Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1105

This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:Teahouse. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page.

How to upload acheivement? Arun prasath Business Coach (talk) 16:41, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

That's not what a User page is for. See Wikipedia:User pages for guidance. If you mean how to create a biography of someone not you, that is a different question. Drafts can be created by following instructions at WP:YFA. David notMD (talk) 16:57, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

In addition to your User page content just having been deleted, your choice of User name is considered promotional. I recommend you stop using this account. If you intend to continue as a Wikipedia editor of articles not about you, register a new account without "Business Coach" as part of the name. David notMD (talk) 17:00, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

(e/c) Hi Arun prasath Business Coach. Based on your userpage, which I have just deleted, you are here for promotional purposes, have a conflict of interest in what you want to write about, as a baseline would have to comply with WP:PAID before going further, and I am guessing, but based on a lot of experience, coupled with the context of the inherent promotional form of your question (uploading our achievements being basically the opposite of what we do here) and your userpage, you have mistaken this site for something akin to a social media site when it is an encyclopedia, with all that that implies. My bet is that the topic is non-notable and any article you create will be deleted as an advertisement, or declined if created as a draft. Are there multiple reliable, secondary, independent sources that have written about the topic in substantive detail? If not, no article will ever be possible, even if written in a scrupulously non-biased manner, and ultimately you will waste your own time and that of other people in trying. Sorry. Just what I see over and over. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:06, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

I submitted a new article "Randall Goodden" for Review, but I don't know where it is now. How can I view what other Editors have said about it?

A Flaneur (talk) 00:08, 17 April 2021 (UTC) A Flaneur (talk) 00:08, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Courtesy: It is at Draft:Randall Lee Goodden. It has been submitted three times (3/23, 3/23, 4/2) and Denied each time, also a Speedy deletion nomination on 3/24, then gamed to have the draft appear as never having been Denied. There have been MAJOR problems with this draft, elaborated on your Talk page and elsewhere. The reasons the denying reviewers provided are on your Talk page, along with warnings about copyright. (You added many images that were removed as copyright violations.) You denied being Randall Goodden, yet elsewhere answered a query in first person as being Goodden. The denial appears to have been by your brother, using your account, making the reply literally true, but disingenuous. David notMD (talk) 00:39, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

You also submitted Draft:Randall Goodden. It was very long, and was duplicated, so you obviously didn't review it before submitting it. I rejected it. At this point I will caution you that if you continue to be tendentious in trying to get an article accepted, you are likely to be blocked for disruption. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:19, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

@David notMD They have confirmed, after some serious discussion, that their brother has never had access to their account. I felt this was important to state here lest they were blocked for multiple persons using a single account. Any other problems are draft/article problems coupled with a serious misunderstanding of what is and is not copyright when uploading files and claiming them to be their own work Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^{Talk to me} 06:48, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying that issue. This draft had attributes of a duck - serene on the surface, furiously paddling underneath. David notMD (talk) 11:42, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

@David notMD it is not without problems. I have recused myself from reviewing this contributing editor's drafts. A tl;dr conversation on my talk page gives you the background. I'm not at all sure I am now useful in offering them advice they will accept, either. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^{Talk to me} 17:23, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Moved from WT:AN (permalink)

Hi I tried to do a collage infobox similar to Chesterfield page for Mansfield given it is a large town I though maybe a few extra lead photos would spruce it up a bit like the Chesterfield page. But it seemed half the article got lost in translation with population etc...how do you format it correctly in case of future reference? Cheers RailwayJG (talk) 11:20, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi RailwayJG. The error in your edit was |R}} in |population_total = {{English district population|GSS=E07000174}}|R}}. The second }} isn't matched in the parameter so it ended the whole infobox instead. The collage seems rather long with the tall initial image. Maybe it should be displayed next to the other tall image to reduce blankspace and total size. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:17, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi PrimeHunter thank you for your help. I'll try to do more on my sandbox and cut down the images to four and keep the sizes as similar as possible and sort the infobox out before I publish my edits. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RailwayJG (talk • contribs)

@RailwayJG: I think five images would be OK if the large one is displayed smaller and there isn't significant blankspace. I have added possible code here. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:42, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi, my article has been declined unfortunately. I am an university student and for my class I am supposed to create one Wikipedia article about a living Media Artist. Since y'all are very busy bees there isn't much left to write about so I chose the person I chose, did research, spent quite some time writing and still it was declined. Could anyone give me any advice on what to fix here? Since for reference I used some definitely approved articles about similar people like Andreas Lutz, Ralf Baecker, Johanna Keimeyer and can't really tell what my article is missing. Paul3047 (talk) 12:17, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Courtesy: Draft:Sebastian Wolf is the declined draft. David notMD (talk) 12:19, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

thank you david. as for relevance I chose based on the fact that the guy was already mentioned here: Japan Media Arts Festival#Art_awards

Paul3047 does not self-identify this assignment as being conducted through the Wikipedia:Education program, so my guess is that this is a teacher completely ignorant of the proper process for Wikipedia-related assignments. Can any editor or administrator more knowledgeable of the process explain what should have been done? And I suspect there are classmates of Paul3047 also let loose on Wikipedia. David notMD (talk) 12:26, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Sorry if thats causing trouble, but this class has been going on for years as far as I know <_< But there's not really much I can do about that, I'd just like for my article to be proper and am lost as to how to improve it.

'Sign' your comments by typing four of ~ at the end. Comments left on your Talk page about why the draft declined. David notMD (talk) 12:40, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi Paul3047. You copied and pasted previously written content about Mr. Wolf into the draft. I've removed that, revision deleted the draft's history and left a notice at your talk page about this with more information. Please don't do that again. You must write in your own words. You can use short quotations under fair use, but only if expliucitly marked as such using quote marks (or more rarely by other methods, e.g, block indenting) and then that content must be immediately attributed to the source of the writing using an inline citation. Otherwise, doing so is not only a copyright violation but plagiarism.

As to the draft's decline, I suggest you look for better sources to use (and attributee them better). You might try some searches in databases that tend to concentrate reliable sources, such as Google Books, e.g. this but with better delimiters to avoid too many false-positives ("Sebastian Wolf" is certainly not an uncommon name). Note that you can use sources in German or other languages, if necessary. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:44, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

P3047, I look at the page, see that WP has a link to the Japanese Media Arts Festival and its awards and to Zebrastraat. What to do? Find "secondary sources", newspapers, arts magazines, whatever mentioning this artist and their work. Has anyone written anything in a "book" about this person. One trouble with using "internet" sources is that they are very ephemeral at times. Long way round: start page on the New Technlogical Art Award (using secondary sources in particular), expand the JMAF page to include more categories of awards including New Faces in the Art Award (you did not mention that the "New Faces" award is within the Art Division). Either that, or quickly do another artist who has more secondaries and awards mentioned in wp. Brunswicknic (talk) 12:49, 16 April 2021 (UTC) ps did not know about the copyvio/write in own voice stuff, strong advice

Thank you guys. I have edited the external links and also hopefully fixed the quotation. As to analog sources, how do I add those? I found some radio and TV interviews and there have been articles in print, however I do not see them listed online Paul3047 (talk) 13:03, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Paul3047 analog sources don't have be online, but they do have to "reputable", so they may be of help, check out references in help WP and what can and can not be used. Brunswicknic (talk) 13:08, 16 April 2021 (UTC) p.s. 3047, Broadie?

Hello! I don't see why you're required to create a Wikipedia Article for calss since that's kinda hard to do now as a lot of the more known and notable topics already have pages covering them. Something you might wanna check out since that is an assignment for your class though would be WP:Your first article which is very helpful for something like this. Good luck! Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 18:35, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Interviews can be used in a limited way, but are not considered as supporting notability, because what the person says about themself is not considered a reliable secondary source. David notMD (talk) 21:12, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Hey. Can someone review my draft (Tarusan)? I just want to hear an opinion about the article. Thanks! Khamer Jun Manalo (chat) 07:25, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

@Im Zayk: hi, I'm not formally reviewing it, but just some notes:

• don't cite Wikidata - that is not a reliable source (UGC)
• if you want to get the draft accepted, you shouldn't have any cleanup tags, including {{citation needed}} - add references or remove the content
• the infobox is ridiculously long. Infoboxes are meant to be summaries, not huge data dumps. Elli (talk | contribs) 09:34, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

...And the nutshell template should only be used on admin pages, as explained in the template documentation.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 11:40, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

I burst out laughing while reading my mistakes in the draft. Maybe . . . help? Khamer Jun Manalo (chat) 13:56, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

@Im Zayk: One (kinda) advice I can give you is try not to make things way too complicated (I'm also referring to the infobox). —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 14:22, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Okay, I'll try not to. Khamer Jun Manalo (chat) 14:44, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

And can someone help me edit those mistakes? Im kinda busy with stuffs around my stepsister's birthday. Khamer Jun Manalo (chat) 14:45, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Khamer Jun Manalo I've done a little bit of clean-up for you, I've removed the nutshell template, moved the stub template to the bottom of the article, removed some bolding from the article text and the little arrows with the percentages and moved the AFC draft notice to the top. The population numbers and data in the article do need sourcing properly though, drafts shouldn't have citation needed tags, and some of the information in the infobox needs a citation too. Can you remember where you found this information? If so add the sources you used to the article. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 15:06, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

The only problem is that PhilAtlas is blacklisted, and the sources on PSA.gov is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too deep to uncover. You can just turn it into an invisible comment for the meantime until I excavated the facts under a huge file of census. Khamer Jun Manalo (chat) 15:17, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Now, don't get me wrong about putting false facts on the article. I'm just a lazy bum. Khamer Jun Manalo (chat) 15:18, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

I just need solid proof from tons of trash. Khamer Jun Manalo (chat) 15:19, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Accepted as article. David notMD (talk) 21:15, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Why does the article first call it a tuna sandwich if the title says tuna fish sandwich? 2603:7000:1401:5F1F:C527:4437:1773:6AA0 (talk) 19:54, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

The first sentence mentions the two most common names for the sandwich, and that is a standard thing to do in a Wikipedia article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:47, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Because last December an anonymous editor reversed the order in this edit - I don't know why. If you feel strongly about it, you can turn it round again - make sure you leave an error summary explaining why, so your edit won't get mistaken for vandalism. Personally, I like it the way it is: as a speaker of British English, the phrase "tuna fish" isn't in my vocabulary. Perhaps the IP editor was British. --ColinFine (talk) 21:17, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

I am American and I consider the "fish" part to be redundant, but some people say it. "Tuna salad sandwich" is pretty common here too. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:39, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

what will happen if too much oil is released into the sea? 79.76.23.83 (talk) 21:35, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello, IP user. This page is for asking for help in editing Wikipedia, not for general knowledge questions: the Reference desk is provided for that purpose. However, you may find Deepwater Horizon oil spill that answers your question. --ColinFine (talk) 22:08, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi 79.76.23.83, the Teahouse is for questions about how to edit Wikipedia. For general knowledge questions you could try the Wikipedia:Reference desk. Some links you might find helpful anyway: Oil spill § Environmental effects, Environmental impact of the petroleum industry. All the best, › Mortee _talk 22:11, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello. By a mistake I have named my draft "Olaf Aumann" and not "Wasserturm Wilhelmshaven". The new article is about a water tower of Wilhelmshaven, not me! Can anyone help? - Olaf Aumann (talk) 18:14, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Olaf Aumann, and welcome to the Teahouse. I have moved the draft to Draft:Wasserturm Wilhelmshaven for you. The original Draft:Olaf Aumann still exists, as a redirect to the new name. --ColinFine (talk) 19:10, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Olaf Aumann, the word "hanging" in the draft seems odd. I wonder if "suspended" would be a better translation. Maproom (talk) 20:41, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you so much for helping. Yes, I agree that "suspended" is a better word. I will correct it. -Olaf Aumann (talk) 22:40, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi, I 've been asked by a notorious photographer to create for her Wikipedia page, Do you know how I can do that? Thank you Dario P Dario1235 (talk) 13:06, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi, see Help:Your first article. Kleinpecan (talk) 13:20, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

"Asked by" how? —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 14:32, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

@Dario1235: Please read WP:COI before proceeding any further. COI editing (especially when done for payment) by a brand new editor often results in frustration and wasted time for everybody involved, so in addition to our COI policy, please familiarize yourself with crucial guidelines related to article creation such as WP:N, WP:RS, WP:INDY, and WP:V. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 15:10, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

• Hello and welcome @Dario1235, creation of articles in which you are familiar with the subject of your article is very much discouraged in this collaborative project. There are numerous arduous hurdles to doing such, first is, you must be familiar with our general notability guidelines and the guidelines for photographers. You must be able to keep the article as neutrally worded as possible, a difficult task since you are subconsciously biased by default, you must be able to have a satisfactory level and understand of WP:MOS, I could go on and on, my take is, don’t bother creating the article, what you might however do is go to WP:RA, include the name of your friend and someone would create the article, that is, if she is notable enough to warrant a biographical article. Celestina007 (talk) 15:25, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

"Notorious: You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.15} 2.219.35.136 (talk) 04:46, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

1 (UTC)

Hi fellow editors, got some questions regarding tables and MOS.

1. Is adding nowrap class to existing table or newly created article, violating any guidelines or policies?
2. As per MOS:SMALL,Reduced or enlarged font sizes should be used sparingly, and are usually done with automated page elements such as headings, table headers, and standardized templates, is the sparingly referring to single article or from article to article? Is the standardized templates, referring the list of template in Template:Small#See also table?
3. If the table is using style="font-size:85%" or style="font-size:90%", can I change it to use Template:Small or Template:Smaller respectively as per MOS:SMALL? Is it violating any guidelines or policies?
4. Should we use 85% or 90% font-size in the table header, is there any guidelines or policies other than WP:ACCESS I can refer to?
5. As per MOS:VAR, even though we should retain the existing styling. Is adding nowrap, changing style="font-size:85%" or style="font-size:90%" to either Template:Small or Template:Smaller, and changing the column width (for example 1 of the columns is previously allocated width of say 10em, however new entry data is longer than the 10em and is wrapping) by adding 1em to 5em, is adding/changing either which considered violating MOS:VAR?

Would appreciate if the answer is not personal opinion because I need a every clear cut answer to that, but personal opinion would also do. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 08:07, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

We just talked about this on your talk page, and it looks like you're trying to find different opinions so you can still make unnecessary stylistic changes to articles. Considering MOS:VAR says changing existing styling without a significant, beneficial reason for doing so should not be done and you are not citing a significant reason for changing said styling on articles you edit other than you like it that way, yes, it's violating MOS:VAR. Adjusting the [x]em width to accommodate new information is not something I or really any editor would be taking issue with. In this instance, there is no reason to use Template:Smaller over existing formatting in wikitables. Finding loopholes to allow you to still unnecessarily fiddle with formatting to your liking is not a good look on any editor. While seeking a third or other opinions is fine and even encouraged, doing it can look like WP:FORUMSHOPPING to get the answer you like from somebody. Ss112 08:37, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

@Ss112: Yes, I'm finding different opinions. And at the same time, needed clarification on the wordings which isn't really clear cut and precise. So far, I only read from your POV which is why I need other opinions and clarifications. Please note that, this is unrelated to your queries even though it may sound to be. If possible, I would appreciate that you ignore this comment and my question and leave it to other editors to reply. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 08:44, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

@Paper9oll: Short answers:

1. No. However, use common sense and don't go overboard with it.
2. "Sparingly" means a little as possible on any article. That means that in every scenario, avoid doing so if possible. Standardized templates refers to those and whatever other template that automatically shrinks text, like infoboxes.
3. No, but why would you do that? They do the exact same thing, so that makes it almost WP:COSMETIC. You'll need a very good reason to make that change.
4. Depends on context; MOS:SMALL applies here too.
5. No, but you need consensus for the changes.

In the end, table formatting is very subjective and is a pretty common cause of conflict between editors, so while your proposed changes above may not necessarily break any rules, reaching consensus is important. I see that you and Ss112 are actively discussing this; please continue to do that. Also, MOS:VAR boils down to "if it ain't broke, don't fix it", so you should have compelling reasons for your changes. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 08:49, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

@Ganbaruby: Hi there, thanks for your answer. There is further queries I needed in regards to your answer.

1. Noted.
2. Noted.
3. Noted. However, if it is newly created article and I choose to use the template rather than styling. Is it okay?
4. Noted. Say discography table for example Blackpink discography#Studio albums, the 2nd row of the peak chart positions column uses 90% font-size, is such context appropriate? Given such the 2nd row is essential "an extension" of the 1st row.
5. Noted.

— Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 09:02, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

@Paper9oll: For new articles, it's up for you to decide. However, on a more subtle note, there is value in using the same style across similar articles, especially for something like discographies, awards, charts, and certifications, because these are often maintained by editors that hop around updating these tables (like User:Ss112, iirc), and it would make their lives somewhat easier. Again, this is not saying that you have to; it's up to your discretion. For the discography columns, MOS:SMALL applies here too, so you could return the font to its original size based on that. However, do know that there is somewhat of a precedent for using 90% in this context (see here, here, and here), and while I don't know why that is, I'd personally go along with it because it's not an egregious violation of MOS:SMALL, and the compressed look is better IMO. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 09:38, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

@Ganbaruby:Again, this is not saying that you have to; it's up to your discretion – Noted.For the discography columns, MOS:SMALL applies here too, so you could return the font to its original size based on that – interesting, noted on that. But I wouldn't go around and change it to 100% since MOS:VAR applies. Actually, there is mixed style for the discography, some uses 85% and some uses 90% font-size, I agreed with your opinion that 90% font-size look is not bad however can't really say for 85% version since it is smaller than the other word in other heading columns. Anyway, thanks you for the taking the time to my questions. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 09:47, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

@Paper9oll: the key point made above is that you should not change existing styling without a significant, beneficial reason for doing so. If you have such a reason, then give it in the edit summary, and other editors can decide whether they agree or not. Changing <small>..</small> to {{Small}} when they are deliberately set up to produce the same 85% font size has no significant benefit that I can see, so should not be done. Changing the width of a table column when new material is added that is longer may well have a significant benefit which can be explained in the edit summary. The only general rule is the requirement for significant benefit. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:55, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

@Peter coxhead: Thanks you the explanation. However, is standardalizing <small> tag with Template:Small okay if the article uses both styling throughout? Which should be preferred over the other, template or html? — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 09:02, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

@Paper9oll: firstly, you shouldn't be making changes to articles that aren't visible to readers just for the sake of it; only 'tidy' internal style as part of a content change. As to your question, I prefer HTML while other editors prefer the template. I don't myself think it matters. I would go with whichever is most frequent in the article at the time. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:53, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

@Peter coxhead:I would go with whichever is most frequent in the article at the time – noted. Thanks you for taking the time to answer my questions. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 10:14,

Hi again, how long should the time between warnings be? Am I allowed to give a second warning just after 5 minutes of the last when a user keeps disrupting, or should I wait for an hour to ensure they've likely read it? -Melecie- talk! 07:07, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

@MelecieDiancie: there is no rule on this - if they continue disruption you can quickly escalate. Elli (talk | contribs) 08:24, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Noted, thanks! -Melecie- talk! 08:41, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

the short description on Anne Goldthwaite wikidata is much more descriptive than our Anne Goldthwaite wikipedia page. is it ok to change from "American painter" to "american artist and advocate of women's and equal rights" Gi vi an (talk) 09:47, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

@Gi vi an, yes it is. Short descriptions should try to be at least a little bit descriptive, so changing it would be great. See Wikipedia:SHORTDESC for more information on short descriptions. — Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 10:03, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi I am a new editor and I have completely gone through article creation and i am making an article about a short movie in my sandbox and i will later move it into mainspace when my account will be autoconfirmed. I have used "IMDb" and a cite known as "KZfaq" as citation. Will it be possible that my article will be created ? I have also provided IMDb external links and moreover, that short movie is listed on IMDb top rated indian short movies on 10th rank out of 250 movies with an IMDb rating of 10.0 and that list on IMDb is not user generated and neither IMDb ratings are user generated.[1] this is that list on IMDb you can check it from here. The movie's name is The "Testpaper". Please let me known that will my article be created as i am very anxious about that as it will be my first article. Sparklycryingbiscuit (talk) 02:45, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Unfortunately IMDb cannot be used due to WP:IMDb. Good luck, NotReallySoroka (talk) (formerly DePlume) 04:05, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Comments on your Talk page and at User:Sparklycryingbiscuit/sandbox are explicit that IMDb is not a reliable source reference. David notMD (talk) 10:34, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi all, I had a submission (my first!) submitted last early December and reviewed on the same day - and declined. I have since then considerably reviewed, restructured, added sources and shortened the article, carefully taking into account all comments made, and have been patiently waiting for a new review. Since then, nothing happened and my first reviewer, who "retired" since then, told me to come here. Can anyone help? The page is Draft:International_Association_of_Department_Stores Thank you! --Perchsquirell (talk) 09:48, 18 April 2021 (UTC) Perchsquirell (talk) 09:48, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Perchsquirell There are reviewers who keep an eye out for drafts that are at the long end of the to-be-reviewed pile, so all that can be said is be patient. It does look like you did a lot of work on the draft after the Declined. The second paragraph of History has no refs. David notMD (talk) 10:39, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

I want to add a link to a word in a Wiki page that will pop up a specific image contained on another Wiki page. So for instance I might have a sentence copntaining the words "Mona Lisa" and I want the user to be able to hover over that and for an image of the Mona Lisa (from a Wiki page) to pop up. I don't want to have to link to a whole Wiki page that contains the image, I just want the mentioned image to 'pop-up'. This is an example, not the actual image I want to link to. I have read all the help pages about images but don't see this usage illustrated - maybe it's not allowed ? Any help much appreciated. Ramses506 (talk) 12:35, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

As far as I am aware that is impossible based on how the popups work - you'd need to link to the image's page directly, and even then that will not provide only the image (though the additional info will not be present in popups as it's template-based). —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 12:40, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

I tried logging into Wikipedia, reset my password and they gave me a temporary password, which doesn't work. I tried it multiple times but it just doesn't work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.170.201.172 (talk) 10:21, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Usernames and passwords are case sensitive. Do you enter them at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:UserLogin? Do you get "Incorrect username or password entered", or does something else happen? PrimeHunter (talk) 12:38, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

And please be advised that copying&pasting passwords from emails often leads to surrounding spaces/special chars to be copied as well, rendering the password invalid. Victor Schmidt (talk) 13:37, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello, I've read a few guides and looked at the gargantuan training menu. I'd like a way of finding things. For example if I want see all the WP abbreviations - having just run into WP:SYNTH, What's the quickest way to find all the technical help?

Thanks - great tea by the way! Thelisteninghand (talk) 20:33, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Copy and paste this onto your user page: {{Wikipedia policies and guidelines|state=collapsed}}. It's a collapsed box containing many links to policies and guidelines. It will look like this when you do.

Heiro 20:43, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

This: Wikipedia:Wikipedia abbreviations is a list of abbreviations on Wikipedia. You can also add that to your userpage as a way to keep it handy when you want to look something up.Heiro 20:47, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm not the OP but thanks, these are very helpful. PrincessPersnickety (talk) 20:54, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

No problem. It's also easy to create your own collapsed boxes for organizing and minimizing various sorts of information like that. As I did here, as an example User:Heironymous Rowe/Useful books and their citations Heiro 20:59, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

The WP:Shortcut index is also quite a good reference for looking these up, but it is an enormous page. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 21:02, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for this one too. I do struggle to find things in WP sometimes, even when I know what I'm looking for :) PrincessPersnickety (talk) 21:10, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

PrincessPersnickety I think a lot of us do. Probably quite a few of us end up making a page for ourselves where we write down things we think we'll want to refer to again (and either do or don't end up actually referring to them!). Mine, for example, is User:Mortee/Cheatsheet. I don't know if the quicklinks bit of that is the kind of thing Thelisteninghand was after, but anyone's welcome to crib it if it's of any value. › Mortee _talk 22:53, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks all, that's very helpful. What I really want is an animated paper clip.. "it looks like you're trying to edit Wikipedia.." I will have a go at dumping stuff on my user page - thanks!Thelisteninghand (talk) 13:38, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm looking into possibly making a stand-alone article for a bibliography, which I've never done before. I came across Black theology and Bibliography of Black theology while working on Minjung theology and thought that it would be reasonable to make Draft:Bibliography of minjung theology. My question is whether or not Bibliography of Black theology currently meets the basic requirements of WP:BIBLIOGRAPHY, which is mentioned in WP:STANDALONE as a "Specialized list article"? Additionally, do you think a bibliography dedicated to Minjung theology would meet the necessary requirements? How specific does a work need to be, to be included in a bibliography and what are the requirements for a subject to be notable enough to warrant a bibliography? For instance, I was easily able to find twenty books written in English that include "Minjung theology" in the title of the work, but would a book that discusses Minjung theology that is dedicated to Christianity in Korea more broadly be acceptable in the list (perhaps under a separate section that makes note of this difference)? And is twenty sources enough or does it need to be forty; is there a specific number required? I'm sure I could also find sources in Korean to bolster the numbers and I've already come across quite a few papers written on the subject so I would think that it would have a similar amount of content to the bibliography dedicated to black theology. TipsyElephant (talk) 01:07, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

I would advise that if the bibliography signifigantly extends then it needs a standalone article. Thank you for asking. NightWolf1223 (talk) 01:10, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

@NightWolf1223: do you think it would be more appropriate to create an article called Draft:Bibliography of the minjung movement and create different sections dedicated to theology, art, politics, etc. It would be a broader topic. Also, I have an example that I'm unsure whether is is fit for the list. The exploration of the inner wounds--Han is dedicated to the topic of Han, but according to the chapter titles about 1/6th of the book is dedicated to how Han is used in Minjung theology. TipsyElephant (talk) 01:56, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

@TipsyElephant: First, there is no article named Minjung Movement, it is named just Minjung. Second, I would say it would depend on what books you want to use. Keep in mind that the books must improve the article. NightWolf1223 (talk) 12:40, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

@NightWolf1223: Oh, I think I misunderstood what the stand-alone bibliographies were. Do they have to have a corresponding article? Like can Bibliography of Black theology not exist without Black theology existing first? The minjung movement makes up the majority of the article on Minjung: Minjung#Minjung_movement. Would it be appropriate to make an article called Draft:Bibliography of Minjung? It seems like a weird name compared to Minjung theology, Minjung politics, Minjung Art, etc. It would literally translate as "Bibliography of the people". Perhaps Draft:Bibliography of Minjung ideologies is more appropriate, but again that doesn't have an article. Maybe Minjung is too broad of a topic? If I continue with Draft:Bibliography of minjung theology what do you think the cutoff would be for an appropriate number of sources? I can include Korean texts right? I haven't included anything written by the most well-known theologians in the movement so I'm sure I could find quite a few, but korean books are probably not the most helpful on the English Wikipedia. TipsyElephant (talk) 14:32, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

@NightWolf1223: are these journal entries on JSTOR and ProQuest pretty much all fair game for including in a bibliography? I've never used JSTOR, ProQuest, or journals even so I'm not sure whether there are specific rules on how to use them. TipsyElephant (talk) 15:18, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Feel free to ask the editors at Wikipedia:WikiProject Bibliographies.Moxy-14:36, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

hi i am wondering how do i start a wiki project because i need some help creating a article Bak172 (talk) 15:56, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello Bak172 and welcome to Wikipedia. Creating a Project in order to get help with an article might not be the right way to do it - a Project usually deals with issues continuously. There are already plenty of projects on Wikipedia - some are active, some not, you can take a look at the list here - WP:PROJDIR. When you find the one that looks appropriate, you can file a request there or contact one or more members directly on their talk pages. You can also file a request at WP:EAR. Best,Less Unless (talk) 16:44, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Everytime I trying to Add Same topic External link Your contributer removed....

I was trying to add link with same topic information but removed by your contributer or executive.

My sources is same topic where people get benefits also...

But may be here joined as editor or contributer hard to stay... Kareena2020 (talk) 18:18, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Kareena2020 is now indef blocked for multiple reasons. David notMD (talk) 19:06, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

one of them being, adding a link to a page of meaningless computer-generated text. Maproom (talk) 19:09, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello, I'm new-ish, just wondering what the + and - numbers in the edit history signify?

And also, should I create a user page?

Thanks! w Willyteatime (talk) 18:29, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

@Willyteatime: Yes, definitely create a userpage! And the + and - signify how many bytes you added or deleted in a page. Creamepuff 18:49, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

You're under no obligation to create a user page. Some editors have been working here for years without having one. But if you want one, by all means go ahead! Maproom (talk) 19:12, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

@Willyteatime: Just make sure you follow the guidelines listed at WP:USER.NightWolf1223 (talk) 21:13, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

I am in the process of researching and writing a biography on J Alex Castonguay. He already has an article uploaded by another person, in French. How do I contribute my own separate article in English, with much more detail? PhotoGrandson (talk) 22:47, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi PhotoGrandson, welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia languages are edited independently. You are free to ignore fr:Joseph-Alexandre Castonguay. See Wikipedia:Articles for creation for how to create and submit a draft. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:32, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

I (proudly) share his name, so please correct the middle name to read Commigers, NOT Commingers. My mother had to go back to city hall to get my name corrected on my birth certificate. Thanks, John Commigers Ainsworth (Jr.) It's a long story... 130.13.139.37 (talk) 23:10, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Courtesy: John C. Ainsworth. Problem is ref #4 spells it "Commingers" and no other ref provides a middle name. Needs a ref to support the proposed change. David notMD (talk) 00:06, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Today I walked with Mazu in the pilgrimage in Dajia Taichung. I took pictures, can I post on Wikipedia? After, can I put pictures in English and Chinese page? Thank you for your time~ Also where is help desk at Chinese Wikipedia?

@Mazubobee: You may either upload on English Wikipedia or you may upload onto here. I apologize, but I don't know where the Chinese help desk is. Sorry, NightWolf1223 (talk) 13:01, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

It could be [2] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:31, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you~ I uploaded to Wikimedia Commons. How do I add to page? Mazubobee (talk) 15:20, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

@Mazubobee: Can you please say which article you want it on and I will take care of it.NightWolf1223 (talk) 16:18, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Courtesy link: [3]

@Mazubobee: Those are some fantastic pictures! Actually, I've been wanting to write a specific article for the Mazu Pilgrimage, and I believe your pictures will come in handy. I've put one of your pictures here; to see how I did it, go into "edit source" and modify the markup you see there. You may also use VisualEditor, which inserts pictures like a Word document. If you do not want to put pictures on the right side, there's also the gallery format: see WP:GALLERY for help on those. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 03:24, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello. I have written an article called Tamerlaine Sanctuary and Preserve. It's been rejected for sounding like an advertisement, or non-notable. I disclosed that I work there, and also the sanctuary received accreditation from Global Federation of Animal Sanctuaries, the most-respected level an animal sanctuary can reach. My first draft was, after I read the talk pages and help from other editors, definitely not dry enough and way too exuberant. (ie, read like advertising). However, I've whittled down to very encyclopedic info and I'm just not sure what else I can do. As for notability, in addition to the accreditation, we have a letter congratulating us on it from Senator Cory Booker, and a video on YouTube that our founder hosted alongside Senator Booker and other animal welfare activists. However, these seem like biased sources (Youtube, a personal letter) so I didn't include them. Should I have? Because we have only been around since 2013, and haven't had a media person during this time, we don't have a lot of press coverage. It gets worse. This is my first article and I royally messed up our photos. I included photos from our database assuming they were all ours, and apparently they are not. So they've been deleted and I'll have to fix that issue. But as for the article, I suspect the issue is just that I work there, because I noticed that many other articles about animal sanctuaries had fewer sources, or much, much, more descriptive histories and language. However, Wikipedia has the disclosure for this situation, so it seems that it's not disallowed? I warmly welcome any suggestions to improve my article. And I thank anyone who can help in advance, profusely. THANK YOU! If you have time and inclination, here is the article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Tamerlaine_Sanctuary_and_Preserve  Vegan4theAnimals (talk) 23:08, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Status: Declined 17 April and not yet resubmitted. Creator has not yet declared on own User page that this is PAID/COI. David notMD (talk) 00:03, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

@David notMD: I think there was an intended but slightly botched attempt to disclose here. I used that as justification for fixing it as a proper {{connected contributor (paid)}} template.

