 15:35, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

@David Biddulph keeping me honest! I appreciate that! I believe I've seen it when Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser users patrol a page, which isn't exactly a pure bot. The accessed-at attribute is populated with their present time, instead of the initial edit I suppose. I will try to read more carefully before giving false information about bot behaviours. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 18:43, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Now can someone also answer my first question? Kaleeb18 (talk) 15:37, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Kaleeb18. You might find the answer in WP:Quotations. --ColinFine (talk) 16:08, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

@Kaleeb18: Please see MOS:ELLIPSIS. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 16:10, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

@TheTechnician27: I see when it uses the ellipsis in MOS:ELLIPSIS it has nbsp in brackets why do they have that and what does it do? Kaleeb18 (talk) 16:27, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

@Kaleeb18: That's code to call for a non-breaking space, which prevents the two words that sandwich it from appearing on different lines. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 16:51, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Oh ok. Kaleeb18 (talk) 18:00, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello! So in my second sandbox I'm currently working on improving the table that's currently on Euro Truck Simulator 2 and I'm not quite sure what I should do with the refs. They're originally there to prove specific parts of the description of the map DLC, however since I'm simplifying it to just show what countries were added/improved I've just been moving the citations to the end of the last country added. Would this be the best thing to do here or is there a better way to do this? ― Blaze The Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 15:37, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

If you're talking about the table in the "Awards" section, I think that ref is correctly put there. Lightbluerain❄ (Talk | contribs) 17:11, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

@Lightbluerain: I'm referring to the one under map expansion packs. ― Blaze The Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 18:00, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

@Lightbluerain: I know the table for rewards is fine, i'm talking about the table under map expansion packs. I'm changing it to just mention what countries were added/improved in the update and I'm unsure if where I"ve moved the refs to in that table is correct. ― Blaze The Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 19:07, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

@Blaze The Wolf, if I were to make the table, I would put the refs at the "Name" entity itself when the ref proves the entire paragraph in "County" or "Date" entity. Lightbluerain❄ (Talk | contribs) 18:03, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Blaze The Wolf: Looking at User:Blaze The Wolf/sandbox 2#Map expansion packs, here are my thoughts:

• Ref #17 lists an intended release date. I suggest replacing ref #17 with an independent source that states it was actually released on 20 September 2013.
• I suggest removing ref #18, as it is an announcement of intent and does not show what was actually released.
• Ref #19 looks to be in the correct place, as the source mentions all 4 countries.
• Ref #20 appears to be misplaced, as it isn't discussing the 2013 update. I don't know where this belongs.

Is that what you were looking for? GoingBatty (talk) 18:09, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Yep that helps! Thanks! ― Blaze The Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 18:50, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Also I'm just removing Ref #20 completely as the only place it would belong would be a section I removed per WP:NOTCHANGELOG ― Blaze The Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 18:53, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

The article on Clarks Landing, New Jersey, was recently changed to a redirect to the municipality containing it on the basis that there isn't a town there now, as the article previously claimed. I have found several sources ([11] is the only one of these available online) which describe it as a town that used to exist but was abandoned near the end of the 18th century. Can I recreate the article based on these sources immediately, or do I need to first go through some process to argue that it should be un-deleted? LaetusStudiis (talk) 19:10, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

@LaetusStudiis: I'd just edit the redirect. You could start it as "Clarks Landing was a former town in New Jersey." and incorporate the info from the other source as well. You could also ping the person who did the redirect, as a courtesy. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:19, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Can I remove an archived post which is similar, with a few grammar changes, to another archived post? I created both posts and two of them do not need to be archived, correct? Thank you! 73.167.238.120 (talk) 17:54, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello ip user! Welcome to Teahouse! I don't think you can as per as the above template of the archived discussion page. Thank you. Richard M William (talk) 17:59, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Not even for extenuating circumstances? I do not see the point of one of the posts still being in the archived section. 73.167.238.120 (talk) 19:20, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi, I need to edit the page for https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nature_(TV_program) - mainly some inaccuracies in the side bar and intro. However, I don't necessarily have written sources for this - I work for Nature and that's my connection. Will that be okay? Trying to go about this the right way. Thanks! Naturepbs (talk) 19:34, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

@Naturepbs: Unfortunately we can't take your word - we need sources for any information that you want to add. You can put in a connected edit request on the article talk page to see if others can help. See Wikipedia:Simple conflict of interest edit request. You'll also need to change your user name - it can't represent the company. See WP:ORGNAME. Lastly, you'll need to declare your connection to the company on your user page. See WP:DISCLOSE. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:40, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Dear Wikipedian community:

I've just joined Wikipedia and I wish to write a separate article on "Autism in China".

I wish to do this because on Wikipedia, there's only a few sentences of information about the situation of autistic people in China, and Asia in general (check the section "Asia" in the article "Global perceptions of autism"" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_perceptions_of_autism)

Therefore, I think it will be beneficial for others if I start an article. But I wonder about the community perspective if it's a notable topic to warrant a separate article before going. Thanks!

thumb Ha.susulat (talk) 23:14, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Ha.susulat, you raise two important points. One of them is: Are there reliable sources that discuss it in depth? (If you're not sure, then try listing what you consider are the best three.) The other is that you appear to have no experience of working on existing articles. Doing so is relatively straightforward. With no experience such as this, you're likely to find creation of a new article very difficult. So first choose an article or two that seems deficient in some way and about which you have reliable sources, and improve these. -- Hoary (talk) 23:28, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

@Ha.susulat Off the top of my head, it would be strange if you couldn't find WP:RS about "Autism in China" to satisfy the demands of WP:GNG. Since the topic is human health, the sources need to be high quality, see WP:MEDRS. From what I can see at Category:Autism by country, for some reason there are no country specific articles. You may want to ask for input at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Autism. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 23:31, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Your draft Draft:Autism in China looks quite promising. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:58, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång Hi! I'm not sure if you are able to see this message. Thanks for your reply, those are very helpful! I have been making the draft since last night. Would you like to go over it? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Autism_in_China — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ha.susulat (talk • contribs) 20:09, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

So my collages for articles like Walsall and Barnsley got reverted by @David Biddulph: who said I formatted and added a wrong caption and reverted them. Can someone on here please take the time to show me how to correctly format a collage and it's table with the photos used etc.

Thank you DragonofBatley (talk) 20:45, 10 November 2021 (UTC) DragonofBatley (talk) 20:45, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

My understanding for traditional use is one photo in the Info box, and then a gallery inserted elsewhere in the article if more images are warranted. David notMD (talk) 23:22, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

David notMD, the article Paris (for example) has what might be called a collage in its infobox, and I doubt that people would complain about it (although they might of course disagree on which photographs it should include). Lower down in the article Omsk (as another example) we see a couple of what are called galleries (cf the name of the relevant tag). I don't think that collages are galleries, or vice versa. (I leave it to somebody else to respond to the original request.) -- Hoary (talk) 23:36, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

DragonofBatley - MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE states "Images must be significant and relevant in the topic's context, not primarily decorative." You've been doing this for some time (adding - or seeking to add - montages) and, ferinstance, at your home town's article in February 2021 placed conventionally within prose (the edit summary stuck with me). I think this revision was/is overkill (I haven't looked for a long time), also see WP:NOTGUIDE - not a travel guide. For clarity, I am not a Teahouse volunteeer.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 23:48, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

I am corrected. Not just Paris, but also London, Moscow, Washington DC, Buenos Aires... have multiple photos in Infobox. David notMD (talk) 01:38, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

The way to "correctly format" a collage is to be acccurate, to identify the images in the correct order and avoid typos in the caption, and to check and re-check ones edits. PamD 21:23, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

How do I left align, or center align in the visual editor? Whenever I try to edit the contents of a table, it defaults to right-align and I can do nothing to fix that. RedStorm1368 (talk) 19:07, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

@RedStorm1368, that's unfortunately a limitation of VisualEditor. There's no way to do it until this technical ticket is resolved. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:43, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi. I'm new to wikipedia. I was wondering - how does one remove a template message on the top of an article, once the problem is solved. thanks! YHC-Fan (talk) 00:10, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

@YHC-Fan: Welcome to the Teahouse. If you're in source mode, you can delete the code (it'll be a word or phrase enclosed in double curly brackets like {{example}}); in visual editor mode, you can just click on the templated message and press Del on your keyboard. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 01:24, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

@YHC-Fan: - but be sure to address the issues before deleting the template. If you think the template shouldn't be there, delete it, but post an explanation on the article's talk page. Mjroots (talk) 12:57, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Okay thank you so much! — Preceding unsigned comment added by YHC-Fan (talk • contribs) 22:32, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello, question do you know how to request name change of article? Birhanu Zerihun should be Berhanu Zerihun as most sources indicate, and how the name Berhanu usually are spelled for people from Gondar. Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 21:40, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

@Dawit S Gondaria, hello and welcome to the Teahouse, can you show me sources that refer to the subject by the latter name? Secondly, has the article been moved from a different name to another in the past? If so then it has become controversial and you might want to go to TP of the article, notify major contributors to the article and try and reach a consensus there, if that fails then you might want to go to WP:RM and initiate a conversation there. but if it wouldn’t be considered a controversial move, then you can even move it yourself using the move function insofar as you have reliable sources that show the latter to be his WP:COMMONNAME. Celestina007 (talk) 22:16, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Dawit S Gondaria The wikidata item links to Berhanu here and this Google search shows almost all the references are to Berhanu Zerihun, so this seems uncontroversial. I'll therefore make the move in a few minutes. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:16, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

 Done thanks for pointing this out, Dawit. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:25, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you!! @Mike Turnbull Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 22:47, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello, I recently learned that Ichon was featured on the cover of the print version of GQ France in February 2021. I've added text and a citation to this effect, and added other citations as well, bringing the total number of citations to 11. Is the being on the cover of GQ France, along with the the new citations, enough to meet the notability standards and get my article over the top? Thanks!

Jayintheusa (talk) 18:51, 11 November 2021 (UTC) Jayintheusa (talk) 18:51, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

@Jayintheusa: I think you're very close. See if you can add any info from this one [[12]]. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:31, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Tim, thanks very much for the additional citation. I added it as reference #3 and cited it in two places. I'm hoping that this will help get the article over the top! Thanks again for your assistance,

Jayintheusa (talk) 22:48, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello! This is kind of broad, but I was looking through an article and noticed that a sentence was marked as citation needed. I tried to find a source from both the ones used in the article and online, but couldn't find anything. Does that mean the sentence should be deleted or reworded? Sorry if this is too broad or confusing. 65.128.132.127 (talk) 00:21, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

It depends on the article. If it's a biography of a living person, the sentence should probably be deleted, per WP:BLP policy. If it's some other topic and the sentence is plausible, then it simply needs a source and the sentence can remain with the tag until a source is found. If you cannot find a source, or if the sentence is implausible, then you can delete it because it cannot be verified. In some cases, however, especially for topics that pre-date the internet, there may be sources avaialble but not online. Just because an online source cannot be found doesn't mean a source doesn't exist.