@Vegan4theAnimals: Your cooperation would be appreciated if you place the following code on your userpage (User:Vegan4theAnimals): {{paid|employer=Tamerlaine Sanctuary and Preserve}}. This will guarantee that you are in compliance with the mandatory paid editing disclosure policy. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 00:47, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

@Drm310: Thank you! I don't have a userpage just yet (I don't think? I will (try to) make one now. I appreciate this! Vegan4theAnimals (talk) 01:56, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

@Drm310: Thanks again. I fixed it. I hope? Vegan4theAnimals (talk) 02:28, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

@Vegan4theAnimals: You copied some extra code surrounding it, but I've removed it. It's now displaying properly, so all is good now. Thank you. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 02:30, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

@Drm310: Thank YOU. Fingers crossed. Vegan4theAnimals (talk) 02:33, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Consider submitting again. David notMD (talk) 09:27, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

 Miriton (talk) 11:53, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

If you have a question about doing so, feel free to ask it here. -- Hoary (talk) 12:05, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

 2603:6011:8D00:B870:B5D0:91D9:CD19:8572 (talk) 00:48, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

We cannot give medical advice. If you are having trouble breathing call a doctor. RudolfRed (talk) 01:59, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

In, out, in, out, in, out.... repeat as needed. David notMD (talk) 12:41, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Can I cite my own essay for XFD, provided that I do not treat it as a policy or guideline? Cheers, NotReallySoroka (talk) (formerly DePlume) 03:52, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

NotReallySoroka Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. You can discuss anything you feel pertinent to the XFD as long as you are clear about what it is and understand that it will be weighed accordingly. 331dot (talk) 07:52, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

You absolutely can use an essay you wrote yourself to explain why you think something should be deleted/kept/merged, if you have a load of things with the same issue writing an essay is a good way to avoid having to repeat yourself over and over. The only advice I would give you though is to take it slow, quote the essay in a couple of nominations and see if it has widespread support before jumping into large numbers of nominations or votes. As a recent example, someone recently wrote an essay on why we should delete all redirects containing the phrase "complete list" then immediately nominated dozens of redirects containing the phrase at RFD. Once there they found that there was significant pushback related to the essay and a lot of the discussions were subsequently closed as keep, and another user subsequently wrote a counter essay arguing why some "Complete list" redirects are appropriate. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 15:08, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Hey, I remember that! :( Elli (talk | contribs) 21:07, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Elli Sorry, it was just the first example that came to mind. I did say that I agreed with the essay and voted to keep it at the MFD nomination! 86.23.109.101 (talk) 13:29, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

I have nominated one redirect for discussion, using my own essay as a reasoning among others. --NotReallySoroka (talk) (formerly DePlume) 00:22, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

NotReallySoroka Ok, just wait to see what kind of feedback other editors give and whether they agree with the essay or not, if feedback is positive then nominate some more, if people point out flaws or exceptions or generally disagree then go back to the drawing board and think about how you could rework it to address their concerns. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 13:29, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

If yes, how will a late contest be counted? Thanks, NotReallySoroka (talk) (formerly DePlume) 02:59, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello, NotReallySoroka. I suggest that you provide some specific context, and perhaps links to discussion of a specific dispute. Your current question is too vague to answer, at least for me. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:39, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

I would like to establish a precedent that no redirects of a certain type may be created. Can I use RfDs where those redirects are deleted to prove that Arbitration is the right path? NotReallySoroka (talk) (formerly DePlume) 06:04, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

@NotReallySoroka: this is absolutely not something you should take to ArbCom - if you believe it to be truly necessary, you should run it as an RfC, though I recommend against that too. Elli (talk | contribs) 06:15, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

NotReallySoroka Arbcom is a last resort option to deal with behavioural issues that the community is unable to deal with alone, think misuse of admin tools, long term tendentious editing in a topic area, off-wiki harassment campaigns, issues involving private information that cannot be released publicly on an administrators noticeboard etc. It is extremely rare for Arbcom to involve itself in content disputes, and even then it's restrained to things like "articles on topic X must use high quality scholarly literature as sources", they don't actually decree what is/isn't allowed to go in an article. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 13:37, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

See my response to the question you posted immediately below. -- Hoary (talk) 07:17, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello. I have a LONG watchlist built up over the years. Sometimes I will look at it and a page entry would say "Article closed as delete" or something to that effect. I did not know that the page was even nominated for deletion, otherwise I would have fought to keep it. This has happened numerous times. Is there any way to get or opt into notifications of pages on our watchlist that are nominated for deletion? Urbanracer34 (talk) 15:23, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

@Urbanracer34: you're notified on your watchlist when a deletion banner is added to a page versacespaceleave a message! 15:37, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

@VersaceSpace: That is weird. I've never noticed it. Thanks for the answer. Urbanracer34 (talk) 15:43, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi, I saw some old Wikipedia user pages with Teahouse badges, and clicking the badge sent me to WP:Teahouse/Badge. It says that badges are discontinued now. What happened to them?

Was there consensus to stop distributing badges, or were they simply abandoned?

Sorry this isn't specific to editing. I was just curious as to what happened to them. Aknell4 (talk • contribs) 15:49, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

@Aknell4: you can see that Nick Moyes asked on the talk page in 2018, then marked it as historical in 2020. Following that I'm pretty sure it was just abandoned. Elli (talk | contribs) 16:13, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Oh okay. Thank you. --Aknell4 (talk • contribs) 16:23, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Do I just need 3 or 4 lines to have it removed, or do I need more? Please help. (31.187.7.220 (talk) 15:20, 19 April 2021 (UTC))

Here’s an example of a still-stub with about 4 to 5 lines on Pietro Ferrero:

Pietro Ferrero was born in 1898.

In 1925, he had a son, Michele Ferrero.

On 14 May 1946, he founded his company, Ferrero.

Pietro died on 2 March 1949.

Can articles with this much lines get a stub removed? (31.187.7.220 (talk) 15:27, 19 April 2021 (UTC))

Hi 31.187.7.220, welcome to the Teahouse. There's no clear definition of a stub. WP:STUB suggests rules of thumb including 250 words, 500 words, or the WP:DYK standard 1,500 characters of readable text in the body of the article. Going by DYKcheck, Pietro Ferrero Jr. has 678 characters, 119 words in its main text, which suggests it's still a stub. That fits my assessment of the article, so I'd leave the stub template there for now. Being a stub isn't a criticism of an article, it's an invitation to further expansion. I think it's best to leave the template there until an article is clearly long/complete enough that the template doesn't apply. Any useful, referenced detail you can add is very welcome. I hope this helps. › Mortee _talk 16:01, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

@31.187.7.220: there's not really a set amount of lines required to upgrade a stub to a higher quality article. I'll use one of my articles as an example. This is a link of one of my articles as a stub. It has a small amount of prose, an infobox, a track listing, and references. That version was created a while ago. Now look at the current version of the article. I'd say it could use more prose, but the point is that there should be enough content for the article to be, well, an article. It's gonna take far more than four lines to get an article better than a stub. Good luck. versacespaceleave a message! 16:06, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Okay, thanks, but the name... Pietro Ferrero, you got it wrong. (31.187.7.220 (talk) 16:03, 19 April 2021 (UTC))

Oh! You're quite right. Sorry. Pietro Ferrero is a shorter article and would still be a stub if you added the text you mentioned. There must be a lot more to write about the founder of a such a big chocolate company. I hope you'll have fun if you decide to help us expand the article. Do ask again at the Teahouse if you have questions about it. › Mortee _talk 16:07, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, although it’s still a stub. It looks a long article! (Commitments with talking means you must have a cup of 🍵🍵) (31.187.7.220 (talk) 16:09, 19 April 2021 (UTC))

Sorry, can you reiterate what you said? I didn't understand. @31.187.7.220: versacespaceleave a message! 16:12, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, although it’s still a stub. It looks a long article! (Commitments with talking means you must have a cup of 🍵🍵) (31.187.7.220 (talk) 16:09, 19 April 2021 (UTC))

Cup of tea. (31.187.7.220 (talk) 16:40, 19 April 2021 (UTC))

I don’t know how to edit. SpaceLikeSpace (talk) 17:29, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello SpaceLikeSpace and welcome to Wikipedia. Well you have successfully made an edit here, so you know how to post messages on talk pages already. I have left you a message on your talk page with a few links that might be helpful for you. Alternatively, you could also check out The Wikipedia Adventure if you are into interactive learning. In case you have any question, you're always welcome to ask here. – NJD-DE (talk) 18:01, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Kleinpecan (talk) 18:17, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Kleinpecan Wikiproject spam is a wikiproject (i.e. a group of editors) working together to remove spam from the encyclopaedia and clean up the results of paid editing. The spam blacklist is a software feature that prevents the addition of links to certain websites, the MediaWiki talk page is used to propose additions and removals from the list. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 18:45, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, and yes I know this. However, you can propose additions to the blacklist on *both* of those places, and it seems weird to have two places with the same purpose, so surely there must be some difference between them? Kleinpecan (talk) 18:49, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Kleinpecan In theory Wikiproject spam is intended to be a general noticeboard, where spam can be dealt with in a number of ways (e.g. just cleaning up the mess, account/IP blocks, page protection, blacklining on the English wiki or global blacklisting which blocks it across all wikimedia sites), while MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist is supposed to only be used for requesting additions or removals to the local spam blacklist. In practice there isn't a lot of difference and misplaced reports published on MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist will be dealt with according to administrator discursion. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 18:59, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

 NotReallySoroka (talk) (formerly DePlume) 05:57, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Your miscellaneous pages (example User:NotReallySoroka/Fried), your many questions here, and your keenness to remind people of something or other that you did in relation (or not) to somebody named Soroka -- all of these add up to suggest to me that you're not really here to help improve an encyclopedia. So show me that I'm wrong: forget your userspace (other than to respond to any questions or similar posted to your talk page), and spend a week making substantial improvements to one or two existing articles. -- Hoary (talk) 07:14, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Hoary:

1. At least I am not intentionally vandalising the Encyclopaedia.
2. I have recently branched out to do RfDs too. Granted, I cite an essay with Fried as an example, but all these redirects have nothing to do with baseball, and I use my Essay to avoid repeating myself.
3. Most of my recent userspace edits are done to my Fried essay.
4. My reminding of others of Soroka are either my username, clear jokes outside mainspace, or advice-seeking on how to turn it into a WP:Good.

NotReallySoroka (talk) (formerly DePlume) 16:57, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

The hat shopping for both your main and alternate accounts say otherwise. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:18, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Beeblebrox This is not an appeal for your decision to withhold new page reviewer rights to me, but:

1. WP:RPC#Becoming a reviewer did not define "measurable track record" in terms of mainspace edits or duration of activity.
2. It makes sense for my alt account to be promoted to extended confirmed per the request for rights page, which states that the right "may be added to legitimate alternate accounts of users that already have this access."

NotReallySoroka (talk) (formerly DePlume) 18:36, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Well, I don't think any advanced permissions were intended for users who screw around more than they contribute, I don't know what your game is but you certainly don't seem focused on improving the encyclopedia. I'll give you a hint: having barely 100 article edits before you start asking for all sorts of advanced permissions is not a "measurable track record"it is more of a  Redflag. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:09, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello! I'm new to Wikipedia and was wondering if someone could give me a tour. I made my first edit and I think it was an okay edit. GoogleTheContributor (talk) 15:18, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello GoogleTheContributor and welcome to Wikipedia!! Check out the The Wikipedia Adventure. It will show you different aspects of Wikipedia, and could be a nice start for you. – NJD-DE (talk) 15:41, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

@Njd-de Okay! Thank you. GoogleTheContributor (talk) 15:42, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi GoogleTheContributor. If I might, some hopefully constructive criticism regarding that first edit. While it appears mostly fine, it is one including a change of an unsourced statement to a different nuance of meaning without adding a source. This doesn't tell me whether you understand that Wikipedia essentially runs on sourcing – an overarching standard that should guide most our edits – we don't write what we know in our heads.

Sure, if you know for certain that Fengshen Yanyi is also called Huang Cang (rather than originally called that), on balance that part of the edit is an improvement, but in my view a much better edit would have been to make this change while adding a citation to a reliable, secondary, independent sources that verified the original information and your change. Many experienced users would approach any edit like this with sourcing as their number one guide, and wouldn't dream of making an equivalent change without involving a corroborating source. I am saying this just to introduce you to a focus that is common here, and yet alien to many people, if not from a very particular academic writing background.

One other thing: in that edit you also changed "favourite" to "favorite". You might have just thought this was a misspelling but the former is the British/Commonwealth spelling, and the latter, the U.S. spelling convention, and should not have been changed. Please see WP:ENGVAR. As to a tour, in addition to the adventure link provided above, please see Wikipedia's tutorial. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 19:13, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Could you help me, I'm new to Wikipedia and want some help around editing and other things. GoogleTheContributor (talk) 15:22, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

The pencil icon is the edit icon, if you see a lock, the page is protected due to vandalism. Do general edits or else they’ll be reverted. Here’s some templates:

Wikilink will appear in blue. Not created pages will appear in red.

(always close with }})

(31.187.7.220 (talk) 15:43, 19 April 2021 (UTC))

Ignore what the IP said above as it wasn't entirely helpful. The pencil icon isn't always the edit icon. IN fact, usually it's just a button. If you see a lock then the page is protected but not just because of vandalism, there are also other types of protections. You don't have to only do general edits to not have them reverted, as long as the edit is constructive it won't be reverted. If it is, just know that your edit was in good faith. The templates they provided above are: the general stub template {{stub}}, the ref template <ref>reference</ref>, and also the person infobox {{infobox person}}. If you need anymore help feel free to ask! Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 19:17, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Some advice would be to check out The Wikipedia Adventure. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 19:35, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

I created this table:

--93.193.170.30 (talk) 11:15, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

You would probably want to use references from the actual church website that are links to the videos themselves along with another source if you can find one. Might I ask what the purpose of the table is besides listing the Book of Mormon videos and what scripture verses they are about? That might help us understand the context a bit more. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 19:37, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't know. (If you think it might be, please explain.) What I do know is that IMDb can't be used for referencing purposes. -- Hoary (talk) 12:07, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Generally the sort of stuff you've got in that table (names, dates, running times) are considered to be facts, which on their own would not attract copyright protection. A compilation of facts can however receive copyright protection, as there is some creative input involved in deciding on a selection criteria and organising/displaying the data, so really this comes down to one question - did you compile that table from facts found in various web pages, or did you copy it wholesale from a source? As above even if this isn't a copyright issues it can't be added to the encyclopaedia as is as IMDB is User generated content, which is considered unreliable. Is there another source you could use, e.g. the programme's official website? 86.23.109.101 (talk) 12:58, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

How to link my new contribution "Jiang Luxia" English version under the Chinese page?

I created a new page for Jiang Luxia (by mistake it was typed as Jiang Lu Xia). Can you advised the steps to publish it and also, how do i link this english version with the existing chinese page)?

Thank you. Rachwoo (talk) 19:28, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

@Rachwoo: I am going to add a button to the draft allowing you to submit it for review. However, if it were to be submitted right now, it would be declined immedately, because it is unsourced. We are not interested in a rerun of the Seigenthaler incident. Victor Schmidt mobil (talk) 19:59, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Here's some symbols that can help you:

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.36.120.176 (talk • contribs)

Hi. I might be wrong but I am going to make an assumption that your post regards including such symbols on answers to posts at this page. Putting aside that there are categories of symbols that I think are more tailored to question and answer forums (e.g., those in Category:Resolution templates and Category:Image with comment templates – where the symbols you've posted above are more tailored for things like user talk warnings and information templates), we have had numerous discussions about their use, with consensus not to use them. See, for example, Wikipedia talk:Teahouse/Archive 23#Closing discussions. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 20:04, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi All, I work on a number of pages, mainly political and historical and often in the libertarian, New England, Republican spaces. There is an article that I have been doing edits on for some time, since 2016 or 2017. I'd have to look at the history. I recently reversed an edit: although the edit that had been made was a deletion of a fact on the article for Ed Lopez, it was removed because the source is now considered "deprecated". I restored the original edit because even if the source is not considered 'reputable' it wasn't being used as a source of objective information. The editor who had questioned that edit has re-deleted the item and has, in addition, added 'notability question' template message / box. This debate was already resolved in November of 2016 and it was decided that the article would remain on Wikipedia. Since then, the article has included additional national news and sources such as CSPAN and PBS on the subject of US presidential elections. I know we make a commitment to accept edits as being made in good faith - but I am having a really hard time not seeing the edits here as vindictive and potentially political in hue. I am already concerned about sources that are considered deprecated and sources that aren't. Political subjects have become highly toxic on Wikipedia and elsewhere and are one reason I don't do a lot of editing. I think that his editor's approach is unfair and my question is who can I ask for some help: I don't want to get into an argument with another editor but I honestly take the edits that took place as being vindictive: "You can't disagree with my edit, and if you do I will one-up you and escalate the debate beyond the edit we began discussing." It's very hard not to read the edits that followed my restore edit that way. Any feedback is appreciated. As I said, the delete debate on this article took place in 2016 and since 2016 the article has been reinforced with additional secondary sources of substance. This is one of those frustrating situations I have encountered on Wikipedia too often where an editor seems to delight in anything but improving an article that has a place on this service we all volunteer to help build. Grant18650602 (talk) 18:08, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi Grant18650602, for information on deprecated sources see Wikipedia:Deprecated sources. ♔MEisSCAMMER^{(talk)(contribs)} 19:23, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

I have read a bit about deprecated sources, but I still feel the issue here is the disproportionate response to a disagreement on what constitutes a minor edit. Could someone help me understand how to tackle this issue?Grant18650602 (talk) 19:30, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi All, I want to revoke my question, another editor at Wikipedia has looked at the article and is giving constructive feedback. I appreciate the help.Grant18650602 (talk) 20:19, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Why does an edit get removed for not being constructive, without any reasons given and how is it possible to dispute that?

The original quotes the sources mentioned incorrectly and also doesnt make sense grammatically. I dont mind my personal edit being removed but it really bothers me that this particular sentence exists there just like that... 2003:6:2186:1E47:919F:1BE4:3B1E:9BAB (talk) 21:50, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

You are welcome to dispute the edit on the reverting editor's talk page or on the talk page of the article. Please could you provide us with the article the revert was performed on so we can take a look? Kind regards, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 21:54, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello, how common/appropriate is to update yourself the assessment of an article after you have improved it?

I read that everybody is allowed to assess or change an assessment (besides for the "high categories", but I am not talking about those), and I understand that, if I "overestimate" my improvements, other people can always downgrade the new assessment later.

Precisely for this reason, I always thought it was more "correct" not to do it myself and wait for neutral opinions. However, I realised that this may never happen, since there is a category for pages without an assessment (which I believe is routinely visited) but there isn't one for "pages needing a reassessment" (I couldn't even find a template about it), so articles may remain with an old assessment for years and years after they have been improved.

So, to make it short, would it be bad to make some improvements on a page and (if I deem it appropriate) immediately improve its grade, or is this actually the standard procedure? Thanks for the help! Francesco Cattafi (talk) 22:16, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi Francesco Cattafi. I remember this coming up a few times, here and elsewhere and it seems to follow a typical pattern I would summarize as: "Can I really self-assess?" "Even for my own improvements?" "Yep, go ahead and do it, though of course you can't choose GA, FA, FL, etc.)" "Really? Seems odd sort of goes against our typical sensibilities; COI and all that." Yeah, I know, but it's an internal assessment process anyway, really just for wikiproject organization and so forth. Do it.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk)

The Teahouse has nothing to do with Tea, so why is it called Teahouse? (31.187.7.220 (talk) 17:06, 19 April 2021 (UTC))

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia! There's a good explanation [4] here - and here - WP:TY. Happy editing! Best, Less Unless (talk) 17:22, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

In case you don't wanna read through all that here's a general explanation, it's to make it seem more welcoming to new users. If it were something like "Help for new users" then it might make them feel stupid for asking questions. The name "Teahouse" is supposed to make it feel more welcoming. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 19:08, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

That’s why should feel more welcome with a picture of tea at the top of this article! (31.187.7.220 (talk) 22:29, 19 April 2021 (UTC))

Someone made a suggestion that the "Cultural impact and legacy" section get a seperate page as the main page is already quite lengthy but no other editors have responded to it. So I was wondering if anyone here could help with it? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BTS Btspurplegalaxy (talk) 22:14, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Hey Btspurplegalaxy. I know nothing about this band, but be aware of just how lengthy these search results are. Even the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cultural impact of Beyoncé, for this attractive cruft nuisance type article, got numerous delete !votes, despite surviving. By the way, if you do go ahead, please be sure to follow copyright attribution requirements for merges. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:49, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

 Cadnan99 (talk) 23:31, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi Cadnan99, welcome to the Teahouse. This page is meant for questions about editing Wikipedia. I think the right place to ask about the invention of olanzapine would be the science reference desk. Hope this helps, › Mortee _talk 23:39, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

You have made 12 edits to Olanzapine, including repeated statements that it was invented by Dr abdikadir shaib (without a reference). All of your edits have been reverted. The proper place to have a discussion is at the Talk page of that article. David notMD (talk) 01:15, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Against what is in a citation, you edited Clozapine, Amisulpride, Risperidone and Paliperidone to state that they were inferior to Olanzapine. All edits reverted. Continuing this misbehavior will get you blocked. David notMD (talk) 01:50, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

I have created a template to add a football conference to this page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1968_NAIA_football_season) and populated it with the relevant information.

I do not know how to add it, though.

It would be nice to see the template and page in preview first. Is that possible?

Can you help?

Thank you very much.

Bob Jones 75.164.176.76 (talk) 21:53, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi Bob! You haven't created the template with this IP address. What is the name of the template? GoingBatty (talk) 22:01, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

The template, which I made by copying an existing template in overwriting it with new information, exists only on my computer. I have NO idea how to get it into the encyclopedia. The name of the template is: 1968 Northwest Conference football standings.

Thank you very much.

75.164.176.76 (talk) 20:42, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Bob, in order to create a template and have it on Wikipedia, you first need to create a Wikipedia account. Once you've done that, type in the desired name of your template, and you'll be told that no such template exists. Follow the instructions from there. DS (talk) 02:00, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello all I am currently trying to get an article about Dallas J. Bennett published here on wikipedia. He is a bright young man who has accomplished so much but I do not have many sources to help make my case. He has had 2 articles about his accomplishments published in the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians' tribal newspaper. The EBCI is a sovereign nation and to their people his accomplishments are considered national news. Any help is greatly appreciated. Wikiboi77 03:35, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Regrettably, "do not have many sources" means "does not meet notability requirements". Notability is the extent to which a topic has been noted. I'm sure Mr. Bennett has a bright future ahead of him, but at this point it is premature to have a Wikipedia article about him. DS (talk) 04:09, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Is this considered self-promotion? Still confused about how I should report these people that create these kind of pages about themselves on their userpages. Thanks, AnApple47 (talk) 05:19, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, gone. DS (talk) 06:22, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello, AnApple47. The best place to report various types of misconduct depends on the specific circumstances. I have indefinitely blocked this account because the username itself is a policy violation since it represents a group rather than an individual, and the account was editing to promote that group. The best place to report this specific type of misconduct is Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention. If you see an account that is doing nothing but vandalizing, then file a report at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. If an editor is consistently pushing a non-neutral point of view, then file a report at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. If the editor is being generally disruptive and hostile, attacking other editors and violating multiple policies, then Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents may be the best place. Follow the instructions for each noticeboard carefully, provide evidence, and be prepared to defend your own behavior which may come under scrutiny if you file a noticeboard report. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:35, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

I received some very helpful suggestions from this forum last week in regard to the draft article "Josef Josten" in my sandbox - thank you. I have done my best to address the issues raised. Now I would like to transfer the article from my sandbox to the draft space to get it reviewed. I can't find this part of the process in the Article Wizard: can you help me? Honza. [[User:|Honza Giles]] (talk) 14:32, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi Honza Giles, I have moved the draft from your sandbox to Draft:Josef Josten. I also added the AfC box with a submit button. I removed the COI Userbox as this will not be part of the article, but please add it again to your userpage by adding {{UserboxCOI|Josef Josten}} on User:Honza Giles. – NJD-DE (talk) 14:45, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Honza Giles, Wikipedia expects its contributors to use neutral language, and not display a point of view. The phrase "earning him the honour of exceptional hatred by the Czech régime whose actions he exposed" displays a point of view. Ok, it's a point of view we all share, but such language should still be avoided. Maproom (talk) 07:38, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Citing sources in a different language Hello everyone. First time posting here :)

I would like to create a page about a notable electronic skateboard company but see a potential issue. This company is Italian and has mostly been cited by Italian sources but their market appears to be mostly American. So my question is: should I write this page in English or Italian? If the former, can I cite articles written in a language other than English?

Thanks! Roamingralph (talk) 07:50, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

@Roamingralph: you can write the article in English. See Wikipedia:Verifiability § Non-English sources - non-English sources are allowed. Elli (talk | contribs) 07:53, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

@Roamingralph: here in the English language encyclopaedia all articles must be written in English, if you wish to write a page in Italian you should write it on the Italian Wikipedia. you can use Italian sources, but English language sources are preferred. If you have to pick between two equivalent sources (e.g. an Italian Newspaper and an English one) you should use the English Language source, if the Italian source is significantly higher quality or there is no equivalent source then using Italian sources would be fine. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 09:51, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Just asking, how often are unblock requests accepted (on average)? Thingy-1234 (talk | contribs) 18:35, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Thingy-1234 It depends entirely on the content of the unblock request, WP:GAB contains information on what administrators are looking for. If an editor can show that they understand why they've been blocked and explains that they know what to do to avoid repeating the same issues in the future then the chance of being unblocked is fairly good. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 18:42, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I know, I'm just asking for the average rate. ;) Thingy-1234 (talk | contribs) 18:43, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Thingy-1234 I don't think they publish numbers anywhere (it might be in a database report somewhere) but you can sort the block log by "Unblock" to get an idea of how many unblocks are processed Unblock log. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 18:46, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I've checked it. Though not all unblocks are ecause of unblock requests... Anyway, I'd say it's about like 15-35%, like some vandals put in an unblock request on their talk page because they want to continue vandalizing Wikipedia and they put in some rubbish excuse ('My hand was on my keyboard it was an accident') or something like that, so it's fairly low (also I've checked some blocked user pages and most of them are declined). The unblock log is helpful though, (you can look at the dates :D) Thingy-1234 (talk | contribs) 18:52, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

"It was my brother." is a classic faux explanation. Surprisingly, few unblock request blame a sister. David notMD (talk) 22:15, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

@David notMD: The "maleness" of Wikipedia:My little brother did it—and of the suspected identity of vandals after viewing many of them acting out and making unblock request and the like—never struck me before until your post. (My gut tells me, though, its reflecting an underlying truth.) Certainly it would be very difficult to get data, and even moreso, hard data, as opposed to, say, something anecdotal like surveying a statistically significant number of vandals to see how many use male pronouns versus female pronouns to refer to themselves, if at all, but it would be fascinating to compare how often vandals are male versus female. I am betting it's a really high disparity (i.e., significantly higher than the baseline disparity of male versus female editors).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:34, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

@Fuhghettaboutit: long-term vandals maybe, but I'd think our vandal-base is actually more gender-neutral. Dunno, just think it'd be similar to our reader-base than our editor-base. Elli (talk | contribs) 08:31, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

@Fuhghettaboutit:@Elli: According to several years of data from https://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/crime/ucr.asp?table_in=1&selYrs=2019&rdoGroups=3&rdoData=c actual U.S. arrests for vandalism are 21-23% female (higher than I expected). David notMD (talk) 11:40, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

@David notMD: Interesting! Thanks for finding that. I'm not sure real world vandalism and vandalism here correlate highly but at least it's hard data point, with everything I've said just musing.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:49, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Greetings all. I'm relatively new to editing Wikipedia and until the last day or so, everything had been going swimmingly. That was until I made what I thought was a small and fair edit to the Luke Hughes (furniture designer) page. Since making the edit, a couple of users have reverted the changes back a few times - despite me explaining exactly why the change has been made. I have asked why they keep changing it, and one editor quoted an inappropriate passage of text (that when I checked, wasn't even there) and what they thought to be a weak reference. So, trying to help, I pointed out that the passage of text was different to what the editor had quoted (and quite reasonable in my view - I may be wrong though) and got rid of the weak reference. However, once again the template messages have been put back up and the weak reference reimplemented - despite it being called out as an example of what was wrong with the page. Now I'm being questioned on why I'm editing the article and if I have any kind of connection to the subject or other editors. All-in-all, it just feels like there's something going on here. LAficionado (talk) 08:46, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

The talk page of the article would be the appropriate place to discuss this. --David Biddulph (talk) 08:57, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. That's exactly where I'm discussing it with the two editors in question, but I feel like it needs more eyes for a more reasoned discussion. LAficionado (talk) 09:22, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

I'll take a look at it as I have nothing to do with him and know nothing about him so I Feel my POV might be helpful here. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 13:31, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Nevermind there's a lot going on and I don't understand enough about the situation to be able to be of much use. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 15:19, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello,

When I joined as a newbie, I saw a small box from Wikipedia that took me to a page where edits were required. How can I get that box back? I feel that it's a great way to improve pages.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Tim_Heatley How can I make this neutral? What should I rephrase?

Thank you! Spicyramens (talk) 19:26, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello! While I don't exactly know what you're talking about, there's a good chance it might've been replaced by the Suggestions Bot. Another host will have to provide a courtesy link as I don't have it. Also a way you can make Draft:Tim Heatley neutral is by reading through it and deciding "is this from a positive point of view or a negative one" and figure out what makes it one of those and try and rephrase it. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 19:30, 19 April 2021 (UTC)(talk)

I think it's a latest feature from Wikipedia. Can you make a new account and check it???

I would rather not since it's kind of a pain to create a new account just to check one feature. I do have an alt with basically no edits, however as stated on the userpage of said alt, it will be inactive unless something is wrong with this account. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 19:48, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi Spicyramens. As to your first question, I think you might mean the features provided through Wikipedia:GettingStarted. If you want to access that feature again, please copy this code: ?gettingStartedReturn=true Now, navigate to any random page → place your cursor in your browser's address bar after the existing URL → paste the copied code → hit enter. Along that same vein, you might find the Wikipedia:Community portal (linked under the "contribute" menu on the left hand side of any page) and Wikipedia:Task center of even more utility. See also User:SuggestBot/Getting Recommendations Regularly. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 20:34, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Fuhghettaboutit talk Got it! Thanks!!! Can you share the codes for submitting a Draft?

@Spicyramens: Sure. You would paste at the top of the draft and save the following {{subst:submit}}.

By the way, regarding your post above, here's just a tip on using talk pages like this. Our convention is that when you reply to someone you indent one level in from where they posted. Indents here are created by colons (not initial spaces, which do not work), with each additional colon indenting a post one level deeper. So since you started the post, everyone who responded above indented one from yours, with one colon ":". Your response to those would properly indent one more (with two [::]), and this response would then normally start with three colons (:::). Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:23, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Fuhghettaboutit I didn't really understand, but thank you! I have submitted the Draft too.

How do I publish my draft from my sandbox to the mainspace instead of submitting it for review? I believe I am correct in assuming my account is old enough to that I am just not clear how I do it. Thanks for the help. Gandalf the Groovy (talk) 14:36, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it has to be approved in order to be submitted in the mainspace. There are a few exceptions (such as the very first articles or splitting an article) where this isn't necessary but as far as I know, you have to submit it for review. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 15:17, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Actually, the opposite is true, you are no longer required to submit to AfC. Your track record is one article submitted to AfC and approved, and a second waiting on a reviewer. For your Antarctica draftDraft:Antarctica in World War II, you may still want to consider submitting to AfC rather than promoting it straight to being an article in mainspace. David notMD (talk) 15:38, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

@ David notMD How would I go about moving the article to mainspace? When I hit publish it submit's it. Is there a line of code I have to add. Any help is aprreciated.

Hi Gandalf the Groovy. The way to do so is using the move function – moving the page to a name with no namespace prefix (that's all the mainspace really is). In the move dialogue, this will be indicated with "(article)" in the left hand field. Note that if a page already exists at the title you are attempting to move a page to, this can block the move. In such cases (where you think the move is uncontroversial), you can either use {{db-move}}, or make a technical move request at WP:RM#TR. Certainly, we try to shunt the vast majority of new users to default to submitting through AfC, because of how often their creations are inappropriate entirely or are not ready for the mainspace – but your creations are not what AfC is predominantly needed to rein in! (Though I agree with David notMD that AfC might still be helpful, such as in suggestions for improvement and the like.)

The flip side is that the content that AfC is mostly aimed at keeping herd over as a gatekeeper function, when created directly in the mainspace by new users, rather than getting declined and then improved, will often just be deleted straightaway (or just gets maintenance template tagged but without any likelihood of being fixed any time soon, with no equivalent deeply motivating mechanism to impel creator to improve further – which lack of publication is for many; or, unfortunately, escapes much review at all and sits around with copyvios and promotional content etc.)

But there is no requirement that any page be submitted through AfC, nor prohibition against direct mainspace submission – only the technical barrier of autoconfirmation. (In that regard, Blaze The Wolf, answering questions here is I think a very useful activity, but please try not to guess when giving answers, as here and as is quite apparent from some others.) Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:24, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi Teahouse Team,

I have created a page for my organization. I was initially rejected and I was also informed to not copy/paste in order to avoid copyright violations. All of the material on my created page is our own material. Is there a formal criteria algorithm I can investigate? I've looked at other organization's Wikipedia pages and the one I created is just as if not more than informative than theirs.

Thanks! VPMSX (talk) 14:52, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello, VPMSX and welcome to the Teahouse. Without even looking at your draft, I can tell you that if it is "our own material" then 90% of it is inappropriate to a Wikipedia article (aand this is not even getting into the copyright question). 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) 14:57, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Am I to understand that the best way to get a published article is to have newspaper articles written about us then?