What is the article? ~Anachronist (talk) 00:33, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

 45.181.9.227 (talk) 23:58, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

It's impossible. If you want to make money, please go elsewhere. -- Hoary (talk) 00:07, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Well there are ways. You can apply for a job at the Wikimedia Foundation. Or you can create an account and declare yourself a paid editor, as long as you are extremely knowledgeable about Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and disciplined about working within them. Most paid editors, however, don't last long. And undeclared paid editors are found and blocked forever until the end of time. ~Anachronist (talk) 00:38, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

My question is prompted by looking at the talk page here [13], which shows that the article is "stub class". It sure doesn't look like a stub to me. An editor recently filled out this article and their edit comment indicates they removed the stub designation (from the article itself, I assume), but it's still listed as a stub on the talk page under various WikiProjects. I'm not sure whether I should remove that in this case and similar cases, following the assumption that it wasn't done before simply because the other editor forgot to, or whether articles are supposed to keep these tags until someone from the relevant WikiProject has come around to check on them. asilvering (talk) 19:58, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

I think that the article can be assigned to either 'Start' or 'C' class of the quality scale. You can do this yourself. Ruslik_Zero 20:30, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Unrelated question: your reply didn't give me a notification. I didn't add the page to my watchlist, because I thought that a reply would go directly to my inbox anyway. Is there something I need to enable somewhere? I do have "mentions" enabled in Preferences. asilvering (talk) 21:27, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

@Asilvering, Ruslik's reply above didn't include a mention of your username (we sometimes forget haha), so it didn't generate a ping. If you go to Preferences -> Beta features -> Discussion tools and turn that on, a [ subscribe ] option will appear next to sections that you can click to get notified whenever there's a reply. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:33, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

@Asilvering, you're correct that that article has definitely developed beyond a stub! A semi-automated rater tool predicts that it's C-class. You're welcome to change the assessment by changing |class=stub to |class=start or |class=C in each of the talk page project tags. Article assessments are unfortunately quite often out of date, so feel free to change them anytime you think it's warranted (GA-class and FA-class are the only exceptions, since they have their own processes). Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:30, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Excellent, thanks for these replies, @Ruslik0 and @Sdkb! asilvering (talk) 21:38, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

@Asilvering This is just a hasty, drive by comment: I have frequently changed article quality assessments using the automated tool RATER, only to find the page is still listed as a stub after I'm done. This is because the article page itself contains a template, indicating its in a Category of 'stub' for that particular topic and its WP:WIKIPROJECT. It's important to remove that template if you upgrade the assessment. It's always right down at the bottom of the page. Nick Moyes (talk) 01:11, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi, so a user User:VladimirBoys went on a bit of an AfD spree by nominating several articles of Filipino entertainment personalities for deletion. However, their account has since been blocked for being a sockpuppet. I am wondering whether their nominations must still stand or is there a way to "cancel" them since they were initiated by an account that was in contravention of Wiki rules? Here's a link to most of the nominations: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Philippines

Thanks for the help. Koikefan (talk) 01:03, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

@Koikefan: I have mass-deleted the AFD nominations that nobody commented on yet and removed the nominations from the articles, per WP:DENY. ~Anachronist (talk) 01:33, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Koikefan, all those that are listed in Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Philippines have been speedily kept. You say that these are most of the nominations; can you point to any others? -- Hoary (talk) 01:34, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Hoary and Anachronist. Hoary, that should be all of them. I'll let you know if I find others. Thanks again! Koikefan (talk) 01:51, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello, I'm wondering if there is a tag or something I can add to talk pages to encourage other editors to review and add to a discussion. I've seen a lot of articles with issues that require other editors to review so I'd like to get these discussions started but not sure how to encourage other people to join. As a secondary question, whats the proper way to tag another editor so that they get notified on a page? Thanks in advance for your help! WyldEys (talk) 01:02, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

hi @WyldEys: for your second question, you may use templates such as {{ping}} like i did here, or really just link to their userpage (like Melecie [[User:Melecie|Melecie]]) to notify someone through messages, as long as you make sure to sign your post. happy editing!   melecie   t 01:17, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

You can notify relevant editors using {{ping}}, and you can start a discussion about the article on the talk pages for any relevant WikiProjects. What is the article? ClaudineChionh (talk – contribs) 01:16, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

@WyldEys: I think you're looking for Wikipedia:Requests for comment, where you can ping random editors who signed up for the Wikipedia:Feedback request service. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 01:33, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

@Timtempleton: Oh, great thank you! That looks more like what I was looking for. Appreciate the quick help from everyone! WyldEys (talk) 01:57, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you @Melecie: and @ClaudineChionh: (hope that worked!). The first one I started was for the Black Cube article. I realize now that the article might be borderline controversial, but my question is the same for other articles too. I will check out Wiki Projects. Do you know if there are Wiki Projects for this type of thing where articles need to be reviewed for specific issues? Seems like there should be a way to notify a group of people about articles ready to be reviewed, but I'm sure there are a crazy number of articles in that category. Thanks! WyldEys (talk) 01:32, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi there, Im noticing there are a bunch of articles about wikipedia like WP:MOS that I need to read to help me with editing. Can yall suggest some articles like that to me (definitely some citation/reference one). Kaleeb18 (talk) 03:20, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

@Kaleeb18: Thanks for asking! I would start with WP:MOS, WP:CITE, WP:RS, WP:V, and maybe WP:PG. That's a lot of reading, so take it easy and don't overwhelm yourself! ClaudineChionh (talk – contribs) 03:32, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

@ClaudineChionh: thank you for the suggestion and Ill try not to overwhelm myself. Kaleeb18 (talk) 03:38, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

hi Kaleeb18 and welcome to the teahouse! along with the above articles, feel free to read Help:Referencing for beginners to start with referencing, an easier to digest version of WP:CITE. if you need help, also feel free to ask questions here. happy editing! (edit conflict)   melecie   t 03:35, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

@Melecie: Thank you! Kaleeb18 (talk) 03:39, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

 I will not edit (talk) 22:44, 11 November 2021 (UTC) Can I be welcomed on my talk page

People who seem to be willing to contribute are welcome(d). -- Hoary (talk) 23:06, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely. -- Hoary (talk) 04:08, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

I added the film Legends of the Fall, a movie known to be, and described in the article itself as being “about three brothers and their father,” to the category of Father and son films. A user reverted my edited and wrote on my talk page, “It's not clear to me on what basis you categorized this as a 'father and son' film, especially as I don't see any real discussion of that dynamic in the article.” When I replied that it’s public knowledge the film centers on father and son relationships, the user claimed that my application of film categories based on the plot description and poster rather than any sources qualifies as “original research.” I’ve only been editing articles here for about a year, but does adding a film to a category when the article’s own plot description contains the elements of that category count as “original research”? I don’t place films in categories if they do not fit the described category. If the user is correct, was the addition of the movie Beethoven to the “Films about dogs” category considered “original research”? Spectrallights (talk) 05:16, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

I know nothing about this film (other than what I skimread today). Or indeed about most films in Category:Father and son films. But it seems to me that (i) a huge number of films would have, as major characters, fathers and sons (I mean, of each other), and (ii) there really aren't many films in the category. So imaginably the category is (rightly or wrongly) only being used for films that are described as primarily about father–son relationships, and that it's not obvious to at least one editor that this film qualifies. (If so, this surprises me, as categories usually seem to err on the side of inclusiveness.) Well, if the film is known to be “about three brothers and their father”, then presumably you'd be able to cite/quote a review (several of which are linked) that says this. -- Hoary (talk) 07:30, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. Can you explain what you mean by those categories are usually inclusive? Does it mean the interpretation of those categories are understood to be broad? It appears that user is very particular about that film and its respective categories, as I have categorized over 100 films in a similar manner and the only “complaint” I have received is from that user for that movie alone. -- Spectrallights (talk) 05:21, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello. i am translating an article from Georgian Wikipedia and want to insert an image (which is already on Wikimedia commons see here) in the infobox. How can i do it? Nia chelidze3 (talk) 06:44, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

@Nia chelidze3: That image isn't on Commons, but on the the Georgian Wikipedia (c:File:Poster Institute.jpg says no file exists). The image itself doesn't seem to be suitable for an infobox. For one, the text isn't even in English. Even if it were, it would not be legible in a small resolution, and we'd much rather text be inserted into the article body instead. Also, the image doesn't seem to be a free image, and probably shouldn't be on Commons at all. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (talk) 06:54, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you! --Nia chelidze3 (talk) 06:59, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi, I am going through some of the talk pages for a usability case study and I am noticing some difficulty in navigation and understanding of the pages. I was wondering if editors can share your thoughts and flows as they go through these pages? Or if there are specific pages I can get directed to for this kind of discussion? Jncwtopac (talk) 05:40, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

@Jncwtopac: Hello. Please see H:TP. Richard M William (talk) 05:51, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi Jncwtopac. You might want to look at Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines for some general guidance. Generally, a talk page is for discussing ways to improve its parent page; for example, an article's talk page is for discussing ways to improve the article, whereas the Teahouse talk page would be the place to discuss ways to improve the Teahouse. Anything that strays to far away from the primary purpose of the talk page is probably not a good idea. There are also a user talk pags for each account and where you can discuss matters specific to a particular account. Editors are given a little more leeway when it comes to these pages, but user talk pages are still subject to relevant policies and guidelines. Since "usability" sounds like "access", you might want to take a look at MOS:ACCESS for some general information on that. Finally, if you're looking for a general discussion on talk pages, then you might want to try Wikipedia:Village pump or Wikipedia:Noticeboards since they might be a better place than the Teahouse to discuss such things. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:00, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Got it! Thank you for the help! User:Richard M William and User:MarchjulyJncwtopac (talk) 07:01, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

•  Courtesy link: Draft:NumFOCUS

Draft:NumFOCUS Draft, Organization Notability

Hey folks, the NumFOCUS draft was removed despite what I feel is overwhelming evidence of notability and significance. I am interested to get advice on how to push this forward. NumFOCUS projects are the foundation of science and computing, so it is important the organization is represented here. Logankilpatrick (talk) 04:32, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

It has been "draftified", Logankilpatrick. I have trouble finding independent sources that discuss the subject at length or in depth. This, for example, looks promising at first glance, but reads like a PR release and turns out to have been written by Numfocus. Which would you say are the best three sources? -- Hoary (talk) 04:46, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Hoary I am not an expert at this stuff, but here are three I like. I will note that in my opinion, there aren't any massive articles about NF. No NYT, Wall street journal, etc. That is the nature of open source, it is often out of the spotlight. With that said, the organization is mentioned and talked about in all of the articles I shared in the draft. The combination of the small articles seems to me at least to be convincing of notability.