VPMSX (talk) 15:11, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Technically yes. Wikipedia isn't necessarily the best place to get your company known. And it's also not a very good idea for you to write the article anyways according to WP:COI. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 15:19, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Your draft has many paragraphs that are not referenced. Unless you can provide citations for the information that are not from the credit union itself, all that needs to be deleted. David notMD (talk) 15:51, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Also, are you sure you want an article? - X201 (talk) 15:54, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello, VPMSX. Thanks for disclosing your conflict of interest. Please read Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). We take that guideline seriously. Please also read another guideline, Wikipedia:External links. Your draft has inappropriate external links in the body which need to be removed. An essay well worth reading is Your first article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:19, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

I really bungled something up. I was attempting to move Draft: Leng Ouch to the mainspace which I accomplished succesfully but then decided to revert. This has created a huge mess of redirects. I am very confused and if someone more experienced with the technical part of Wikipedia could help that would be great. My apologies for any trouble created. Gandalf the Groovy (talk) 16:40, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

@Gandalf the Groovy: Wow that was a lot of moves! It's all done; just a whole bunch of redirects. As I advised above, if you don't submit through AfC, when you are ready to move the page to the Mainspace, make sure the left hand field of the move function dialogue says "(article)" in it, and the title in the right hand field also has no namespace prefix, i.e., just "Leng Ouch". Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:28, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

@Fuhghettaboutit Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gandalf the Groovy (talk • contribs) 17:44, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

How do I provide a Third Opinion for a dispute? Is there a page I can go to find ongoing disputes? Someone help!! 14thReason (talk) 22:10, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi 14thReason. Assuming you visited Wikipedia:Third opinion (since you know the name), you may have been surprised by the lack of any discussions listed, prompting your post, but it really is just empty right now. You might try instead visiting some open RFCs. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:26, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

14thReason - alternatively, you could sign up for the Wikipedia:Feedback request service and be notified when people are asking for third party comments. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 23:55, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Timtempleton - Thanks a lot, I signed up for some of the categories. Thanks for the help!! 14thReason (talk) 18:01, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

I want to edit the jetblue article so that the new burger king jetblue situation shows up. What are some good sources? Is the independant a good source? Is fox news a reliable source? Lionsleeps26 (talk) 17:12, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi Lionsleeps26. How does the fact that the airplane involved was operated by Jet Blue relate to the indicent? The answer in my view is that is a very incidental detail. The essence of the incident is an individual's racist meltdown on an airplane, where the airline company involved is essentially irrelevant except as a background detail.

By contrast, if this incident was or included details more airline-company-itself specific (for example, some of the stories we've seen in the news where some flight attendants' actions or inactions caused the parent corporation to issue apologies), that would invoke different analysis grounds (though the focus still might be too diffused).

For these reasons, as a matter of editorial discretion, this incident seems too peripheral and out of scope for any mention in relation to the article topic, an article about Jet Blue, regardless of reliability as to the source one might use to verify the detail.

If, say, we had an article focused on the topic of racist incidents occurring on airplanes, then it might fit there (I am decidedly not suggesting that any such article be created [and think the same would likely be too indiscriminate an article topic]); just hoping to add some clarity on the focus issue I am referring to). Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:17, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

How can i request for protected dwarf for edit. Rawalrajendranath (talk) 16:31, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

You can make an edit request on the article's talk page. Or you could be bold and make the edit yourself if you are able to. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 19:07, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Use the Article Wizard. (31.187.7.220 (talk) 16:33, 20 April 2021 (UTC))

...Why? As it appears to be unconstructive? (31.187.7.220 (talk) 16:16, 20 April 2021 (UTC))

Please welcome that back again, as it welcomes the users here. (31.187.7.220 (talk) 16:16, 20 April 2021 (UTC))

The photos are rotating, see Wikipedia:Teahouse/Hosts. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:28, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

So they appear unconstructive? (31.187.7.220 (talk) 16:30, 20 April 2021 (UTC))

No, they "are rotating" refers to the fact that at the top of the page the profile of those who have self-designated as hosts shuffles every so often – rotates through the list – some of whom can be viewed at the page Gråbergs Gråa Sång linked, and such displayed host profiles have a picture associated. Just wait and a user with the cup picture will return.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:12, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

The teacup picture appears for Teahouse hosts who have not added a picture for their profile (like me, but i'll get around to it eventually). It's not unconstructive because it actually isn't an edit at all. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 19:09, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

So I made an edit this week and a user sent what seemed to be an automated msg, how do I reply/msg a User once I know their name?

PS Wai Moe Naing (one of the most prominent leaders of the anti-coup protests) does not have a page but this is all I know of them Leoset (talk) 21:26, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

@Leoset: Welcome to the Teahouse! I like to use {{ping}} to message a user (as I did here with you). GoingBatty (talk) 21:34, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

For further help, if for example you wanted to ping GoingBatty, then you would type {{ping|GoingBatty}} and they would get a notification that they have been pinged (unless they are on the mobile app which you can see why at WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU). Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 19:15, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi, I'm very new on Wiki and I'm working on a new article about "Legal coaching" and because I'm very close to this subject (I'm a well-known expert on this in Germany, Austria and Europe)it is hard to be complained with the Wiki-codex. I worked already with Biogeographist and he suggested to ask you for your feedback. I would really appreciate your help - thanks a lot in advance --Geertje Tutschka (talk) 09:51, 19 April 2021 (UTC)--Geertje Tutschka (talk) 13:24, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello there Geertje Tutschka, and thank you for asking before you do. While you can add stuff to it with a Conflict of Interest, it's not recommended. My best advice for you would be to see WP:COI. You can also make an edit request or a request for a page (courtesy link required). You could start the page and another editor could help clean it up so that it's fit for Wikipedia. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 19:12, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi The Wolf - thanks, but I already added a COI note on my User Page regarding this: "This user has made a public declaration indicating that they have a conflict of interest with regard to the following Wikipedia article(s): Draft:Legal coaching" as you can see. Do you mean something else? Where can I get a courtesy link or another editor? Greetings Geertje Tutschka (talk) 12:55, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Geertje Tutschka. Whilst we welcome experts who can bring their knowledge and familiarity of Reliable Sources, one does need to tread extremely carefully in not appearing in any way to be promoting one's books, services or employer, or bringing one's personal biases or opinions to bear in an encyclopaedia entry. At first sight, the topic appears that it might be Notable, though self-published sources (such as Jo-Anne Stark's) are not regarded as highly as those produced by normal publishers. I see you've already submitted your draft for review, though there's plenty of time to fix any weaknesses. These are:

• Text is too turgid and written in 'semi-legalese'. Try to write in plain English, as if for an uninformed high school/1st year student at the oldest. I found it hard to understand the lead, let alone the rest of the essay draft article.
• Remove citations to book reviews, such as GoodReads. This are trivial and undermine your purpose in writing about the subject, especially as you've cited the self-published book elsewhere
• Remove repeated refences. See WP:REFNAME for guidance on how to use and then reuse the same references in a way that it appears in the reference section only one. You can use the template {{rp}} after each use of that single reference to indicate which page number(s) you are citing a statement to.
• Less is more: pare out trivia; there's a lot of essay-like content which needs removing. It needs to be a factual encyclopaedic entry, not a trivia-filled magazine article.
• Declare your Conflict of Interest. You are citing a number of your own publications and, as such, have a clear WP:COI. Please follow those guidelines to place a COI-declaration on your userpage. There's no shame in this; it's just to ensure clarity for everyone here.

Finally, you may wish to seek input from interested editors at Wikipedia:WikiProject Law who might wish to contribute. I'm afraid that after I get past the lead in any legal article, my willingness to live diminishes paragraph by paragraph and in a rather logarithmic manner. Hope this helps, Nick Moyes (talk) 22:04, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi Nick - thanks a lot. It will take some time to work me through, but it is really helpful. I will come back ASAPGeertje Tutschka (talk) 12:44, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

You'll have to wait for a courtesy link (a link for something that wasn't immediately link but is provided by another host). Also, you don't necessarily get an editor, you request one to take a look at your draft and help improve it. But since the link doesn't seem to be getting provided I will go ahead and search for the link to the page where you can request for an article to be made (keep in mind that there's most likely a backlog so it may take some time before someone creates your article). Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 19:22, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

@Geertje Tutschka:, the page to request an article is WP:REQ. Also, please call me either Blaze or Wolf (i've stated this on my userpage but I"m not gonna ask you to take a look at it as it's not really helpful to what you need). 19:25, 20 April 2021 (UTC) Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 19:25, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

steps on reframing your life 47.181.138.146 (talk) 19:47, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

That's a very profound statement, IP editor, but do you actually have a question for us about how to edit Wikipedia that you want to ask? After all - that's what we're here for. Deeper, more philosophical matters probably ought to be referred to a much higher authority. Best wishes, Nick Moyes (talk) 19:57, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

A recent edit of mine (while logged out) was undone on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shell_script. I'm not sure why this was done.

Nevertheless, I believe the edit was constructive. While it was a small change, it brought that sentence more in line with the rest of the surrounding paragraphs, that is, listed shells in the form "Name (command)", as was already the case for other shells, and also removed a dead link for what I feel is (currently) a small enough subject to not deserve its own page.

In any case, at the very least I'd like to know the justification for not allowing my edit, beyond "not constructive", i.e. what specifically made this 9-character change so bad that it needed to be reverted? CoffeeTableEspresso (talk) 19:14, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse. You can always revert the reverter's revert. But only at most 3 times a day. You should provide evidence to the reverter that your edit was constructive.

P.S. You shouldn't edit while logged out if you can, or you could be accused of sockpuppetry. Littleb2009 (talk) 19:19, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Courtesy link — Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 19:24, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

I have not done anything since my change was reverted since I didn't want to start an edit war. You're right about not editing while logged out, that was my bad. It was just a small edit so I didn't even realize until after it had been reverted. CoffeeTableEspresso (talk) 19:29, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

I checked the edits and found that the version before and after the revert were practically synonymous. You could just let it go and leave. Alternatively, combine the two versions of the article before and after your edit. Littleb2009 (talk) 19:45, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

@CoffeeTableEspresso: You added text that claims that osh means "Oil Shell", which is not supported by the man page or any other source that I can find. The man page, which is linked in the article, clearly states that "osh" means "old shell" and the word "oil" does not appear in the man page. If you have evidence otherwise, please discuss it on the article's talk page. Do not revert the change again without discussing. CodeTalker (talk) 19:51, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

@CodeTalker: Thank you, this would have been nice to know at the start, when my edit was originally reverted. (I would not have reverted had I been given this reason initially.) I've reached out to Andy Chu about what it stands for, I will update on what he says once I hear back. Either way, "Old Shell (osh)" or even "OSH (osh)" are also better than what's currently on the page IMO.CoffeeTableEspresso (talk) 20:09, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

@CodeTalker: I see the confusion here, we're talking about two different shells both named osh. I didn't realize Old Shell existed when I made the edit, my mistake. CoffeeTableEspresso (talk) 20:51, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

I was trying to see how I could contribute to Black theology and realized that the citation style was a mess. I already made some corrections based on some of the guidelines I read on how to cite sources, but I was unclear whether using citation that are completely included inside the body of the article with some kind of reference name falls outside the citation style of the sfn template that appears to be used for the majority of the sources. These two citation styles aren't supposed to be used at the same time right? I would assume the sfn template is the one that should be used for all of them because it's used with the majority of the sources already and the template seems more suited for a topic like this that will probably be using a lot of long sources and page numbers. If I wanted to cite a guideline when making the correction of converting the refnames to sfn templates what would that guideline be? TipsyElephant (talk) 18:23, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi TipsyElephant, it is fine to mix sfn citations with citations to documents that are cited only once or to newspaper or journal articles that are short enough that specific pages don't need to be cited. Use sfn for books where you are citing pages. We often see Featured Articles with citations mixed like this. StarryGrandma (talk) 18:33, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

@StarryGrandma: Thank you very much! I had asked a similar question earlier and never got a response so the prompt answer is very appreciated. Would it be fair to assume that this answer also applies to other templates like sfn such as harvnb? TipsyElephant (talk) 18:35, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

TipsyElephant, yes. The sfn template is just a form of the harv templates with the <ref> tags automatically included. StarryGrandma (talk) 21:07, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

How To Join The Teahouse Crew Phantom Digital (talk) 20:58, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

It might help to start responding to Teahouse posts first. ♔MEisSCAMMER^{(talk)(contribs)} 21:43, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

You just registered an account a few days ago. If you are interested in becoming a Teahouse host - basically a question answerer about editing Wikipedia - then I suggest looking at the questions asked and replies from experienced hosts for a couple of months before essaying answers yourself. David notMD (talk) 22:02, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

I was blocked few years ago, i requested for unblocking many times, they asked me few question, which i answered, but they say you are not answering what we are asking, i guess i dont understand their question. is there anyway they ask me in simple english, as i am not native english speaker, i wish to be a good editor, i feel there was some misunderstanding in blocking me my user name is aftabbanoori. . 39.41.112.211 (talk) 06:14, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello IP user. I have checked aftabbanoori (talk · contribs) and the only recourse for you is go to WP:UTRS. I am not the admin, but I think the question posed to you is simple and quite clear: "If unblocked, what specific articles do you intend to make changes to, and what sources will you be citing?" You have answered that you will edit flower/plants articles, but you never made it clear on what kind of sources you will be citing IF you are allowed again. SunDawn (talk) 06:38, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Same. After LOTS of examples of adding unsourced content and images, and edit warring when your edits were reverted, you were blocked in 2017. In years to follow you have made multiple unblock requests and filed nine (!) unblock tickets at UTRS, but at no time did you do what the admins asked, which was to provide a specific example of an article you would edit and reliable source references you would provide with that edit. Your answers were always too general - basically, "I'll be good." David notMD (talk) 09:43, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

aftabbanoori (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) can currently edit his own talkpage, sso he can request an unblock there. @39.41.112.211: Please prepear a specific change you want to make, along with any sources needed for that. You say that english isn't your first language, perhaps edit Wikipedia in your native language? Victor Schmidt mobil (talk) 10:16, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Indeed, since they have chosen to edit while logged out, it is clear they are in Punjab, Pakistan. There are Wikipedia versions in Punjabi,Eastern Punjabi, Urdu, Saraiki, and Pashto at least. See List of Wikipedias. Also, I'm afraid as this is obvious block evasion the IP is going to be blocked. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:22, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Also paging @Oshwah: as they apparently tried to mentor them a while back. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:28, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

You can use Google Translate. 138.36.120.176 (talk) 19:39, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

That's terrible advice. Machine translation is not reliable across languages with different grammatical rules and idioms. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:41, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Beeblebrox. Machine translation is mediocre and somewhat-marginal with accurate translation at best... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:30, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Please protect popular unprotected articles, e.g. Portugal. (31.187.7.220 (talk) 20:10, 20 April 2021 (UTC))

There is no reason to do this as the main reason articles are protected is to protect them from vandalism. Just because an article is popular does not mean it needs to be protected. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 20:16, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Actually, I noticed that the Portugal page is Pending Changes protected. Littleb2009 (talk) 20:40, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Also, requested is Ben Dunne, which has too much "vandalism" by me. (31.187.7.220 (talk) 20:20, 20 April 2021 (UTC))

Check the edit history and you’ll see. (31.187.7.220 (talk) 20:26, 20 April 2021 (UTC))

You can make the request at WP:RFPP. The article Ben Dunne does not have any recent edits so protection likely not needed. RudolfRed (talk) 20:39, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello 31.187.7.220, I removed your request for protection of Ben Dunne. Such requests should be made at WP:RFPP and not on the article's talk page. However making requests because ofHigh level of IP vandalism when most IP edits where done by you, is pointless. Unless you are asking to be blocked (again). – NJD-DE (talk) 22:43, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

How do i upload pictures to an article if wikimedia is blocked? ILove2Type801 (talk) 18:40, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

@ILove2Type801: you mean if Wikimedia Commons is blocked by, say, your network admin? You could upload locally to Wikipedia and ask someone else to transfer the files, I guess. Elli (talk | contribs) 18:50, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

User doesn't seem to be blocked on commons. CanadianOtaku ^{Talk Page} 19:43, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

No you dont get it!. I mean if The website is Blocked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ILove2Type801 (talk • contribs) 14:32, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Uploading locally using the article wizard works as well. Sungodtemple a tcg fan!!1!11!! (talk) 00:02, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Draft:Michel Rivera

Hi Wikipedians, I have been told by a good friend in Wikipedia that my content of the article Michel Rivera Seems Promotional. It would be nice if someone helps me to the promotional things out of the Article. Thanks in Advance!!! Jocelin Andrea (talk) 01:16, 21 April 2021 (UTC) Jocelin Andrea (talk) 01:16, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Doing that would require a complete rewrite, so no. But here's a start: Something-something "showed his act of kindness and humanity from Michel". To whom did it show this? Just to you, or to the unrelated writer of a reliable source about Rivera, and if so, which and where? (Incidentally, why the chummy "Michel" rather than "Rivera"?) And as the draft stands now, it appears that nothing whatever, aside from his "boxing record", is sourced anywhere. -- Hoary (talk) 01:49, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi, I'm a new editor here, made 24 edits and my account is a day old, I've been trying to publish a draft from my Sandbox but I cant fond the "more" drop down menu where I'd click move to publish my article. please i need help ASAP

Thanks! D'phenomenal (talk) 16:41, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

P.S: I'm editing on my phone could that be the cause?

@D'phenomenal: Go to Wikipedia:Article wizard --Aknell4 (talk • contribs) 16:47, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

@D'phenomenal: welcome to the Teahouse. You will not be able to move any Wikipedia pages until your account is autoconfirmed, which will happen when the account is four days old. However, it is usually not a good idea to try to create a Wikipedia article and move it to the main encyclopedia when you are still a very new editor, and the content of User:D'phenomenal/sandbox could not be moved to the live encyclopedia at this point. There is quite a bit of basic information missing (such as where the school is located), and no indication of what makes it notable according to Wikipedia's definition of notability. The mission statement doesn't belong in an encyclopedia, and there are no independent sources. If the draft was moved to the live encyclopedia now, it would be deleted or moved back to draft space.

As Aknell4 says, you might want to try using the Article Wizard, which will guide you through the steps of creating an article draft. You can then submit the draft for review. (I see that you already submitted your sandbox draft once, but it was declined for being empty.) Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 17:01, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your help,btw i included the location of the school the link on the address leads to Google maps showing the location of the school, there's also a picture of the main building plus I cited two external websites that compiles a list of schools where the school name was mentioned,the school can also be found on web mentioned on about 10+ websites. will i be able to publish it for review after 4 days when im an autoconfirmed user already? — Preceding unsigned comment added by D'phenomenal (talk • contribs) 17:20, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi again D'phenomenal. I'm afraid the draft in your sandbox does not meet the minimal requirements for a Wikipedia article. I mentioned a couple of them above, such as having independent sources and showing how the school is notable. You can submit your sandbox draft for review now, by clicking the blue "Submit" button in the draft, but it would not be accepted. I have added a welcome template to your user talk page; if you take a little bit of time to read the information there, you might find it easier to understand what is required from a Wikipedia article. Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 17:46, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

@D'phenomenal: Presuming that you can demonstrate how the school meets Wikipedia's notability criteria, then please review the Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout (e.g. change the table to {{Infobox school}}, move the image into the infobox, add a lead section, fix the section headers, fix the typos and date format, add punctuation, remove the link to Facebook, add a "References" section, remove the container categories). Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 19:21, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your help, btw you can check my Sandbox now but I'm having a little problem with aligning the {info box} to center.

Thanks!

@D'phenomenal: the reason the infobox was centered was that the image and the map were too wide. I have fixed that for you, and also restored the sandbox template which will allow you to submit the draft for review once it is ready. There is still no claim of notability, no lead section, and no independent sources, though. --bonadea contributions talk 11:36, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi! thanks for your help, just cited an independent source,pls kindly check, as for notability the school is easily found when searched online and its available on several independent websites. please help me review it if its good enough to be submitted. thanks!

@D'phenomenal: Notability has to be established in the article, according to the guidelines in. It's not enough to say here that there are websites that mention it, or even to just provide links to those sites. If, say, there's a site that lists the schools in some county, including the school your article is about, that doesn't help if it just lists the school and routine details (e.g., location, grades taught, when founded...), because there's nothing notable in such details. The article has to say what makes the school notable, and give at least one reliable source for all the information it includes. Follow the advice of the regular Teahouse hosts above-- I'm just a longtime Wikipedian. --Thnidu (talk) 02:00, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

So, I spent a few minutes on the various Bee Gees' (and Andy Gibb's) entries a few days ago adding in the name of their mother and sister as 'relatives'. One of these (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andy_Gibb) was reverted and the others I think just quietly had Barbara and Lesley Gibb's names deleted. The reversion was justified on the basis that relatives had to be 'notable'. I suppose on one level, I get that, but in this instance (1) I don't think this helps at all with Wikipedia's 'women problem', (2) since Wikipedia cannot in itself count as basis for 'notability', on what basis is 'notability' decided? The reason I ask in this case is, I would propose that being the mother or sister to some of the biggest-selling musicians of the 20th/21st century is notable in itself (Lesley also has enough interaction with the music industry IMO to warrant an entry of her own, which would clearly change the situation, but I don't want to muddy the waters right now). When it comes down to it I think the kind of person who would assiduously delete the women out of the Bee Gees' history has at least as much of an agenda as I, who would assiduously add them. But I'm interested in both policy, precedent and opinion of others, not necessarily on the matter of the Bee Gees' mother and sister, but on this kind of issue. Davidnicholsknowsbest (talk) 02:17, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

@Davidnicholsknowsbest: Welcome to the Teahouse! I believe Wikipedia:Notability (people) and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Privacy of names are what you're looking for. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 02:38, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

OK, thank you for that. So: 'The names of any immediate, former, or significant family members or any significant relationship of the subject of a BLP may be part of an article, if reliably sourced, subject to editorial discretion that such information is relevant to a reader's complete understanding of the subject.' But do these people qualify as 'relations'? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.250.0.113 (talk) 02:44, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

@Davidnicholsknowsbest: Template:Infobox person#Parameters is also applicable. Lesley is already mentioned in the Andy Gibb article, so the question is simply whether she belongs in the infobox or not. Note how Ruth McCartney is not listed in the infobox in the Paul McCartney article, and George Harrison's sister Louise is not listed in his infobox - but both are mentioned in the body of the article. GoingBatty (talk) 02:46, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Davidnicholsknowsbest, infoboxes are controversial, and some experienced editors oppose their use. One problem with infoboxes is that they tend to get filled with excessive data like every identifiable relative. A reasonable point of view is that relatives listed in infoboxes should be limited to notable relatives with Wikipedia articles. Otherwise, infoboxes will become filled with genealogical lists of many relatives. That does not assist rapid overview understanding of the topic (a person in this case), which is the function of an infobox. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:11, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello! I am a new editor who has made some changes. I'd like to know how I'm doing and if I should change? Quaverstand15 | Talk 03:40, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Welcome! It's good to see you. Have a cuppa tea. Or a coffee if you prefer. Check the pages you've edited and see if any reversions have been made to your edits. If you don't understand them, send a message to the editor who did the fixes. (Hint: One of them was me.) Happy editing! Sincerely, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 03:55, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Quaverstand15: Welcome to the Teahouse! Thank you for your contributions! Some suggestions:

• When posting to someone's talk page, be sure you mention what article you're referring to. (e.g. this edit to User talk:174.18.45.201)
• When posting to a talk page, be sure you sign your posts (even when substituting a template). (e.g. this edit to User talk:2405:205:C8A7:AE9B:703D:76AC:AC47:6CE3)
• When reverting someone's edits, please give a short reason why in the edit summary per WP:REVEXP. (e.g. this edit to Amrapali Express)
• In your edit to Colour TV case, it appears you changed the article from Indian English to American English. Please don't change the variety of English in an article (especially one tagged with a template like {{Use Indian English}}, per WP:ENGVAR.
• You added Category:Films to Adda (2019 film), when the subcategory Category:Indian films is more appropriate per WP:CATSPECIFIC. Similarly, on Untitled21, I think Category:1970s photographs is better than the general Category:Photography. Also, you added only one general category to Alexander Rodenstock, so I've added more specific categories.

You'll get the hang of it - Keep up the good work! GoingBatty (talk) 04:12, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

@BeenAroundAWhile and @GoingBatty Okay, thank you! Quaverstand15 | Talk 04:14, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

@Quaverstand15: One more: At Operation IceBridge, you found some vandalism and kindly reverted it and warned the user. However, the IP editor made four bad edits in a row, and you only reverted the last one. I've reverted the rest. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 04:23, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

@GoingBatty Oh, I didn't see. Thank you. Quaverstand15 | Talk 04:43, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Can you please give me an example of when we need to use text align center and cn you please look on my user page i’ve improved if you have any feeds i’ll be happy to work on it. Superman011 Superman011 (talk) 17:34, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello! While I don't know the answer to your first question, looking at your userpage, if the article doesn't already exist (Which is something i will check after I write this), if you want to make it a draft and submit it for review then your userpage isn't necessarily the best place. Using your sandbox would be better. Your userpage is usually used to give information on who you are (on the internet mainly) and to declare a conflict of interest, or to just fill with userboxes. For an answer to your first question you'll have to wait for another editor to answer it as I don't have enough knowledge to answer it. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 19:04, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

I just checked and that article Dancing with the Stars already exists and you seem to have copied that article to your userpage which isn't necessarily a good idea. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 19:05, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

and additionally, there are very few cases for using center aligned text in an article except for the caption to an illustration or sometimes in a table (as was done there). DGG ( talk ) 05:51, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Iam new to wikipedia. Can you please guide me why my draft is getting declined ? i HAVE ATTACHE DTHE MESSAGE SHOWN TO ME. Iam don't know what steps should I proceed .

 Aathiravp (talk) 06:21, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Aathiravp. There is already a Wikipedia article Joyalukkas, and I recommend that you expand that article instead of trying to create a new article about a branch of that company. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:27, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Your screenshot, Aathiravp, shows a light blue box with text saying 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)" (plus some italics and links). That tells you why the draft was declined. The following text (which I shan't repeat here) tells you what you should do. If some part of this text is hard to understand, please ask here about it. Meanwhile, I have two questions for you:

• Why are you editing in the userspace of somebody else (Killugon1234)?
• I get the impression that you and Killugon1234 are related to Joyalukkas Lifestyle Developers. Am I wrong?

-- Hoary (talk) 07:13, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes Hoary, Iam a staff of them

When checking my edit contributions to Wikipedia, I discovered the word "Assessment" in the titles of various tables. It applies to the page status completion of the article. If it isn't defined as the page's status it implies to be grading my individual edit contribution. People are used to seeing personal A/B/C grades on our report cards, not team grades. https://xtools.wmflabs.org/topedits/en.wikipedia.org/Kartane This use of the word Assessment will appear elsewhere in Wikipedia regarding edits and/or page status. Kartane (talk) 01:59, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

@Kartane: If it isn't clear, those are the content assessments of the page that you edited, not a rating of your personal contributions. This is what the word "assessment" widely refers to in the context of Wikipedia. Meanwhile, "Page status" does not have a widely-understood meaning among editors. XTools is intended for your own personal reference only, so as long as you know what "assessment" means, that's good enough. The maintainers of XTools are unlikely to change it just for you. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 03:27, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

To [User:Ganbaruby|◢  Ganbaruby! ]

The page in question relates to my edit stats. The table shows 1) my Edits, 2) Page title, 3) Assessments, 4) Links.

"Assessment" in the table heading means Content Assessments within Wikipedia. Shouldn't it say "Page assessments" the same as it says "Page title"? Even Content Assessments implies my personal edit contribution in this table on a page about my edits. The table headings look like 1) My stats, 2) Wikipedia, 3) My stats, 4) Wikipedia. Also, did I reply correctly?

Kartane (talk) 04:23, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

@Kartane: Again, I highly doubt that's going to happen, but you still may ask about it at mw:Talk:XTools. Also, you didn't notify me correctly; I suggest you look at Template:Reply to. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 07:40, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

What are the requirements of documentation for the important people in society, I have many social and historical people in Sudan I need to write information about them in The Wikipedia for the purpose of documenting these people. Abdulla (talk) 07:56, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Abdulla2021, see Wikipedia:Notability (people). In short, your article needs to be a summary of reliable sources (WP:RS) about that person, nothing else should be in the article. If there are no such sources, the article will not be accepted. These sources must be added as references in the correct manner, see WP:TUTORIAL. If you intend to write about living people, the restrictions are even stricter, see WP:BLP. Help:Your first article may be of help to you, and perhaps WP:WPAFRICA. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:10, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

How to move or rename pages or articles? Is it a new user cannot move or rename pages or articles? Please give me permissions to do pages moves or rename. Thank you. PutraMalaya78 (talk) 08:20, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

@PutraMalaya78: Page moves, as documented at WP:MOVE, is restricted to autoconfirmed users, which you will be on April 23. That being said, I strongly suggest new editors to refrain from moving an article until they have more experience with editing; instead, new editors should go to requested moves to have input from more experienced editors. May I ask which page you would like to move? ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 08:27, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello WikiPedia. I am wanted to make and article about Donald Trump and fan fiction. I fell that this would be a valuable edition to the encyclopsedia How do I make it then? 162.245.178.141 (talk) 16:24, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

You will need to make an account in order to make an article. Please see your first article for more details of what makes a good article. That said, this probably will not make it through articles for creation. NightWolf1223 (talk) 16:44, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

I started it at Draft:Donald Trump fanfiction. This is an important topic. 162.245.178.141 (talk)

That said, this probably will not make it through articles for creation -- I looked it up, and questionable as it is, this topic is unimpeachably notable. If AfC rejects this, that's a slight on AfC. I've made a list of sources at User:Vaticidalprophet/Donald Trump fanfiction for our anonymous friend, and it's not exhaustive -- see also this, for instance. Vaticidalprophet 16:49, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank 's you Wikimedia editor. I will use those sources for my new article..this is exciting making an article on WikiPedia. 16:51, 18 April 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.245.178.141 (talk)

And good luck. This should certainly be a valid article, and thanks! There will be some people who will not like. Donald Trump is not very popular here, and people are tired of hearing about him. Maybe those people will succeed, you never know. You've chosen a fraught topic (and good for you, and thanks!) and on that account might get some opposition.

Make sure you describe the entity neutrally, without any judgement on your part about President Trump. Even if you want to say "This story glorified President Trump" you will need a source with someone else saying that -- not us, not matter how obvious it may seem. (It's probably OK to include a couple-few quotes from fanfic stories, as long as as they are representative of the the thrust of the story, and as long as you quote from a proportionally fair mix of pro/con stories (if there is any anti-Trump fanfic).

Godspeed, and call on me if you have further questions or if the article is attacked. Herostratus (talk) 17:06, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

OP, you could also consider including this at Donald Trump in popular culture somehow. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:10, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Learn how to reference properly. David notMD (talk) 18:56, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

I've slightly improved the draft, but even so, I suspect it's a better fit for Donald Trump in popular culture. I could certainly see an AfD succeeding on those terms. BrxBrx(talk)^{(please reply with {{SUBST:re|BrxBrx}})} 18:40, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Given the amount of pop-cult-RS on this (and has anyone checked JSTOR yet?), I'm starting to think this could be a decent spin-off article, a little like Saturday Night Live parodies of Donald Trump. However, I'm not very eager to read musings about Trump-on-Putin erotica. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:32, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

I see a lot about it but I don't know what it is. So what is it? Quaverstand15 | Talk 11:52, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Quaverstand15. COI stands for conflict of interest. You can read more about COIs and Wikipedia's policy towards them at WP:COI. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:57, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Okay, thank you. Quaverstand15 | Talk 12:09, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Hey all!

I'm looking to make some changes to the Netmums wikipedia entry (I have a COI and am a paid editor and have declared this on the relevant pages).

At the moment, the intro para about Netmums talks about 'As of 2012...' obviously this is nearly a decade ago. I tried to update the page to say that Netmums now produces daily editorial content (and is no longer just a forum). This change was rejected. I'm not sure if this was because it was deemed promotional or because the citation I gave was the Netmums website itself.

I'm not sure what would be considered a legitimate source to show that the website produces daily content other than the website itself?

Plus, I wondered if you had any advice on how to word this addition so it isn't considered promotional – in my mind it's just factual and updating the page to give users info on Netmums that is correct as of 2021 not 2012.

Any advice would be greatly apreciated. Thanks! JPjourno (talk) 11:10, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

There's a place on Wikipedia about what is and isn't a reliable source. I'll see if I can find it for you and provide it here. HOwever I don't have any advice for you how to word the addition so that it isn't promotional, you'll have to wait for another host to answer that question. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 12:58, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Here's what you're looking for: WP:SOURCE Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 13:00, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

JPjourno The relevant policies here are WP:PRIMARY and WP:ABOUTSELF. Primary sources (like a companies own website or their social media) can only be used in a limited form for simple undisputable facts, e.g. who their ceo is or when they were founded. Primary sources should not be used to make up the majority of the article, and cannot be used for material that could be seen as promotional or self-serving, like stating they make daily videos, bragging about the number of their YouTube followers or promoting their podcast. To include that sort of information in the article you would need to find a high quality WP:SECONDARY source discussing their YouTube channel/podcast/news articles and then summarise what the source says about them. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 13:55, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

The display of {{Not English inline}}, which is meant for tagging a phrase or sentence that should be translated into English or be accompanied by a translation, links to WP:Template index/Translation, where it is not described at all. See Template talk:Not English inline#bad message. Thnidu (talk) 01:21, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

@Thnidu: the idea of an inline template is that you put it next to wherever the specific problem is (in contrast to article- or section-wide templates like {{Unreferenced}} which highlight a general problem throughout the article). Here, if you see something that's not in English then you add the tag at the end. Now people can search for things to translate into English, by going through Category:Wikipedia articles needing translation or the transclusions of the template, or someone who reads the article will know that it's not supposed to be like that and could correct it. Silly example I've made up:

When asked if he supported the policy, Macron said "oui!"However, critics argued that it would make the problem worse.