1. https://mitsloan.mit.edu/press/jump-a-modeling-language-roots-mit-sloan-achieves-a-new-milestone-open-source-community-its-acceptance-a-numfocus-sponsored-project

2. https://cmse.msu.edu/news-events/news/general-news/tardis-joins-numfocus-as-a-sponsored-project/

3. https://www.yahoo.com/now/anaconda-launches-anaconda-dividend-program-140000512.html

Logankilpatrick (talk) 04:55, 12 November 2021 (UTC)Logan Kilpatrick

@Logankilpatrick: All three of these are press releases from NumFOCUS sponsored projects, and #2 and #3 appear to be co-written with NumFOCUS. What are your best independent sources? GoingBatty (talk) 05:12, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Logankilpatrick, and welcome to the Teahouse. Your wording it is important the organization is represented here suggests a misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is, specifically the word "represented". Not one organisation is "represented" here - Wikipedia has articles about thousands of organisations, which are (or should be) a summary of what people wholly unconnected with the organisations have chosen to publish about them - whether favourable or unfavourable. Please have a read through What Wikipedia is not, especially WP:NOTADVOCACY. --ColinFine (talk) 11:29, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi, I can't get for the short summaries to show up on Glória (2021 TV series). It shows up on source but not on the page Shexantidote (talk) 12:46, 12 November 2021 (UTC) Shexantidote (talk) 12:46, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

That's not a bug but a feature of the desktop Wikipedia. See WP:SHORTDES, Shexantidote Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:59, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

@Michael D. Turnbull: I don't think the question was about short descriptions. I think the OP was asking about the "ShortSummary" parameter in the table in the "Episodes" section of the article. --David Biddulph (talk) 13:21, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi Shexantidote. If your question is indeed about the episode summaries, then the issue appears to be that the template {{Episode list/sublist}}, which is being used to display the information, is missing one parameter. According to the template's documentation, you must add the title of the page so that it display the summary. I've done it once here to test and see if it works. Isabelle ^🔔 13:53, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

I have prepared an article that is, hopefully in accordance with the guidelines I have read, and would like to submit the draft for consideration. I understand that I need to add (The submission template) to the beginning of the draft, but cannot see where/how to do this. Can anyone help please? Woodag (talk) 11:42, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

I did not intend for this "Review waiting" box to be insterted. I inserted brackets subst:submit brackets which converted to the box

@Woodag:, welcome to the Teahouse. It looks like you have answered your own question. You'll need to do the same on your draft , placing it at the top - Rich^T|C|E-Mail 11:59, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Courtesy: Now at Draft:Parsons Restaurant. David notMD (talk) 14:12, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Woodag This will be declined unless you fix it. None of the references are in proper format (See Help:Referencing for beginners), and huge blocks of text are not referenced. David notMD (talk) 14:18, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello I have added as requested additional information into my sandbox for review before entering on the page of Alf Collins. I have noticed a spelling mistake and a grammar correction and I have tried to find it again to review it and correct if possible.

However I am now not sure I have added it for review as I cannot locate it? ACA64sjs (talk) 10:35, 12 November 2021 (UTC) ACA64sjs (talk) 10:35, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

ACA64sjs, everything in User:ACA64sjs/sandbox following the template that headed it had been commented out. Guessing that this was what you meant by being unable to "locate it", I moved the end of the comment ("-->") forward so that most of what was hidden became visible. If I misunderstood what you wrote above, feel free to revert my edit, of course. -- Hoary (talk) 11:12, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

@ACA64sjs: I see that the comment on your sandbox page is asking for help to "PUT THE CONTENTS IN A BOX FRAME". This will happen automatically when you add section headers. See Help:Section for more information. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 14:49, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

I have created a page and submitted for review: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:IIMT_College_of_Engineering

Message Received: This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of organizations and companies). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue).

I have an article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IIMT_Group_of_Colleges

Message Received: This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page. (Learn how and when to remove these template messages) This article relies too much on references to primary sources. (October 2021) The topic of this article may not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines for companies and organizations. (October 2021) This article is an orphan, as no other articles link to it. Please introduce links to this page from related articles

Could you please suggest the improvements. CollegeGN (talk) 11:21, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

@CollegeGN: If you work for IIMT or have any other conflict of interest, you must declare it on your user page.

For Draft:IIMT College of Engineering, the message encourages you to add more independent reliable sources.

For IIMT Group of Colleges:, the first two messages also encourage you to add more independent reliable sources. The last one encourages you to edit other articles to add links to IIMT Group of Colleges.

Hope this helps, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 14:57, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Please explain what the problem within my article "Soopy Narikkatteri"?why a reviewer declined my draft.he (reviewer)says that ask some one on tea house to complete article submission. Wikihysom (talk) 15:01, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

@Wikihysom: Hello and Welcome to the Teahouse. Draft:Soopy Narikkatteri currently has no sources at all, which means we cannot accept it, for two reasons. Victor Schmidt (talk) 15:06, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

 105.112.30.158 (talk) 15:24, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

My friend,you can visit now!.i found reference from a keralite news channel.but language is in malayalam (local language of kerala).you can translate news website to english.!!(Wikihysom (talk)) — Preceding undated comment added 15:28, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Teahouse hosts provide guidance, but are not here to help revise drafts. David notMD (talk) 15:56, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

@Wikihysom: Hi there! Per WP:BASIC, multiple sources are necessary to demonstrate notability. I don't know enough about Indian politics to determine whether he meets WP:POLITICIAN. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 16:22, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

In addition, Wikihysom, a Wikipedia article should never in Wikipedia's voice use evaluative language like "famous", or "was the backbone behind". An article may quote reliable sources, independent of the subject, in saying such things, but Wikipedia's text must maintain a neutral point of view. --ColinFine (talk) 17:11, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi, I submitted a draft page on a typographical journal on 11 August. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Signature_(typography_journal) I was delighted and grateful that someone looked at it right away, and gave useful feedback, while declining it in its current form. Having re-worked the article to get all the relevant references in and deal with the comments I've now waited three months and no one has looked at the rewritten version. I understand that everyone is busy and has other priorities etc. but I'm intrigued as a newbie that the first draft got looked at immediately -rejected- then the follow-up article doesn't get looked at all. I say this as my contribution was on a particular specialist subject not really covered in Wiki. I'm fascinated that the rejection of the original was so quick yet the follow-up piece seems to be ignored.

If no one approves it will it stay as a draft page forever or will it get deleted at some point? Is there anything I can do to get someone to look at it at some point? NeilWells (talk) 12:11, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello, NeilWells. You do not appear to have resubmitted the draft for review, so it is not on the list waiting for review. If you think it is ready, please pick the "Resubmit" button. --ColinFine (talk) 12:23, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

To add what ColinFine has already written above, if the draft is accepted, the draft will be moved, including its entire history, into the article namespace. Victor Schmidt (talk) 15:12, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

@NeilWells: Also, drafts that have not been edited in six months may be deleted - see Wikipedia:Drafts#Deletion of old drafts. GoingBatty (talk) 16:17, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

@GoingBatty I believe that drafts that have never been submitted for review are exceptions to this. But you may know differently. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 16:22, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

No, Fiddle/Faddle, never having been submitted for review doesn't impact on whether or not a stagnant draft is automatically flagged for speedy deletion after 6 months. Nick Moyes (talk) 17:23, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello. i am a new editor. can anyone tell me what to insert in the article if i haven't finished writing it but want to save my contribution? thank you in advance! Nia chelidze3 (talk) 20:18, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

@Nia chelidze3: If you're talking about saving your edit you simply just press the publish button which on Wikipedia saves your work and puts it onto the live article. ― Blaze The Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 20:35, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

@Nia chelidze3 Welcome to the Teahouse - it's great to have you here. Whilst what Blaze says above is correct, what I think you're asking is what do you do if you suddenly have to stop work whilst making an edit and don't yet want to put those half-finished changes into the main encyclopaedia article. What I do when that happens is either to copy my text and drop it into a Word document on my own computer or - more often - I'd simply paste it into my personal sandbox, so I can retrieve it later. I realise that, as a new user, the idea of a 'sandbox' is probably a bit confusing (sorry), but everyone can have one or more userpages like this for working on Wikipedia content without it being in the main encyclopaedia. You can find yours via a red link at the top of any page your editing on a desktop. Or simply go to User:Nia_chelidze3/sandbox, click Create source, paste in your half-done text, then click the blue Publish page button. Once that page is created, from now on the link to your sandbox page will appear in blue, not red. I hope this helps. Nick Moyes (talk) 21:42, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. Well, I have an experience in Georgian Wikipedia and there we are able to insert special Wiki markup in the article and delay our editing. That's why i asked. Thanks for welcoming. --Nia chelidze3 (talk) 04:55, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

@Nia chelidze3: If I understand you correctly, you may be looking for something like the template {{under construction}} or {{in use}} (the latter should be used only for short-term interruptions). Deor (talk) 17:48, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

 Gato 2408 (talk) 18:12, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Gato 2408, and welcome to the Teahouse. What is your question about editing Wikipedia? --ColinFine (talk) 18:42, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello. Can anyone check my article? it's not finished yet, I am going to expand it but want to know if meets the standards of English Wikipedia. thanks! Nia chelidze3 (talk) 20:02, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Wonderful effort for a person who just joined English Wikipedia a day ago. There is a lot of unreferenced content in the Lead that is not elaborated upon nor referenced in the body of the text. Keep working before submitting. David notMD (talk) 21:09, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

I know that you say that you would usually want to have users work on drafts solitary, but what if I want an article to be looked at from different angles of different users? What if I want more help on editing (I'm asking this because I don't want to ask one question about editing, and then all of a sudden have another one, etc.)? What could I do to be helped by other users? Is this ok or no? If no then sorry. :/ Also, here's the draft: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Waterflame (P.S.: I'm confused. It says it had a declined submission, but I didn't send it. Can you tell me why this happened?)[User:WaterflameIsAwesome|WaterflameIsAwesome]] (talk) 19:03, 11 November 2021 (UTC) WaterflameIsAwesome (talk) 19:03, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

@WaterflameIsAwesome: You can see in the edit history that it was submitted on November 9 by @AssumeGoodWraith:. Since Draft:Waterflame was declined, it was premature. The sourcing is insufficient - the only sources are New Grounds, which seems to be a user generated platform. You need reliable third party (i.e. independent) sources to demonstrate notability. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:24, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Oh yeah, also I know he is notable, but the only problem is that there isn't many online articles about him or anything, so I tried everything, from YouTube links to WF's bio on Genius.com. But pretty much all of those are "blacklisted links" or whatever you call them. So NG links and Spotify albums are all I could find. The only reason I pretty much started the draft was because I myself am an expert on the subject. I could name like 200+ songs by him in one sitting. (:O moment) And once I found out that WP wants online sources to provide knowledge, not us users to provide knowledge, I was stuck. If I, the best source I know on the subject, can't make up the majority of the article, WHAT CAN? So basically this is my problem. WaterflameIsAwesome (talk) 19:41, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

@Timtempleton: oh I didn't know other users could send it. Why did they send it though? I wasn't nearly finished with it. Hmm... Oh, and also what about my first question?