The usage should always be pretty clear from context for this template—the problem material is the part that's not in English. However, I agree with you that the link target is quite weird so I've boldly changed it to Wikipedia:About#Other languages (though I'm very surprised I couldn't find anything better). Since I understand what the template means, you might be the one better placed to improve the documentation, but you can ask something more specific if my general explanation still leaves you with questions. — Bilorv (talk) 14:29, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

How do I make templates like other articles that are popular? Please tell me on how to do that, because I am new. Interesting536 (talk) 04:56, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

@Interesting536: do you want to know how to write templates, or how to use them in articles? Elli (talk | contribs) 07:38, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Elli, I want to use them with articles. I would like to do the thing because I don't know yet, like an article of a person and a template is used to show his or her birth and death. Please give me an answer when you see this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Interesting536 (talk • contribs) 07:42, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

@Interesting536: ah, you'd like to use infoboxes. Help:Infobox should be helpful. Elli (talk | contribs) 07:46, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

I know what you're talking about but if you ever want to create your own infobox then you might want to ask for some help in doing so as it requires writing a lot of code in order for it to function properly. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 20:22, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

@Blaze The Wolf: not really? you just copy the template and fill out the categories. it's not really code. versacespaceleave a message! 14:34, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

I must've misworded what i was trying to say. I mean if they were trying to create an entirely new template that doesn't already exist on Wikipedia. My bad. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 14:36, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Ohh, thanks both of y'all. Now I can type in what I see! For example[color white: some code i will probably understand in 20 years] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Interesting536 (talk • contribs)

How can we add photos of places to wikipedia BHAT MOHMED IRSHAD UL HAQ (talk) 07:24, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

@BHAT MOHMED IRSHAD UL HAQ: you can take a photo and upload it to Wikimedia Commons with an appropriate license, then edit the article to add it. Elli (talk | contribs) 07:38, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

In addition to what Elli said above, if you're using a picture that someone else took, make sure the copyright allows you to use the image. See WP:COPYRIGHT for more info. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 14:37, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Is making a fourth revert per MOS:OL (removing a link to Australia in the infobox) covered by number 8 of the 3RR exemptions?Reverts made solely to enforce any clearly established consensus. In order to be valid, such a consensus must be documented on the talk page, and the edit summary should link to the discussion. I know it's not a discussion I'd be linking to, but I presume something such as OL is aclearly established consensus all the same. – ².O.^Boxing 12:12, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello and welcome @Squared.Circle.Boxing: No, you would need a specific discussion about this specific instance of linking where there is a clear consensus that this specific use of linking violated MOS:OL. General guidance like the MOS is never a valid reason for edit warring, the "clear consensus" requirement is not met by citing a guideline page like that, instead you would need to have had a discussion about this specific application of the guideline, and established a clear consensus about it. Please don't continue to use the revert function, and instead discuss on the article talk page whether or not this is an example of overlinking that needs to be corrected. If there is a clear consensus by discussion of several people, over a sufficient time period, then you will have established that consensus. --Jayron32 14:01, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, it's absolutely not a 3RR exemption. #8 requires a talk page discussion specific to the context in question. The exemptions are construed very narrowly. This falls under the "edit warring is wrong even if you are correct" case. — Bilorv (talk) 14:11, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you both for the clarification. I'll let the other editor's fourth revert stand and start a discussion. – ².O.^Boxing 14:47, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

I've made nine edits. When can I edit semi-protected articles? (If you need more info, I joined afternoon of yesterday.) TechnoStomp999 (talk) 20:26, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

@Technostomp999: Welcome. I added a header to this question to seperate it from the one above. Your account will become autoconfirmed when your account is at least 4 days old and you have made at least 10 edits, and then you can edit semi-protected pages. RudolfRed (talk) 20:27, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you! Also, Is this Earl Grey or Green? Either way, It is deeelicious. TechnoStomp999 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 20:32, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Earl Grey or Green? Are you talking about the tea that's used for the hosts who didn't add a image? If so I wouldn't be able to tell you as I don't drink tea myself. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 20:39, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't either, but one sip of this Teahouse Tea will send your taste buds to heaven. TechnoStomp999 (talk) 20:48, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Technostomp999 it's a house blend. We're glad you like it! Stop by any time for another cuppa › Mortee _talk 21:24, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

You have made a total of three edits to articles. All three were reverted, and rightly so. It's not clear to me that your purpose here is to improve Wikipedia. -- Hoary (talk) 22:59, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

@Hoary: you might want to take a look at WP:BITE as just because their edits were reverted doesn't mean their purpose isn't to improve Wikipedia. They may have made test edits. Not all reverted edits are bad edits. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 19:17, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

This became an argument within 7-8 messages... ::@Hoary: here is something for you. awesome link for Hoary TechnoStomp999 (talk) 15:42, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

how do I use the sandbox on my Wikipedia page? Faith Buyaki (talk) 15:46, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Hey there @Faith Buyaki: and welcome to the Teahouse. To use your personal sandbox, there should be a link in your "header" when you are logged in, it is between the words "talk" and "preferences". Click that link will bring up your personal sandbox, which you can edit just like any other Mediawiki page, and play around to your heart's content. If you have questions about how to edit pages in general, Help:Editing is a good place to start. -Does that help? -Jayron32 15:55, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Moved to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard § Are Astrodatabank, TV Guide, Ranker.com, Google Arts & Culture reliable?

I don't understand this trend of moving posts to other venues. There's a reason people choose the Teahouse for their questions. Usedtobecool ☎️ 16:10, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Rocketry became inactive earlier this month. I have revived it and marked it as semi-active. Why does it say"This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Rocketry, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.", when I alraedy revived it? 64.121.103.144 (talk) 00:14, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

The link you gave says that it is semi-active. Is there someplace else that is showing a different status? RudolfRed (talk) 02:10, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Articles that are part of it says that it is inactive. I just revived the project.

64.121.103.144 (talk) 15:23, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

For the record, the template {{WikiProject Rocketry}} needed updating. OP found their way there and requested the change on its talk page which has been enacted. Usedtobecool ☎️ 16:15, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

FYI

 – Heading added by Maresa63 (talk) 15:26, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

How to create an artist biography — Preceding unsigned comment added by Josh wud (talk • contribs) 15:07, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Josh wud, and welcome to the Teahouse. If you can find sufficiently independent reliable sources about the artist to satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for notability, then you can create a draft, based entirely on what those independent sources say: Wikipedia has no interest in what the subject says or wants to say about themselves. (If you can't find those sources, don't waste any more time on the project). Please be aware that successfully creating an article is one of the most difficult tasks there is for a new user; and it is even harder if the editor is connected with the subject. Writing an article about yourself is almost impossible, and strongly discouraged. Note also that Wikipedia may not be used for promotion of any kind; and that a Wikipedia article is not for the benefit of its subject, not controlled by its subject, and may contain material that the subject disapproves of. My suggestion would be that you put this idea on the shelf for a few months, and find existing articles you want to improve, and learn how Wikipedia works. When you want to go ahead with it, read all the links I have given, and see your first article --ColinFine (talk) 16:21, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

I have submitted this article "Draft:Idegu Ojonugwa Shadrach". I do not know how to do anything about it any longer. So, I would love if it can be reviewed by anyone here, please. Mountain120 (talk) 13:09, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi Geertje Tutschka, welcome to the Teahouse. You have saved Draft:Idegu Ojonugwa Shadrach but not submitted it for review. I have added a box with a submit button. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:29, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi Mountain120, I think PrimeHunter meant you in that message. Before submitting your draft, please also have a look at WP:REFSTART to learn about references on Wikipedia. It's unlikely that the draft would be accepted without any inline-citations. – NJD-DE (talk) 13:40, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Plenty thanks to you all. I have submitted the article as instructed. I also look forward to seeing your subsequent help on my article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mountain120 (talk • contribs) 20:26, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Submitted and Declined. References must be inline, not added under References, and references to his own work do not establish his notability. Do not resubmit unless you can find references about him, not to stuff by him. David notMD (talk) 00:47, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

This is good. How can I find such references, please?Mountain120 (talk) 14:52, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Mountain120, by searching the internet and libraries, if they exist. However, not all topics have enough coverage in reliable sources to merit inclusion in Wikipedia. If that is the case, all you can do is wait, or move on. Best, Usedtobecool ☎️ 16:50, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi Guys can you please add my account to be able to edit the apple inc wiki page as i always update it with correct info with links to confirm my edits the current active devices for example is now 1.65 Billion but the page still shows 1.5 billion this needs editing!!! JY-LIVE (talk) 16:11, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

@JY-LIVE: I see you figured out that you’re autoconfirmed now. Happy editing. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:51, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

My page was redirected. Can you please tell me what this means? Also, do I need to do anything else? TAH0916 (talk) 16:53, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello, TAH0916, and welcome to the Teahouse. Editor Curbon7 moved your sandbox to Draft:Van Romaine, leaving the sandbox still there as a redirect. This means that you can get to it either from the old name or the new. You don't need to do anything. But if at some point you want to use your sandbox again for another purpose, you can get to it by

• Going to User:TAH0916/sandbox
• Picking the link at the top, where it says "Redirected from User:TAH0916/sandbox".
• Edit your sandbox to remove the redirect, and put whatever new material there that you want. --ColinFine (talk) 17:02, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello TAH0916, your draft was moved from your sandbox to "Draft:" namespace because it's a draft that has been submitted. It is currently awaiting review and you don't need to do anything, except maybe improve the draft if you can, until a reviewer looks at it and either accepts it (publishes it as an article) or provides feedback on what needs to be done. It's a side-effect of moving that the original page, in this case, your sandbox, becomes a redirect. It saves you from getting lost trying to find the page that has been moved. If you need to use the sandbox for other things, you can hit edit and remove the code for the redirect. Editing your sandbox now will not affect the submitted draft which is now a completely different page. Best, Usedtobecool ☎️ 17:12, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello! I am new :) Also I play minecraft! :) DrewHertzbach (talk) 17:19, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi there! Did Serols[5] revert you and get you blocked in your previous incarnation? And the admin who blocked you, was it Oshwah? Usedtobecool ☎️ 17:38, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

I came upon this and wanted to let more experienced editors know. I am not sure of the process or correct forum, however, legal threats are not civil. [6] Ooligan (talk) 17:03, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

You should report this at WP:ANI. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:05, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Ok, thanks --Ooligan (talk) 17:40, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

The IP making the threat has been warned on Talk page. David notMD (talk) 17:41, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi! I'm new here, active newbie for 3 days, wrote my first article, and I cant wait to start writing more once my recently submitted draft is published. Draft: Oluwa Memorial Senior Secondary School

Thanks! D'phenomenal (talk) 17:33, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

D'phenomenal You can edit existing articles and create more drafts while waiting for a review of your first draft. Teahouse editors are (mostly) not also reviewers, and asking for an expedited review does not work. Reviews can happen in days, weeks, or (sadly) months. The system is not a queue. NOTE: I do not see how your refs #3 and #4 support the text. David notMD (talk) 17:46, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

FYI

 – Heading made by Tenryuu.

please i want you to help me to upload your file and give me the live link Adesco 001 (talk) 14:50, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

@Adesco 001: Wikipedia:File Upload Wizard or Special:Upload. Please read Help:Files before uploading them, this applies to images as well. Please make sure the images are not copyright. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 15:33, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

To add to this, Adesco 001, most images uploaded by new users turn out to be copyrighted and hence they cannot be used either on Wikimedia Commons or on Wikipedia. You must not uploaded copyrighted materials, with very limited exceptions that require a lot of understanding of other aspects of Wikipedia (and I see this is a new account). What types of images do you want to upload and for what reason? — Bilorv (talk) 18:20, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

How do I add my features like for the things I do when I type on my user page? NonPopularPerson (talk) 18:31, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

@NonPopularPerson: I assume you refer to the different-colored boxes you sometimes find on userpages, if so, they are called Userbox. You include them by typing their name in curly brackets, for example, {{User Wikipedia Mobile}} would transclude Template:User Wikipedia Mobile onto your userpage. See Wikipedia:Userboxes/Galleries for a list of userboxes available. Victor Schmidt (talk) 18:58, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

I was just wondering whether Wiki has a preference about differences for American and English spellings in articles. For example ‘color’ and ‘colour’ or ‘meter’ and ‘metre’. Does it matter or is one preferred? Thanks PeterBread&Giraffer (talk) 16:11, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

PeterBread&Giraffer Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. The relevant guideline in this area is at WP:ENGVAR, but in short, the version of English used depends on the subject matter; the article Joe Biden uses American English, while Boris Johnson uses British English, while Narendra Modi uses Indian English, and so on. In more general articles it can depend on several factors. 331dot (talk) 16:16, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hello and welcome to the teahouse. To answer your question please see WP:ENGVAR. Basically it depends on what the article is about. US topics get US spelling and UK articles get their spellings. The same applies to numbering of dates etc per WP:STRONGNAT. Thanks for your interest in editing WikiP. MarnetteD|Talk 16:17, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

A good rule of thumb is do not correct variant spelling in any article, even if not obviously associated with a country. David notMD (talk) 17:34, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

@PeterBread&Giraffer: Welcome to the Teahouse. While the guideline also goes into this point in detail, I'll post it here: articles that don't have clear ties adopt the variant used when first created (or when it becomes apparent). —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:06, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

 RezookSa (talk) 19:07, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

While we may not review it ourselves necessarily, we can help you submit it for a review. Could you provide us with the link to the draft you would like us to take a look at? Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 19:13, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi RezookSa. Your sandbox reads as extremely promotional, touting the subject's achievements, and much more like a LinkIn page/résumé, than an encyclopedia article. What is your relationship to the subject?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 19:20, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Please do not ask questions at Teahouse and the Help desk, as that wastes volunteer editors' time. David notMD (talk) 21:15, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Heya, I have translated this page https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Philippe_Weiss to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Peter_Philippe_Weiss

Anyone wanna help me copy the references and submit it? Jiskofor (talk) 19:19, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

You submitted it after asking here. David notMD (talk) 21:16, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

If a page is previously deleted and the reason is R2 then what should I do ? Which process should I follow to create the page ? As I am a extend confirm user. DasSoumik (talk) 10:30, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi DasSoumik, welcome to the Teahouse. What's the page? R2 is about redirects from mainspace (a normal article) to other spaces (somewhere 'behind the scenes'). Without knowing which page it is and what you think should be there, it's a little hard to answer in the abstract. › Mortee _talk 10:41, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello Mortee the page got deleted and reason is misplaced user page after that it is deleted with the reason R2. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DasSoumik (talk • contribs) 10:56, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

DasSoumik, I understand, but what are you trying to create and where are you trying to create it? › Mortee _talk 10:57, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Mortee the page name is Aritra Das. Check this one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DasSoumik (talk • contribs) 10:59, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

DasSoumik thanks. It looks like an article was created there in 2016 but the admins believed it was created by or on behalf of that person themselves, and just replicated their CV. That would be wrong of course (see WP:NOTCV). If there's someone notable with that name, you can write an article about them. The fact that a different article with the same name has been deleted doesn't affect the procedure at all. I see you've started articles before, so you'll already be familiar with the guidance at Help:Your first article and Wikipedia:Articles for creation.

By the way, if you could sign your messages here with ~~~~, it does help to see who's saying what. I forgot frequently when I first started! All the best › Mortee _talk 11:08, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Hey Mortee, yes I am familiar with the guideline but I don't know whether Aritra Das is same person or not with the previous one. So I am going to make a draft about the subject. After that I'll write you in your talk page. Can you help me to tell whether the subject is suitable or not for wikipedia ?? And thank you for your advice about sign. DasSoumik (talk)

DasSoumik, it doesn't matter if it's the same person or not. Good luck with the draft. I'll try to answer your questions. › Mortee _talk 11:23, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Mortee thank you. Hope you will answer and you will guide me if I am wrong. DasSoumik (talk)

@DasSoumik: The deleted page was created by Aritradas1984. The only content was:

Senior Visualiser at Blue Stockings Communications Pvt. Ltd., Senior Visualiser at Studio Red and Sr. Graphic Designer at Comm-ad design

Past: ABC Advertising Bureau & Consultant and ABC Adversiting

You still haven't said which Aritra Das you want to write about. Wikipedia:Notability (people) is the general guideline for people to have a biography. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:15, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello PrimeHunter, thank you for your help. By the way the person about whom I'll write is not similar with the previous one. So can I write directly or else I have go through on draft or afc ??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DasSoumik (talk • contribs) 14:03, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Courtesy ping PrimeHunter. (Posts need to be signed for pings and mentions to work.) Usedtobecool ☎️ 16:20, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

@DasSoumik: You are allowed to create it directly at Aritra Das. We cannot evaulate whether the subject is suitable for Wikipedia when you haven't revealed which Aritra Das it is, only one it isn't. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:37, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

PrimeHunter Aritra Das is an Indian producer. By the thank you. DasSoumik (talk)

@DasSoumik: English sources appear thin but maybe there is more in Hindi or Bengali. See WP:FILMMAKER. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:13, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

PrimeHunter yes I saw there 5-6 english coverage, i was not able to find hindi and Bengali sources.DasSoumik (talk)

Would anyone by any chance have some time to coach me on how to use the user sandbox?