@WaterflameIsAwesome: You can invite others to collaborate, as you've done here - it's a shared editing platform. I pinged AssumeGoodWraith earlier and assume he/she will comment about the submission. It might have been inadvertent. Also, you should indent your responses by putting in an extra ":" in front of the text. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:36, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Ok thanks. Also sorry. I'll indent stuff from now on. WaterflameIsAwesome (talk) 19:43, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

@WaterflameIsAwesome: In addition to the Teahouse, you can also ask for input on the talk page of Wikiprojects that are relevant – Wikipedia:WikiProject Musicians and maybe Wikipedia:WikiProject Electronic music (though the latter doesn't look like it is very active). And another thing: sources do not need to be online, the important thing is that they meet the criteria for reliable sources. To show notability, there has to be reliable sources that are independent. It looks like you may be right, that there aren't any independent sources online (I couldn't find anything in English or Norwegian), but again, people who are active in the relevant Wikiprojects might have a better idea of how to find good sources. --bonadea contributions talk 20:20, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

I submitted the draft for feedback. - AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 03:57, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

@WaterflameIsAwesome: I fixed reference #1 in this edit. Could you please review Template:Cite web and my edit and fix the other references? Also, since you know he is notable, could you please specify which of the notability criteria for musicians he meets? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 04:31, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

@GoingBatty I think he might meet criteria number 9, but only if you can consider the Newgrounds Audio Deathmatch (NGADM) a major music competition. My reasoning is that it is definitely a major music competition on NG, but can it be considered a MMC in general? Like, does it need to be a well-known competition, etc. Also, to answer the other part of the question, in the NGADM 2012, he finished 2nd. Just to explain, the NGADM is a yearly (I think) audio competition, where audio creators from all over the world come together to compete for a prize which I don't know of (or if there's even a prize at all, XD). I think there's five rounds, and each participant makes an audio specifically for each round. I believe there's also an elimination process, but I don't know how that works. In the NGADM 2012, there were 162 participants, if I recall correctly. Anyways, I hope that answers your question. Additionally, I think he also meets criteria number 10, unless... are video games a work of media that's notable? I know WF has created music for several video games, (like a lotta lotta lot) such as Geometry Dash (Platformer Game), Castle Crashers (Flash Game Using Music From NG Users, WF Was One), CastleStorm (Adventure Game(?) ), Great Forest Challenge (I dunno), Oh My Goat! (Again, Dunno), Infinite Minigolf (Minigolf I Guess???), and Layerz (Chiptunes Puzzle/Mahjong/Dominoes Game). So maybe those two.

@AssumeGoodWraith oh ok.

@Bonadea Ok I'll check those wikiprojects and see if I can find any help, however like it says on my talk page, a lot of people don't use Newgrounds or have even heard of it, and therefore probably don't know who he is.

Lastly, I want to say there actually was a page about Waterflame (That wasn't a redirect) on Wikipedia previously, but mysteriously got turned into a redirect to Geometry Dash, and after a few "disruptive" edits by an IP user, got deleted, and unfortunately, I am not an admin, so I can't see who turned it into a redirect or see all the information about it. *sigh*. Anyways... WaterflameIsAwesome (talk) 21:42, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

@WaterflameIsAwesome: I would presume the definition of a "major" competition includes being "well-known". There's no information about this competition in your draft, and none of the 6 million plus articles in the English Wikipedia mention the competition. The draft does not include any independent references stating that his music has been used in video games. Waterflame is listed as the composer in the CastleStorm article, but the references in that article don't seem to mention Waterflame. You'll need multiple independent reliable sources that show how he meets the notability criteria in order for this draft to become an article.

Also, if you personally know Waterflame or work for him or have any other conflict of interest (i.e. more than just a fan), you need to declare it on your user page. Also also, why does your user page state that you have been awarded a badge for being a Teahouse host? GoingBatty (talk) 00:09, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello,

I work for the Communications Team at Fortinet. We’ve been seeking help in improving the article about our company Fortinet because last December 2 user accounts that had made contributions in the past were flagged by a sock puppet investigation.

Although our team believes some employees have contributed edits to the article on their own over the years, earlier this year our executive team asked employees not to edit the article in an effort to allay the Wikipedia community's concerns. We have no way of identifying undisclosed past contributors. And given that outing editors is against Wikipedia policy, we see no reason to attempt to identify who the banned users were.

To help improve the article, I’ve published a proposed rewrite of the article in my sandbox. Our COI Edit Request is for Wikipedians to provide feedback on the proposed rewrite, in the hope that when an accepting consensus is formed, someone will publish the rewrite. Fortinet recognizes that it doesn’t own the Wikipedia article, and that we are not to exercise editorial control over it. We only hope to provide helpful information and to keep the page updated according to Wikipedia’s guidelines.

Is there anything else we can do to attract helpful editors who have no connection to our company? Would anyone here be willing to participate in the process to improve the article?

Thank you for your attention. JasmineLozanoFortinet (talk) 22:02, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for being clear about your status, JasmineLozanoFortinet. I only glanced at your sandbox, but have you ever seen an encyclopaedia article use the lawyer's phrase "including but not limited to"? Here it reads to me as pure promotion. Remember Wikipedia has basically zero interest in what you want to say about your company and your products: it is only interested in what people unconnected with you have published about you: has any of them ever used that phrase? Really? --ColinFine (talk) 22:32, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

@JasmineLozanoFortinet: Welcome to the Teahouse! I don't think you'll be successful finding someone to read your sandbox draft, find every change between the draft and the current article, and say that the entire draft can replace the current article. Instead, I suggest posting smaller suggestions on Talk:Fortinet with the {{edit request}} template in the form of "Please change X to Y, and here's the independent reliable source to support it." Hope this helps! GoingBatty (talk) 00:18, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hello, JasmineLozanoFortinet. Fortinet is already a well-developed Good article that has been peer-reviewed by uninvolved, experienced editors. It would be extremely unusual to dispose of all that work and institute a version written by a company employee. Instead, I recommend that you make a series of smaller, incremental Edit requests at Talk: Fortinet. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:22, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

You have been making incremental edit requests on the Talk page since July. Which were declined. Try harder. David notMD (talk) 02:14, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Bold textIn regards to this post on George B Curtiss, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_B._Curtiss. I feel that Curtiss needs to be presented as a protectionist and a economic historian on the tariff concerning the Trans Atlantic world. This is all I wish to say George B Curtiss the protectionist and economic history was the writer of four economic works. He can be credited to having done a n extensive mapping out of the American System of Political Economy in his work, the Industrial Development of Nations. Curtiss was a honoary member of the American Protective Tariff League. At their bequest he wrote the pamphlet Abraham Lincoln Protectionist. Curtiss said in this piece "Washington introduced the American System of Protection to domestic labor and industry,and Lincoln aided in establishing and protecting that syste." reference is Abraham Lincoln Protectionist , George B Curtiss, New York, The American Protective Tariff League, 1916. I am sorry but him being a Protectionist is why he is a historical individual not because he is a lwyer. I feel as if the historians do not want to say some one is a protectionist and lead people on to treasures are fools gold because there are lot of protectionists on wikipedia. The people who put up these posts are indifferenct towards the subject. How do I make a reference? I may be forced to just list a name of protectionists , giving a concise briefing on the protectionist ways.

1.Moses W Field protectionist not accordinging to Wikipedia, 2.Thomas B Reed, protectionist, not according to Wikipedia, 3.Thomas Haines Dudley, his protectionist pieces are not included. They do mention he was the first vice president of the American Protective Tariff League, 4.John Brewer Hart protectionist, not according to Wikipedia, 5. William Few protectionist, part of the The American society encouragement of domestic manufacturers to the people of the United States,not according to Wikipedia, 6.Peter Cooper protectionist, not according to wikipedia, 7.John M Clayton protectionist, not according wikipedia,John h. Gear protectionist , not according to wikipedia, 8. John Adam Kasson protectionist, not according to that venerable body wikipedia, His Highest Excellency John Quincy Adams protectionist, not according to wikipedia 9. Joseph Gurney Cannon protectionist, not according to wikipedia 10. Asher Robbins protectionist, not according to wikipedia 11. Edward Joy Morris protectionist not according to wikipedia 12 Luther Martin Kennet protectionist not according to wikipedia. 13. James Thompson McCleary, protectionist, not according to wikipedia 14. Abraham Lincoln protectionist gave a bevy of speeches on the tariff, but Wikipedia has an article sheds no light of his mastery of the tariff. 15. Andrew Stewart protectionist, not according to Wikipedia. All one has to do is read their speeches or books to arrive at the conclusion I made. The above men were protectionist. What we have here is a pattern of wikipedia sources that are inadequate. Wikiedia and her sources do not do the kind of research that will tell the story of the tariff. I have to conclude , they are indifferent. I will gladly do work they chose not to do. I just need to figure out how to reference things when I add on to wikipedia entries. One last thing political grave yard and the biographical directory for the United States Congress is not going to talk about protectionism. Protectionist like me will though.So again I ask how do I put up references so I can have these dead white men not turn in the graves for noot being seen as protectionist. EzraCyrusmerleCarey (talk) 22:33, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

@EzraCyrusmerleCarey: Welcome to the Teahouse! To learn how to make references, see WP:EASYREFBEGIN. Suggestions for improving can be made on the article's talk page (e.g. Talk:George B. Curtiss). Hope this helps, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 00:22, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

@EzraCyrusmerleCarey: Don't add your own conclusions to articles. That is original research and is prohibited here. If you want to characterize those people as protectionist, you need to find reliable sources (emphasis on reliable, as in having a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy) that describe them that way. ~Anachronist (talk) 00:30, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

George B. Curtiss is about Curtiss. It is not about protectionism which is its own article. Whether any of those listed people supported protectionism or not has no bearing on the Curtiss article. New content (referenced) about them belongs in the articles about them. David notMD (talk) 02:24, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Per Tim Templeton's suggestion above, I added 2 more citations to Ichon. I'm hoping that these changes, as well 2 citations about Ichon’s appearance on the cover of “GQ France” magazine, will qualify the article for addition to the namespace! Fingers crossed & thanks to all for your assistance,

Jayintheusa (talk) 23:02, 12 November 2021 (UTC) Jayintheusa (talk) 23:02, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

@Jayintheusa: When you're ready to have your draft reviewed again, click the blue "Resubmit" button on your draft. Which of the notability criteria for musicians do you think Ichon meets? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 00:33, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Jayintheusa, you should explain at Draft talk:Ichon (rapper) specifically why he meets the Notability guideline for musical performers, mentioning specific references and explaining how they contribute to his notability. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:36, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

FWIW, after reading through the sources, he may qualify more broadly under WP:GNG, rather than as a musician simply under WP:NMUSICIAN. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 01:06, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone for your excellent suggestions. I've resubmitted the article for qualification under WP:GNG.

Jayintheusa (talk) 02:32, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

This about the page 'W. B. Yeats'.

As there was no infobox on this page, I spent a good amount of time in collecting data and verifying it to create an infobox (my first one) in September. A copy of the page I created can be found here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=W._B._Yeats&oldid=1043082533

But somebody has removed the infobox. Why?

 Qapisce (talk) 07:18, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi Qapisce. While an MOS:INFOBOX can be useful in many cases, an infobox is not an element required to be added to an article. In some cases, an infobox might actually be seen as a WP:DISINFOBOX. Often whether an infobox should be added is something to be determined through discussion on the article's talk page, and that might be what happened here. This was the edit that removed the infobox that you added, and it appears from the edit summary that perhaps a WP:CONSENSUS was previously established not to add an infobox to this article. If you look at Talk:W. B. Yeats, you see that there was some discussion on this very thing at Talk:W. B. Yeats#Adding an Infobox Writer Template.... why should it be removed? which is probably what the editor who reverted you is referring to in their edit summary. If you check the archives of that talk page, you see that this was also discussed at Talk:W. B. Yeats/Archive 2#Infobox way back in 2007 where it does seems as if a consensus to not use an infobox was established. Of course, you did nothing wrong in trying to be WP:BOLD and add one, but now perhaps what you should do is bring up the matter again on the article talk page to see if anything has change since 2007. A consensus can change over time, but the way that happens is usually through new discussion. Perhaps if you can show the reasons for not wanting to use an infobox are no longer applicable, a new consensus in favor of its use can be established. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:37, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Qapisce. A more general point is that infoboxes have long been very controversial. Many experienced editors like them and other experienced editors oppose them strongly. Please read Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes to understand this dispute. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:29, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Better link: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes (I had no idea they were so disliked!). Wikignome Wintergreen^talk 19:27, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I corrected my typo. Thanks, Wikignome Wintergreen. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:48, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

 Eclipse21212121 (talk) 03:44, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

@Eclipse21212121: Three editors have reverted your addition of unsourced trivia to the infobox. Per the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, you may discuss this on Talk:Myles Garrett and provide a reliable source for your suggestion. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 03:52, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Eclipse21212121.Your edit has been reverted three times by more experienced editors, the last time with an edit summary of "unreferenced malformed trivia that doesn't belong in the infobox", and that is also my opinion. You must provide a reference to a reliable source when you add new content when it is challenged. Avoid edit warring, which can result in a block. Why should the biography of an American professional gridiron football player include content about who he played video games with? Why is that relevant? I just don't see it. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:58, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

What can I do to a BLP article to get that pink-highlighted box to appear when someone clicks to edit the article? I've seen it (for example, at Brian Timpone but I want to add it to another article that does NOT have the pink warning box appear. What causes it? What can I add to the article or its talk page to make it appear? I have checked the various templates at the top and bottom of articles and talk pages and I cannot figure it out. Please someone point me in the right direction. Platonk (talk) 00:25, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

@Platonk: You do that by adding [[Category:Living people]] at the bottom of the article, along with the other categories. If you want a customized edit notice, that can be created only by administrators. ~Anachronist (talk) 00:34, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

@Anachronist: That was very helpful, and an unexpected result. Now... I really wanted to tag a "list of people" (List of first openly LGBT politicians in the United States) and saw there was a subcategory of [[Category:Living people]], which was [[Category:Lists of living people]]. Unfortunately, that subcategory used on its own does not inherit the pink-warning-box function of its parent category. (I tested it.) I just stripped out a bunch of items that had neither a citation nor a bluelink, in violation of BLP policies, so these lists of living people also need the BLP warning. Any idea how that one category gets its pink-box feature and/or how we can get the "lists of" category to also get that feature? Platonk (talk) 01:48, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

@Platonk: I am not sure how it gets applied. I poked around and couldn't figure it out. In any case, I am skeptical that the community would accept having that edit notice be applied to a list category. It's something you may want to take up on the category talk page (you may want to make it an RFC). ~Anachronist (talk) 03:02, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Platonk, List of first openly LGBT politicians in the United States properly and correctly includes Harvey Milk, who was assassinated 43 years ago. A list article that includes people who are living and other people who are dead should not get the pink-highlighted box you mentioned. Every editor and every edit must comply with BLP policy, though. We should not overtag articles. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:13, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

I have a question about a situation I have not come across before, is it a COI for an editor to add information to an article about a house that they own? I had a quick look through the COI guidelines and couldn't really find anything that I believe addressed this. My gut feeling is that it is a COI but I don't want to address it without a second opinion. Cheers. Greyjoy ^talk 03:28, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Interesting question! It would be probably still be COI, because WP:ACTUALCOI states

Example: A business owner has an actual COI if they edit articles and engage in discussions about that business.

Since they own the house and edit the house's article, they have an actual COI. And, COI aside, any information they add about the house because they live in it is original research, which they can't do. WhoAteMyButter (📨_talk│📝^contribs) 05:01, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

A house notable enough to have its own Wikipedia article is probably of historical or architectural significance, or both. It is in Wikipedia's best interest to have a high quality, properly referenced article about such a house. If the owner wants to sell the house, that Wikipedia article may influence its sales price. That creates a conflict of interest. The owner of the house should disclose their COI, and limit themselves to making edit requests on the article talk page, accompanied by links to reliable sources. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:21, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2020 May Kado massacre needs experienced users willing to determine the quality/reliability of these 107 articles! Is anyone up for that? Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 05:44, 13 November 2021 (UTC) Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 05:44, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello, I was as wondering how I could make a Wikipedia page on a footballer, as I'm struggling to do so. If anyone could help that would be great. Thank you. Kaizako10 (talk) 08:56, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello,Kaizako10. I'm pretty sure you have to make your user sandbox, Make a draft article and submit. I might be wrong, so you can wait for other responses.GuyForceOne (talk) 09:37, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Have a look at Help:Your_first_article. Good luck! Elemimele (talk) 09:40, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

• Kaizako10 Hello and welcome. Creating a new article(not just a "page", a subtle but important distinction) is probably the hardest thing to attempt on Wikipedia. You will greatly increase your chances of success if you first spend time editing existing articles, perhaps on other footballers, to get a feel for how Wikipedia operates and what is expected of article content.

You may use the Articles for Creation process to create and submit a draft for review. You will want to first gather at least three independent reliable sources about this person, showing how they meet the special Wikipedia defintion of a notable footballer. 331dot (talk) 09:44, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

I have been editing Wikipedia for a few months and still unsure how to add reliable editing sources to the pages. If you know how to do it, please help me on it. Thanks.  Runningman2027 (talk) 12:46, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Runningman2027 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. You may find it helpful to read Referencing for Beginners. 331dot (talk) 12:58, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Part of the process is that you insert the refs in the right place in the body of the article. The ref program automatically assigns a number and show the ref in the ref list. Also, a good idea creating refs in your Sandbox, then transferring to article only after you are sure the ref looks good. David notMD (talk) 15:08, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Is wikipedia used in which ways — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nidamour (talk • contribs) 14:02, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

People learn stuff. As of 13 November 2021, there are 6,408,075 articles in the English Wikipedia containing over 3.99 billion words. Each month, roughly nine billion pages are viewed. David notMD (talk) 15:12, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

How does a person progress from being a user on Wikipedia and getting to an editor with more privileges? Just wondering if error rate is a criteria.

Wikipedia is common encyclopedia where all of us can make edits and people are open to constructively discuss and resolve differences. However, not everyone might use their time to discussing and resolving differences. They might rather want to use their time working on a new article. Or editing an article.

When there is no quality rating tied to an editor, they’ll be inadvertently making edits like removing valid sources or deleting content because they didn’t read the citation well. And now, they’re in a sense doing more harm than good to the content on Wikipedia.

The number of edits is a great metric but the quality of edits is of more importance. It is complicated to objectively measure quality of an edit. But error rate is relatively easier. If you make an edit and someone is able to state that it’s an error, then we have something to work with.

If we have an error rate attached to users, they’ll work harder at double-checking their edits. And probably users with a higher error rate shouldn’t be given more privileges because the consequences of their actions are far reaching. And it will also increase the quality of content and edits on wikipedia.

I’m sure there is some sort of mechanism that looks at user error rate. Just that I’m new and I’d love to know. Elenatina (talk) 09:12, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

@Elenatina: Welcome to the Teahouse! That's an interesting question, and I don't think anything exists to quantify error rates in edits right now (other then perhaps some studies). But, if you're trying to find out how often someone messes up, just take a look at their talk page history. Wikipedians tend to let you know when you've made a mistake . ––Formal ^talk 09:44, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

@Elenatina: There is no metric that works - yet. Any edit can be an error, but if it’s not reverted, you won’t know by looking at the editor’s edit history. Other editors who monitor these activities will be quick to comment on an offending users’ talk page, as FormalDude pointed out above.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Timtempleton (talk • contribs) 10:06, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

When an editor requests extra editing tools ("permissions"), such as rollback, pending changes reviewer, or file mover, there is a screening process; some permissions have pretty strict requirements, others not as strict, depending on the kind of tool that is involved. "Error rate" is not a possible general metric, but many permissions have some similar requirement. An editor won't get rollback if they haven't shown that they understand what vandalism is and is not, and they won't get the file mover right if they don't understand the policy involved in naming files. Take a look at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions for more information. And an editor who volunteers to be an administrator is scrutinised very minutely indeed and may have to explain any and all individual edits they have made over the past several years. --bonadea contributions talk 10:52, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

To clarify, the reason why "error" is not useful as a general metric is that there are so many different kinds of errors. Timtempleton forgot to sign their post above; that is one kind of "error", which is pretty minor, but an editor who (unlike Timtempleton) consistently doesn't sign their posts will be asked to start doing so. Adding unsourced content to articles is another type of "error", and there are specific cautions and warnings for that. Edit warring is yet another "error", which can lead to a block rather quickly; adding factual errors to articles another thing again. One of my personal hobby horses is the mis-use of grammar checking tools, which is something that adds hundreds of grammar errors to Wikipedia articles every week. There are no specific warnings for that disruption, nor is there a specific set of warnings for adding sources that have nothing to do with the article content, but as long as the behaviour is addressed on the editor's talk page, there will still be some documentation–and the editor will have a chance to improve, which is just as important. --bonadea contributions talk 11:09, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Just a comment: there is another way to look at this altogether. Wikipedia grants even the lowest of the low the biggest right of all: to edit any article (nearly) with complete trust that they will aim to do good. This is the completely amazing thing about Jimmy Wales' original concept, and the big surprise is that it works. Judgement, and assessment, are focussed on the edit, not the editor. It actually makes sense: what matters here is the content, not who wrote it. As a result, a person can get away with being a bit of a rubbish editor for quite a while (weeks, months) before someone will notice consistent disaster, but a single ill-planned edit will often be corrected in a matter of two or three minutes. We cut editors a bit of slack, but we cut edits very little slack indeed. Elemimele (talk) 17:59, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello! This is an amateur Wikipedia user wanting to ask a question about Wikipedia images. When navigating a Wikipedia article, hovering my cursor over a link to another Wikipedia article brings up a pop-up image with a short description of the article. I had wanted to ask how to edit that pop-up image so that the image that pops-up for an article of an election could show an image of the electoral winner.

Thank you and regards!, user Ozzy4Prezz. Ozzy4Prezz (talk) 18:05, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

What you are seeing, Ozzy4Prezz are probably page previews. Some users change their preferences to see navigation popups instead. You can read the article I've linked to explain the difference and the way they operate. The bottom line is that what you see depends on the target of the link and can't be "edited" within the original article which contains the link. hence you won't be able to achieve what you're contemplating. Mike Turnbull (talk) 18:22, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

why was I invited here? just wanna know, that's all OzonedOut (talk) 19:47, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

You are a new editor and it's a place where new editors can ask questions. As the post on your talk page said The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors If you don't need to, or don't wish to, that's fine. Meters (talk) 19:53, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Why can not I put a simple wiki content of a letter of ..?

EG https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_earlier_known_date_deaths&action=edit&redlink=1

There are plenty of such sites on the "Listo of" tab ... mine is supposedly ...

What should I do to make the content be posted?

regards 17jugi (talk) 15:45, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Something you made up will never become an article. David notMD (talk) 15:59, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

@17jugi Welcome to the Teahouse. Despite reading your question and looking at the deleted content, I'm afraid I still have absolutely no clue as to what you were trying to do. I think by that token that David is right. This doesn't sound like something that Wikipedia would want. sorry. Nick Moyes (talk) 17:15, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

thanks, but I do not understand why this list is on the wiki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unusual_deaths And there can not be a "list of people who knew the date of his death"? All the more so when Winton Churchil is on this list ... it's not logical .. Does Wikipedia are normal people or is fully controlled? it is sick — Preceding unsigned comment added by 17jugi (talk • contribs) 18:59, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Because unusual deaths get reported upon. "Know[ing] the date of [one's] death" is at best planned-for and at worst coincidental. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 19:04, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Just that natural death unplanned often happens to people who previously predicted !!! See on Winston Churchill .. from this is Wikipedia to discover such cases and there are plenty of them read about at least 100 objectively in this family members .. as Wikipedia removes this portal does not make sense of inconstations ...

EG https://www.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/comments/23eals/til_winston_churchill_predicted_he_would_die_on/

It does not make sense that people do not have access to such data, is the Middle Ages — Preceding unsigned comment added by 17jugi (talk • contribs) 19:50, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

We don't cite Reddit or any other sort of social media, as they don't fact-check (or if they do, it's slipshod). And this only helps to prove my point. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 19:53, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

People may have a premonition about the day they will die, and share that information with others. The fact that they then die on that day has no scientific basis for a factual connection to their premonition. David notMD (talk) 21:06, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

You are not right, the link from Reddit refers to a book from Google Books, that's how the censorship of Wikipedia does not check it at all, only they are deleted any changes, there is nothing to do with the 21st century, in the Middle Ages, you would like to hang people for views about geocentric

I do not write about the feeling of death, but news about the date of death from various objective sources, communicated externally, it is not an illusion, but a fact confirmed by several people. If there are such observations and it also devoted to scientific websites (eg sociological, medical, statistical) Why can not it be on Wikipedia? There are no rational reasons because it's a censorship ..

See on this page http://list.wiki-site.com/index.php/List_of_unusual_deaths . Does this bother someone? You force people to create your own commercial Wikipedia :-( — Preceding unsigned comment added by 17jugi (talk • contribs) 11:17, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

The fact that you - today - created an unusual-deaths list document at Wiki-site has no relevance to you not being able to do same at Wikipedia. David notMD (talk) 16:02, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

That's right, but this is sick ...

on wiki.en there are plenty of such a letter

Finding the site took from the day of work and creating a basic code ...

In addition to the hosting farm, there is no possibility to create your own Wikipedia from Media Wiki on any free server.

You must log in to edit the password and this is contrary to the idea of Wikipedia

In this state of things, Wikipedia does not have a future, or preventive censorship, or sponsoring and fees private people with a wiki code, or need to log in

this is not good :-( — Preceding unsigned comment added by 17jugi (talk • contribs) 19:56, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello, I've been wondering this for a while and I didn't know where to ask until now. What are the guidelines regarding who gets an Ancestry tree in their Wikipedia article? I'm talking about real notable people of course, not fictional characters. Is this feature reserved for royalty? If I recall correctly, Borges had an ancestry tree at the bottom of his article but now it's gone. SiberianDante (talk) 23:05, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

@SiberianDante: You might find more information asking at Template talk:Tree list, where there are editors more familiar with the trees. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 23:11, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Also consider the general guideline from WikiProject Genealogy: Wikipedia is not a genealogy. Family histories should be presented only where appropriate to support the reader's understanding of a notable topic. ClaudineChionh (talk – contribs) 23:19, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi all - my daughter is the actress Hattie Gotobed - she appears in several Wikipedia pages and has lots of articles you can find - would anyone be interested in making her a page for me? thanks 86.4.78.105 (talk) 11:38, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

There is a draft article in progress at Draft:Hattie Gotobed but it currently lacks sufficient reliable sources.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 11:55, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

The best thing you can do is go to the talk-page associated with the draft that Shantavira (talk · contribs) mentioned (you'll see a second tab at the top, next to "draft") and post there any links you know to reliable sources discussing her. These should be things like newspapers and magazines writing independently - journalists who have chosen to write about her on their own initiative, without being asked by her or an agent. Fan stuff and interviews are generally no good. Independent articles discussing her in depth are exactly what WP editors need, in order to determine that she is notable enough to need a WP article, and to write a well-referenced article about her. You obviously have a strong conflict-of-interest, so you shouldn't edit the article yourself, but by finding sources, you will help. Another thing you can do is take a picture of her! WP picture, submitted to wiki-commons, must have a copyright declaration allowing the whole world to use the picture, even for profit, which is a copyright very few photographers are prepared to give. That's why so few articles on living people have good pictures. You, as her mother, are in a position to take a photo as "own work" and grant rights to its use, appropriate for WP. Elemimele (talk) 17:44, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

86.4.78.105 (talk) though wanting someone to write any article about your daughter isn't an autobiography you may want to read Wikipedia:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing. If your requested article (not a page) is published it won't belong to you or anyone in your family. Any Wikipedia reader can add to it, and if your daughter receives a harsh review, or gets into any trouble, that will become part of her history. If newspaper or magazine articles are published containing unpleasant information, that can be added to her Wikipedia article. Wikipedia isn't social media, it is an online encyclopedia, with articles containing both positive and negative aspects of a person's life. It may be that nothing negative will ever be added to a Hattie Gotobed article, but you should be aware of that possibility.Karenthewriter (talk) 00:44, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

I have reason to believe that my English Wikipedia account is being hacked by someone who is randomly deleting hundreds of legitimate edits (I am only a constructive editor) without justification. What can be done? Editrite! (talk) 02:15, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

@Editrite!: Welcome to the Teahouse! There are several suggestions at Wikipedia:User account security. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 02:33, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. Editrite! (talk) 01:00, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

I have a draft saved and would like to add 4 photos. I uploaded the photos to Upload Wizard and can't figure out how to attached them to my article. I'm thinking it would have been easier to add them using the photo icon in the edit mode. So, how do I attach the 4 photos in the upload wizard to my draft? Or, is there another option. Thanks! SharedHeritage (talk) 01:33, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

@SharedHeritage: Do you mean these ones? You so nearly got there! At Commons you need to click 'use this file on a wiki' and copy the text that comes up, then paste that into the article, ideally right at the top of the relevant section, before any text. The second part is the caption text, which you can alter to best suit the article. If you click 'edit source' on this question you'll see the wikitext you can use in your draft. Forgive me for the short reply - I'm heading off to bed now! Good luck.Nick Moyes (talk) 02:28, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll give it a try! — Preceding unsigned comment added by SharedHeritage (talk • contribs) 02:33, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Can anybody please give me the list of sources that are unreliable for citation. I had seen it somewhere while rummaging through Wikipedia, but cannot find it now. Itcouldbepossible (talk) 03:56, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Sources that have been deprecated are at WP:DEPSOURCES. Meters (talk) 04:01, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

That's certainly not to say that everything not on this list is considered reliable. Meters (talk) 04:03, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

 2601:240:C401:B790:F52B:8B0F:6553:C1B3 (talk) 04:49, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello, ip user, and welcome to the Teahouse. Do you have any question about editing Wikipedia? Thank you. Richard M William (talk) 05:03, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

hello, im a admin of a fanbase on twitter for south korean girlgroup aespa member WINTER and im trying to create and publish a informative page for her. I never used wikipedia as "writer" before... could you please help me exactly what i have to do? I know, reliable sources, references. I will definitely try to gain all korean websites and gather them into the references box... but, here are sooo many different pages and so much text - isnt there a easy methode to exactly guide me in a "wikipedia page writing for dummys" or something? Im 17 years old.

kind regards and stay healthy dear admin :) haru4sooya Haru4sooya (talk) 16:31, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

@Haru4sooya: you can see H:FIRST. Richard M William (talk) 16:36, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

@Haru4sooya Welcome to the Teahouse. I see that the girlgroup Aespa already has a page about them. I should point out that for an individual group member to have a page about them would require that person to meet our notability criteria in their own right. This would either be WP:NMUSIC or WP:NBLP. So do read those pages to help you understand the level of detail that we would need. Note too that Jungkook only got a page to himself after he had released a hit single, separate from BTS. Regards from the uk, Nick Moyes (talk) 17:19, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Creating a brand new page could be very tricky. One possibly easy way to start is to find out if there already exists a page for this in Korean and translate it, assuming you speak Korean. Nothyself (talk) 05:15, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

 184.100.24.158 (talk) 05:30, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello, ip user, and welcome to the Teahouse. Do you have any question about editing Wikipedia? Thank you. Richard M William (talk) 05:31, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi! Is there any type of criteria for the further reading section in articles? Someone added this book Opioids for the Masses to the Further Reading section of Opioid epidemic in the United States. Someone else removed it and said it needs to be accessible to the general public, but the original editor added it back. Looking online, the book was only released a week ago and there's no type of content related to it outside of the summary. Thank you for the help :)) Dorororo (talk) 04:37, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Dorororo, Hello and Welcome to the Teahouse. Please kindly see WP:Further reading. Thank you. Richard M William (talk) 05:01, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

@Dorororo: In addition to WP:FURTHERREADING link provided above, WP:SELFCITE might also be relevant as well if the adding of the link is seemed to be a form of promotion. It's not so much whether the book is available to the public or whether anyone can buy the book, it's rather whether there's any encyclopedic value to adding the link or whether someone is just trying to promote a recently published book. You can if you want, remove the link and follow up by posting something on the article's talk page explaining why you removed it. The editor who wants to add the link would then be expected to try and establish a consensus in favor of its inclusion before re-adding it. If you do remove the link, though, try to be encouraging and friendly in the edit summary you leave: explain why you removed and that you're happy to discuss things on the article talk page. Then, what happens next will largely depend on how the other editor responds. If they start discussing things, then great; if they just keep re-adding the link, on the other hand, then they would be considered edit warring. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:54, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Okay, I understand. Thank you both for the help! Dorororo (talk) 06:05, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Please supprot my non profit buisness to keep all inyernet and ad siettings right and properly etiquette for any type of browsing called Sunbelt Advertising& Co. 142.116.11.155 (talk) 06:43, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello. Wikipedia is not for advertising, please see WP:SOAP. Thank you. Richard M William (talk) 06:52, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

I wonder if it's possible that these languages evolved through interaction between homo sapiens and neanderthals Basque and etruscan evolved in parts of europe where the 2 species are known to have co-existed & even interbred for millennia. I seem to recall documentaries that proved the capacity of neanderthals for advanced abstract conceptualization (religion for example) & I think the anatomical analysis of their skulls indicated speech was possible. Regards G H Farrant 218.215.90.148 (talk) 08:06, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Welcome to the "Teahouse", where questions about how to edit Wikipedia are answered. (For the language ability of Neanderthals, see Neanderthal#Language.) -- Hoary (talk) 08:25, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

KIndly help me to upload a page i created in my sandbox so that it can be visible in wikipedia search

the url is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Anyiraisaac/sandbox#National_Institute_of_Construction_Technology_and_Management%28NICTM%29%2C_P.M.B.005%2C_Uromi%2C_Edo_State%2C_Nigeria Anyiraisaac (talk) 09:52, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

hi Anyiraisaac! articles not in the mainspace (has no prefix like Draft: or User:) have to be moved to mainspace before they can be displayed in default search settings. to do that, please improve your article a bit (recommended reading: WP:Your first article) and then send it to WP:Articles for creation to be moved to the mainspace. happy editing!   melecie   t 10:17, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Anyiraisaac please do not copy texts from elsewhere onto Wikipedia. Doing so is a copyright violation. On top of that, please be aware that Wikipedia is mainly interested in what independent, reliable sources have to say about an organisation, not what the company wants to say about themselves. The removed text was promotional. Victor Schmidt (talk) 10:55, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Please clarify if articles in Times of India are verifiable and reliable resources for citation in tv stubs Itcouldbepossible (talk) 04:27, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

@Itcouldbepossible: Per WP:TOI, "The Times of India is considered to have a reliability between no consensus and generally unreliable." There are links there to several discussions. Hope this helps, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 05:36, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Respected Mr.GoingBatty, then if I add times of India sources to support something, then will it be removed??? Please tell me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Itcouldbepossible (talk • contribs) 08:02, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

My suggestion would be to first discuss what you want to add on the relevant article talk page if the Times of India is the only source you have for it, so it can be discussed specifically. 331dot (talk) 08:09, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

@331dot: Ok, but what should I do when I am creating a article for the first time??? Then I cannot discuss it in the talk page of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Itcouldbepossible (talk • contribs)

Agreed. Also, @Itcouldbepossible: if you are writing about film or TV stars, Times of India should not be used for biographical facts such as birth dates. More about that in WP:ICTFSOURCES, which is a very helpful resource. There are other cases where ToI shouldn't be used; for instance, they often publish embedded YouTube films with songs, and those can't be used as sources for the songs (since it is no different from linking to the YouTube film itself, which we should not do in a reference). --bonadea contributions talk 11:30, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi, can tv series, or film series cast list have a cast which does not have any references or citation? There are a ton of wiki pages that have cast without citation, and they do not have any mantainence tag, but in some articles, many cast have been removed because they were unsourced. So, please clarify my doubt regarding this. Which is correct??? Itcouldbepossible (talk) 03:49, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

@Itcouldbepossible: Welcome to the Teahouse! Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Television#Cast and characters information and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Film#Cast lead me to believe that the TV/film credits are sufficient for sourcing, and that working towards consensus on the article's talk page is important. Hope this helps, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 05:37, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

@GoingBatty: @Itcouldbepossible: I don't interpret the manual of style pages to say that the credits are sufficient, only that the order of appearance in the credits can be used to determine how the cast is listed in the Wikipedia article. But it's true that a local consensus can always decide to go by what the credits say, even if there are no secondary sources naming cast members. Itcouldbepossible, I suggest that you take this question to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film, or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Indian cinema task force if you are focusing on Indian films. The corresponding discussion page for TV series is Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television.

Two things to keep in mind: it is very common for minor actors to add their own name (or have somebody add their name for them) to any film and TV series they had a minor role in, in order to boost their "Internet presence"; secondly, just because there are a huge number of pages with long unsourced cast lists, that doesn't mean it is necessarily appropriate to add a huge number of actors to other articles. --bonadea contributions talk 11:49, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello. Can I create any cricket tour article which is scheduled after July 2022? Thank you. Richard M William (talk) 16:51, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

@Richard M William: Welcome to the Teahouse! Do you have multiple independent reliable sources that provide significant coverage of the upcoming tour? GoingBatty (talk) 17:27, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

@GoingBatty: Yeah, I have. Richard M William (talk) 17:43, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Richard M William. If you have several sources that meet all three of those criteria, then yes, an article about the tour has a chance of being accepted. I recommend you read WP:CRYSTAL carefully before you start. --ColinFine (talk) 12:08, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

how can citations be provided when the information comes from the writer's own head (experience) ? e.g. writing a history of a Society where the only written record is that Society's Minutes I am floundering with even the basics of 'how to' I am a writer not a techi wiz kid 2A00:23C4:84AB:E201:DDA8:14E7:CA4C:B426 (talk) 12:31, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

They cannot be provided and the article cannot be written. (See WP:V.) If you'd like to write up the Society, then you'll have to do so elsewhere, perhaps in a blog. (No amount of technical wizardry can make up for a lack of reliable, independent, published sources.) -- Hoary (talk) 12:34, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello IP user! Welcome to Teahouse! You can't write any sentence without independent reliable sources that provide significant coverage of the article. Thank you, Richard M William (talk) 12:39, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

The above user just reverted two edits, one with the reason "Why was the semiprotection removed?" Can anyone explain why they reverted it, and if possible, them too? 178.164.178.89 (talk) 12:57, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

I am inclined to agree with you, so I've started a conversation about it on the article's talk-page. Wikipedia is collaborative, and editors frequently disagree; it's part of the natural process of arriving at the best possible text. It is hard for those who know a lot to place themselves in the shoes of those who know much less. We have to strive for some sort of consensus, and don't always arrive where we want to be... Elemimele (talk) 14:15, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

 Curtis8516 (talk) 16:35, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi there, regarding: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Ape_Mink_Press - I am being declined due to not enough references. This is a new and upcoming band and I have added what was requested from a user as a 3rd party reference - which I have added - a website link from a site that receives official information from the band/artist themselves. This is starting to get frustrating, as because they're new and not many sources exist right now, I cannot make a page? Any help to get this to stay up would be appreciated, its getting to the point where I will pay someone

Curtis8516 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. "Up and coming" bands or musicians almost never merit articles- the band/musician must have already arrived. Wikipedia is not the place to merely tell the world about a band. An article about a band/musician must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about them, showing how they meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable band. The sources you have offered do not do that. If that's all that is available as you have stated, the band would not merit an article at this time. 331dot (talk) 16:45, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

@Curtis8516: See also WP:TOOSOON. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 17:22, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

@Curtis8516: See also WP:SCAM. GoingBatty (talk) 17:23, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

@Curtis8516 331dot is quite right. It’s far -TOOSOON. As I sit here reading your post, I’m watching -Ed Sheeran talking to Jools Holland about his first TV appearance on Holland’s show back in 2011. Only in that year was a Wikipedia article justified and accepted about him. This is how it first looked. See WP:NMUSIC to appreciate the criteria for accepting an article about bands and singers; then compare it to yours. Nick Moyes (talk) 17:26, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Curtis8516, you've stated in previous edit summaries that you have been given the information directly from the artist themselves, so you have a conflict of interest. And the fact that you say that you will pay someone to do it is a clear indication that your only interest here is in promoting this artist. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a promotion site... if you want to promote him, that's what the artist's social media is for. Even if the information is coming directly from the artist himself, that won't be acceptable as a source because it's not an impartial and independent source, as required by WP:RS. Richard3120 (talk) 19:09, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

• Hello and welcome to the Teahouse Curtis8516, I can only hope this is the only place you have sounded desperate (I’m afraid your tone comes off as desperate) & if we can notice your desperation then internet fraudsters/SCAMMERS can deduce this as well. Please do not post here or anywhere else that you are willing to “pay” as your desperation may be capitalized upon and you might end up being scammed. If anyone on any website, or anywhere even the ones that claim to be professionals “guarantees” you an article on Wikipedia in exchange for a fee, they are outrightly being intentionally deceptive as no one can guarantee you anything. If you want to see an article created, please list it at WP:RA, In due time when the bands attains notability someone here can create the article. Please, I’d repeat myself, don’t pay anyone any amount no matter how little & if they reach out to you, remember this message and do yourself a favor my not even engaging with them at all. Furthermore, if you are the one who has been contacted to create the article then unfortunately you cannot at this moment see WP:TOOSOON, also you would need to familiarize yourself with both WP:COIDISCLOSE & WP:PAYDISCLOSE. Celestina007 (talk) 19:25, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

@331dot: @Nick Moyes: @Celestina007: @GoingBatty: it may not actually be WP:TOOSOON. The band may meet WP:BAND criterion #6 right now because it appears to have (from my cursory checking) two independently notable musicians as its members. At the very least, it could be merged into Sneaker Pimps as it appears to be a side project of some members of that band. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:02, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

@Anachronist Maybe you're seeing a different article to me. But I read "AMP is a new solo output.. from ..Liam Howe." I've no idea what a "solo output" is (apart from waffle words) but I see no notable band members mentioned in the article, nor any non-notable ones, either. I'd be quite OK seeing a WP:REDIRECT to [[Liam Howe], but no more. To be honest, this looks more like the website manager for AMP doing WP:UPE and trying to promote this "solo output" thingy on Wikipedia. To me (who knows b***er all about music) this is so TOOSOON that the thing being talked about using in-house references hasn't even been produced yet! Or have I misunderstood something? Nick Moyes (talk) 00:42, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes: You have to look at some of the sources. One of them says the band includes two members of Sneaker Pimps, and both of those members have their own articles on Wikipedia. If they are indeed independently notable, then the draft meets WP:BAND criterion #6. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:04, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

@Anachronist: no it doesn't... it's actually only one member of the band, and none of the sources are reliable independent ones... we're talking about an act that hasn't actually released anything of their own yet, they've just done a few remixes of their own tracks. So this is definitely too soon. Richard3120 (talk) 14:59, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

I know that I just entered Wikipedia but I want to be able to edit like a professional.Agha ezinne (talk) 14:31, 14 November 2021 (UTC) Agha ezinne (talk) 14:31, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

so how do I do itAgha ezinne (talk) 14:32, 14 November 2021 (UTC) Agha ezinne (talk) 14:32, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Agha ezinne, and welcome to the Teahouse and to Wikipedia. I hope you enjoy learning to edit and contribute here. In answer to your questions: first, to be picky, there's no such thing as a "professional Wikipedia editor": we're all volunteers. But the real answer is: practice, practice, practice. Put in hundreds of hours, making thousands of edits (some of which will get reverted by other editors, and then you can engage in a discussion with those other editors and learn how to reach a consensus). But I suggest starting with Help:Introduction, and the Wikipedia Adventure. --ColinFine (talk) 15:27, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Am struggling to understand why so much of the Samoa page talks of the history when there is a separate page for Samoan History ... similarly there were many sections on the Samoan Economy when there is a separate page for Samoan Economy ... etc etc ... does anyone care? ... are there guidelines about the extent to which a main page should reproduce content from another page? Aus Meanderer (talk) 06:42, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

@Aus Meanderer: Welcome to the Teahouse! It looks like you received a good answer at Talk:Samoa#cross references seems better than duplicating. Please don't ask the same question at multiple places at the same time. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 16:15, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Qual é a melhor sobremesa disponível na Casa de Chá? — Preceding unsigned comment added by BrigitteMac (talk • contribs) 09:21, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

@BrigitteMac: The Teahouse is a page where you can ask questions about editing Wikipedia. Please use English when you post here. Welcome! --bonadea contributions talk 09:56, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

@BrigitteMac: The best dessert you can get at the Teahouse is knowledge and experience. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 16:18, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Entrei nesta aventura, mas sinto-me bastante perdida! Eugenia1971 (talk) 13:44, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

@Eugenia1971: welcome to Wikipedia. Please use English when you communicate with other people here, since this is the English-language Wikipedia. The Portuguese-language Wikipedia is at https://pt.wikipedia.org . --bonadea contributions talk 13:56, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

@Eugenia1971: To learn more about the English Wikipedia, I suggest Help:Introduction and The Wikipedia Adventure. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 16:21, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Basically all notable 1st party system camera lenses are listed in a table somewhere on Wikipedia. This is true for List of Minolta A-mount lenses, List of Sony E-mount lenses, Canon EF lens mount#List of EF lenses, etc, but (archived) List of Sony A-mount lenses was apparently deleted after just a week of deletion review without saving the list elsewhere. Furthermore the pathway to asking questions about the deletion is a long rabbit hole that ends in either asking the wikipedian that proposed the deletion on their talk page (which seems to discourage discussions about previous deletions on their talk page), the wikipedian which performed the actual deletion (who just followed apparent consensus) or taking it directly to WP:DRV. Neither of which seems like good options for what should be a trivial issue? Furthermore the talk page for List of Sony A-mount lenses has been deleted twice since the article was deleted, but there's no record of what the discussion was, even on archive.org . Now all pages which used to refer to the list instead refers to the archived page which in practice makes it impossible to improve the article.

What's the proper thing to do here, and is it supposed to be this overwhelming to figure out where to discuss the deletion? From what I can tell the archived version of the article was fairly well written and I can sort of understand the argument that it was poorly sourced, but since Wikipedia more or less forbids primary sources it's a bit of a paradox when the primary goal is a complete list of official lenses? The deletion also appears to be motivated by WP:NOTCATALOG but I think the introduction of the article had some good qualities and as noted above we already have lists of lenses for many other lens mounts.

The reason I went looking for the list in the first place was to see if there were any particularly interesting A-mount lenses, so I'd argue that if the article somehow ends up back on Wikipedia it could be improved with another few tables containing notable unofficial 3rd party lenses, like those made by Sigma and Tamron. In my opinion the A-mount was notable in many regards, since during its brief lifetime under Sony it got many features like a lens-integrated autofocus motor and AF-D (AFAIK it means using both the traditional small autofocus sensor and the imaging sensor to track focus). Sort of like a playground to see what was worth implementing in the E-mount, which at the time was under development for the upcoming mirrorless cameras. An alternative could be to add the lenses into the article about Sony α but that article is pretty long already.

At the very least I can't be the only one who finds the situation a bit awkward, right? MrPorpoise (talk) 07:05, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi MrPorpoise. The administrator who closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Sony A-mount lenses was Premeditated Chaos and you can always post a message at User talk:Premeditated Chaos if you have a question about the close as explained in WP:CLOSECHALLENGE. Premeditated Chaos should be able to advise you on what your options might be in this case. She might also be able to send you a copy of the relevant content via email in case you want to use it somewhere other than Wikipedia. As for the fact that other similar articles about this kind of thing exist, the only thing I can say is to suggest you take a look at Wikipedia:Other Stuff Exists. There lots of articles on Wikipedia that probably shouldn't exist but they've just gone unnoticed for the most part since someone created them. I can't say whether that's the case here, but generally trying to argue that an article should be kept because other similar articles exist almost never gets a person very far. You're better off focusing on showing that the deleted article meets Wikipedia:Notability on its own merits if you're going to try and get it undeleted. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:28, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm not going to undelete it. I've already gone over the lack of notability on my talk page with another user (it's archived but they can be searched), and unless there's been a significant change in sourcing since then, I still feel the same. However MrPorpoise I'm happy to send an email with the content to you if you want. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:32, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply. Sourcing is a bit of a catch 22 since the current article can't be edited. I think I've seen a draft function somewhere so maybe it can be restored as a draft while I collect and add sources for it? The list itself is notable enough for an archived version of it to be linked in other articles, so I think that implies enough notability for it to be reconsidered. MrPorpoise (talk) 15:22, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply. I'm not arguing it should be restored on the basis of Wikipedia:Other Stuff Exists and I'm sorry if it came across that way, I was arguing we should have one regardless of whether it's the restored article, a cleaned up version, or a new one created from scratch. MrPorpoise (talk) 15:22, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@MrPorpoise: Here's a link to the 2020 discussion. I can't find a second discussion. I do see articles that are List of Sony E-mount lenses, so I don't think that it would be entirely out of the question to re-create the A-mount article in some way (provided there are sources). It's unclear to me if the number of people in that discussion was so small so as to be softly deleted; you could make a request at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion to restore the article if this is the case. I'll ping Premeditated Chaos, the administrator who closed that discussion, to allow them to comment on if their intent was to softly delete the article. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 07:30, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Marchjuly already pinged me. No, my intent was not to soft delete; I would have closed it as such. Please see my above comment for notes about the sourcing, which based on a previous discussion with another user is inadequate. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:33, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a product catalog. This deleted article included the sentence Of those, most lenses are optically, mechanically and electrically identical to their Minolta predecessors and differ only in their outer appearance. The deletion, in my view, was correct. We do not need lists of unnotable products offered by various corporations. If many of these lenses are independently notable, prove it, and then create a list. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:50, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply. I think that quote was a bit outdated, it was certainly true right after Sony bought Minolta and updated the branding on the lenses, but AFAICT Sony used the A-mount platform to test the waters with new features, some of which disappeared when they launched E-mount. Like the AF-D autofocus mode, which was impractical to carry over to E-mount since there was no space for a second sensor anymore. In fact the adapters Sony developed for backwards compatibility with A-mount for E-mount had versions with and without that second sensor for autofocus. Please look at the "Comment" column in the archived list and you'll see what I mean. Most of the lenses which had been released by the time A-mount was discontinued were either heavily modified Minolta lenses or Sony designs altogether. MrPorpoise (talk) 15:22, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply. I meant the talk page for the article itself, Talk:List_of_Sony_A-mount_lenses. Unless I'm reading the logs wrong it seems to have been deleted twice, right? MrPorpoise (talk) 15:22, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm going to simplify and reply here to reduce further fragmentation. First, the talk page: It was deleted once when the article itself was deleted; that version contained two posts discussing including "a column for which A-mount to E-mount adapter works with which lenses". It was recreated by an IP a few months later who asked "Where did this important article go?" and was then speedy deleted under WP:G8 as a talk page without an article.

Second, please see the archived conversations (turns out there were two) here and here for previous attempts to undelete/source this article, which I declined for lack of significant coverage of these items as a group, in reliable independent sources. Unless there's been a significant output of independent sourcing since the last time I discussed this, I am not going to overturn the deletion. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:52, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Wait, so there's been two previous discussions about the deletion already? From what I can see they both eventually provided a decent level of references towards both reliability and notability in the end as well. They probably could've handled it more calmly but other than that I don't see the problem here; Sony A-mount, during its brief lifetime, was notable to the point of being a fairly large part of the then fairly fractured system camera market. I don't have any issue with you as an admin but as both a slightly "archivist" (there's probably a better word for this but my English is failing me) wikipedian and Sony system camera enthusiast I would calmly ask you to please reconsider on this matter. MrPorpoise (talk) 17:20, 14 November 2021 (UTC)