Is the sandbox not automatically created as part of a new user account?

I would like to test a chart image I've created from 1860 US census data and for some odd reason I can't even get WP to accept it as a valid image. GibbsDuhem (talk) 18:51, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. No, your user sandbox isn't automatically created, but you can create it by clicking on the "Sandbox" tab right at the top of any page (just to the left of the "Preferences" tab), and then starting to edit. If you wish, you can put the {{user sandbox}} template at the top of your sandbox page. --David Biddulph (talk) 18:59, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

@GibbsDuhem: I see you have now added two images to User:GibbsDuhem/sandbox. See more at Help:Pictures, e.g. how to change size and make captions. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:18, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

If a article does not have have a reference can it still be deleted? ItsJustdancefan (talk) 23:44, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

@ItsJustdancefan: It depends. There may be sources but they just haven't been added yet. You can tag it with the unreferenced template if there are references to be found using a simple search, and you don't have time to put them in. If there are no references to be easily found, the article could be either tagged for notability, or nominated for deletion. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 23:50, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

ItsJustdancefan, I want to add to the previous answer. If nobody is able to find reliable, independent sources that devote significant coverage to the topic, then the topic is not notable, and the article about it can and should be deleted. Cullen³²⁸

According to WP:NACADEMIC: The person has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g., a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society) or a fellow of a major scholarly society which reserves fellow status as a highly selective honor (e.g., Fellow of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers).

I understand that the Royal Society of Arts, Manufacture and Commerce and Royal Society are two different learned societies, but would the former be considered as a highly selective and prestigious society for the purposes of establishing notability of a subject who is a fellow of said society? nearlyevil665 21:41, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, nearlyevil665. I think the Royal Society of Arts fails in being"a highly selective and prestigious society for the purposes of establishing notability of a subject". It's clear that anyone who works in a field closely aligned with that society can simply apply and pay a fee (see here) to become a Fellow there. Whilst there is a screening process, of sorts, it's clearly not a body which elects only the high achievers in that field; they just want to weed out anyone who clearly isn't aligned to their goals and values. Their website says"Fellowship is open to all over the age of 18, and who share our vision and values". Oh, and you can even buy yourself Life Fellowship of the RSA for £3,900, if you wish! Not a bad price to get yourself on Wikipedia! So, no, Fellowship of that particular organisation doesn't do it for me, I'm afraid. Nick Moyes (talk) 22:55, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi nearlyevil665. Much of this is due to the difference between British and American English. A member of a professional or scholarly society in Britain is called a Fellow, and often puts letters of the alphabet after their name. A member of a similar society in the USA is called a member (no letters of the alphabet are involved), and a small number of members are elected to Fellow as an honor or award. WP:NACADEMIC is written in American English. StarryGrandma (talk) 23:13, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Actually, StarryGrandma, that's way too simplistic, and not a correct statement for British professional or learned societies at all. Whilst it might apply to some, each one has to be looked at not only in todays light, but also in how Fellowship might once have been applied when talking about people from past eras. Some learned societies in the UK do still elect 'Fellows' as a reflection of high achievement, but not all. But by way of a personal example, here in the UK I was a member of the Museums Association for some years, having passed their formal practical and written exam around 1984 to get my 'Museums Diploma' and continuing to pay my annual membership fee. I then became an 'Associate' member, with the right to put AMA after my signature. Only if I had achieved great things within my professional career, might I then have been considered and elected a 'Fellow' by my peers, with the right to put FMA after my name. I couldn't apply to become one as the RSA now allows - so it's clear I simply was never good enough. Oh, the shame. And I let my subscription lapse, too. ...Wanders off sobbing gently... Nick Moyes (talk) 23:30, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

So there isn't a simple answer. That's very useful to know in terms of historical figures. I belonged to various societies as I wandered from field to field and didn't paid much attention to the requirements. (Now I need to in terms of assessing notability.) The requirements varied: A PhD for the American Astrophysical Society, a degree from an accredited program for the ACM and IEEE, as well as recommendations. StarryGrandma (talk) 23:58, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Let me give an example of myself. I am retired now, but was a chemistry academic working in several universities in several countries including the United Kingdom and Australia. In UK, I joined, what is now the Royal Society of Chemistry, as a student, worked up to be a Member, and then later to be a Fellow. When I moved to Australia, I was able to join the Royal Australian Chemical Institute as a Fellow, but others worked up in the same way that I did in UK. Fellowship normally requires a Ph D plus significant experience. The situation in many other disciplines is very similar. --Bduke (talk) 00:13, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi, I need to delete an uploaded photo to my user space that was not taken by me for which I do not have copyright. What are the steps I need to take in order to do this? Thank you for your assistance! EdifyingEditor (talk) 00:10, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi EdifyingEditor, welcome to the Teahouse. It depends where the photo was uploaded. Are you referring to commons:File:PourSanae 2015-020.jpg? PrimeHunter (talk) 00:20, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi Prime Hunter, yes that's the one. Thank you for the welcome!

Hello, EdifyingEditor. File:PourSanae 2015-020.jpg is hosted at Wikimedia Commons, so you will need to ask for it to be deleted there. You uploaded it as your "own work" with a CC BY-SA 4.0 license. However, the photo is tagged "© Laura Layera, all rights reserved". All rights reserved is the exact opposite of a Creative Commons license. Please be very cautious about complying with Copyright policy in the future. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:30, 22 April 2021 (UTC) Cullen³²⁸ I have rights to this photo for personal use. There should be a clear statement by Wikipedia about the fact that anything uploaded to what should be a PRIVATE space shows up in a dozen public spaces. This is a really problematic way of doing things. And the level of navigation and requests needed to remove something from what should be a PRIVATE space is really quite inappropriate. Cullen³²⁸ as an admin, I am requesting that you please remove this photo so that I don't have to report the copyright violations as a collaborator and my legal rights as the owner of this photo and my other legal privileges in relation to this matter. I do not want to add any further public forum discussions on this issue. Thank you in advance for your assistance.

EdifyingEditor, there is no such thing as a private space on Wikipedia, and Wikimedia Commons is explicitly open to everyone everywhere. This is an open, transparent, collaborative project. Normally, nobody pays much attention to individual editor's userpages, but they are not private. Copyright violations and other policy violating content are not allowed anywhere on Wikipedia. This is a solid and well-established policy.

I am an administrator on English Wikipedia only, and do not have the power to delete a file on Wikimedia Commons. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:54, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

@EdifyingEditor: Wikipedia has no private spaces. In the upload you probably checked a box saying

This is my own work
I attest that I own the copyright on this file, and agree to irrevocably release this file to Wikimedia Commons under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 license, and I agree to the Terms of Use.

If you do not own the copyright on this file, or you wish to release it under a different license, consider using the Commons Upload Wizard.

You can add {{SD|G7}} to commons:File:PourSanae 2015-020.jpg to request speedy deletion as the uploader. I am also an administrator at the English Wikipedia only and unable to delete Commons files. G7 should be added by the uploader. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:06, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Cullen³²⁸ - I was not aware that one's personal account uploads, etc are not private. I also was not aware that my photo was being uploaded to the Wikimedia Commons. Could you please tag an admin from that space who can address this by deleting the photo? Again, as the owner I am not authorizing publication and would like it removed ASAP. Thank you. EdifyingEditor (talk) 01:05, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

EdifyingEditor, I have nominated the file for deletion at Wikimedia Commons. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:14, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

@Cullen328: Thank you, Cullen EdifyingEditor (talk) 01:22, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Draft:Katie Silver

Hi I am trying to get a journalists profile accepted. She has written many articles I can cite as examples of her work but it's been rejected, I think because she wrote the articles rather than other people. But they are for big publications like CNN and BBC?! I'm confused Annabananafana (talk) 00:15, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Annabananafana Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia does not have "profiles", it has articles. Your draft just tells about the journalist and what she has done; Wikipedia articles must do more, they must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about her, showing how she meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable creative professional. She may meet that definition, but you need to show it with significant coverage from at least three independent sources that discuss her. (note I've removed your duplicate postings) 331dot (talk) 00:20, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Annabananafana, an acceptable Wikipedia article summarizes what reliable, independent, secondary sources say about the topic, with very minor exceptions. Articles written by a journalist are primary sources that are of no value in establishing that the journalist is notable. Having articles published is what all professional journalists do, and is therefore a run-of-the-mill activity for them. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:37, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Annabananafana, and welcome to the Teahouse! Having looked at your draft, it seems to me as though the journalist in question is not notable enough to warrant a page on Wikipedia; being a journalist isn't all that notable, even if they're employed at CNN or the BBC. Sources written by the person about the person aren't establishing notability, and are primary sources. Wikipedia utilises reliable secondary sources to prove facts. If you can find secondary sources that establish notability, you can submit it into AfC and another reviewer will have a look and give you feedback on it! --Aknell4 (talk • contribs) 01:23, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

merhaba bana ulasırmıznız allah rızası için — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.185.226.155 (talk) 01:30, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, what (preferably in English rather than Turkish) is the problem? -- Hoary (talk) 01:47, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

I really don't want to start anything and I might be biased, but I need a trained eye to see if Gullane Entertainment is being slowly vandalized by Tank Slushy. I already reverted one of his edits, and before I revert his latest one...well, help. It's not the only one. He seems to chip away at articles.

He does abrupt deletes (like the Infobox) then he seems to put in small edits, then he removes citations out of the blue. I should know...I updated most, if not all of them. That was after answering a bot call that the article fell into the "bare URL" list. I was a second too late and ended up cleaning up after someone's reFill2 hit a run. Anyway, I'm sure that a subject matter expert on these things can see what's up. Pibal373 (talk) 02:00, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Pibal373, and welcome to the Teahouse! Looking at Tank Slushy's edits, and the previous messages left on their talk page, it appears you may be right. Their edits on the article seem to be constructive, although their removal of the majority of the article's lead seems to be vandalism. I would wait a bit longer, however, before imposing sanctions on him, as it is possible he is doing these edits out of good faith --Aknell4 (talk • contribs) 02:22, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

@Pibal373: Vandalism? Not really. Incompetent? Probably. You were right to restore the infobox, and deleted sources should be re-added, but the rewording and reshuffling isn't vandalism and should be treated with WP:AGF. Have you made a good-faith effort to explain to them what specifically about their their edits are problematic, and why? ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 02:22, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Aknell4 @Ganbaruby: I decided to write down the majority of small edits that Tank Slashy made in that article in the last couple of days and if I find them useful, I'll add them again after I revert his edits. I really not interested in having a conversation with the individual. Looking at his talk page, I see that an administrator or two have already talked with him about other edits. The time I use reverting and fixing that article is all the time I'm going to use on this. I'd rather get back to Task center and be a little bit more productive with my time. Thanks for the look-see. It was much appreciated. --Pibal373 (talk) 03:44, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Draft:Sankaran Thayumanavan

Hello: The Wiki page has been rejected again on the grounds that only minor improvements have been made and that it is encyclopedic. I have some serious concerns about this process.

First of all, there have been extensive changes from the last version to now. But, it still says that it is only minor.

Secondly, I would be happy to bring to your attention 10s of other Wiki pages of scientists, whose stature is similar or lower, but with Wiki pages that fit the so-called encyclopedic description. In fact, my original submission was precisely modeled after two scientists' wiki page whose accomplishments are very similar.

Having waited this long and seeing the rejection is something that I cannot understand at all.

Please let me know about the next steps.

Thanks, ShankarThai (talk) 01:38, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Telling us what the article is would be a good first step!! --Bduke (talk) 01:46, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

@ShankarThai: Welcome to the Teahouse. If this is in regards to the draft I've linked to up top, are you having any difficulties understanding what reviewers mean by their comments? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 01:54, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

User:ShankarThai - Are you the subject of the article? Is the article an autobiography? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:13, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

User:ShankarThai - The only edits you have made in more than a year have been for one article on one person. Do you have a conflict of interest? If you are the subject, that is a conflict of interest. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:18, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

@ShankarThai: Welcome to the Teahouse! You might also be interested in the essay Wikipedia:Other stuff exists. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 03:35, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

It should not have been rejected. He meets one of the qualification for WP:PROF, as a Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. , one of the 2 highest honors in US science. Since it is sourced, there is no reason not to accept it. , and I have done so. Further improvements can be made in main space. I will assume the most reccent reviewer did not notice that. . DGG ( talk ) 04:44, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

More exactly,

The version first submitted on Jan 6 [7] was reviewed by a very trustworthy reviewer, who commented correctly that it did show notability but had other problems, primarily far too many citations to the work. That reviewer also commented correctly that the tone suggested that of an autobiography, presumably thinking of the awards section as it was at the time.

The version revised on Jan 12 that I saw on Jan 15. [8] had somewhat fixed the tone, and had fewer, but still an excessive number of references to the work.

I then did a preliminary cleanup to [9], reduced to the most important awards and cleaning up some wording. It was then revised to [10] on Nov 9 by the contributor, restoring unnecessarily some of the awards, but correctly removing most of the references.

Another review saw it a few days later, making the comment [11] that "The draft is being continuously submitted without any improvements", a conclusion which could not have been reached if the history had been examined, and rejecting it as is done when articles are in fact submitted 3 or more times without perceptible change, but which was completely inappropriate here, as the article had only been submitted twice, and had been very radically improved.

The contributor came here, and the relevant comment from the original reviewer mentioning the apparent COI but not commenting on the improvements, and an irrelevant one from another reviewer that did not consider the notability .

I then accepted the article. The COI did not matter at that point because the article was a plain descriptive article with a neutral POV, but I did say that it was still not yet in our format, but fixable.

since then, the wikitable incorrectly used as an infobox was removed, but should have been converted to the proper infobox which would have shown essentially the same information, and various minor cleanup done.

Further work remains necessary: adding the infobox, indicated the number of citations from Scopus or Google Scholar to the most cited articles, and possibly restoring a slightly more extended description of the work, but using them inimum number of references to support it, as this is not an academic CV nor a scientific papers, where one lists everything possibly relevant. It is completely appropriate to give an somewhat fuller discussion of the work of a scientist so eminent as to be an AAAS Fellow.

The original fault was ours. We should have ourselves written bios for every fellow of the AAAS, so it would not be necessary for people to adopt the much more difficult course of writing their own. Then we did OK--the person submitted low quality article, two of us looked at it, and it was much improved. Ideally I should then have gotten back to it to follow up my original cleanup, but in practice I do not have time to do that, and must rely on other reviewers. The next review was unfortunate, but as is obvious to anyone here, there is a very understandable tendency to be rather impatient with people who submit work that is apparently COI, because 90% of the time, the person is not in fact clearly notable, and the other problems with the draft never do get fixed. I want to express my appreciation to the subject, who was persistent enough to bring it here. And also to Marchjuly who notified me. I unfortunately am not able to watchlist all the pages I work on, and I hope people will notify me if something I had worked on comes here, and they disagree with my previous work or remarks. DGG ( talk ) 05:33, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

The matter of the BLP of Sankaran Thayumanavan has been taken care. I will mention some issues that it does or did raise that have come up inconclusively in the past.

The first issue is Rejection of drafts. This draft was rejected rather than declined, and User:DGG says correctly that it should not have been rejected, but I will point out that Rejection of drafts is a relatively new capability, and that there has never been good guidance to reviewers on when drafts should be rejected, or when drafts should not be rejected, or what should be done after drafts are rejected. The issue is discussed periodically at the Articles for Creation talk page, and the discussion is always inconclusive.

The second issue is how to deal with single-purpose accounts who push for acceptance of a draft. There are various genera of SPAs. Draft space SPAs are one genus of them. There are two species of this genus of editors, and they are dealt with differently. They are corporate promoters and self-promoters. The corporate promoters are the more annoying, but are more easily dealt with. They either don't declare their conflict of interest, or they do declare it. If they don't declare their conflict of interest, they get blocked. If they do declare their conflict of interest, reviewers are in no hurry to review their drafts. Either their drafts get slow-rolled, or they push to demand reviews, which may result in being blocked for being a nuisance. The corporate promoters are the easier group. Their companies very seldom satisfy corporate notability anyway. Notable corporations typically find a neutral editor anyway.

The self-promoters, of which the author was one, in turn come in two subspecies. They are the professors and everyone else. The non-academic self-promoters eventually get declined, rejected, or blocked. This was an academic self-promoter. They are the edge cases, both because they often are notable, and because they are usually better writers than the business or other self-promoters. I see that three months ago, I said that the draft looked like an autobiography of someone who probably met academic notability, and that it had too many references, and had tone problems. Different reviewers have different standards of how willing we are to work with academic self-promoters. I am less willing to work with them than User:DGG is; and that is all right, because different reviewers are different humans who contribute differently to the encyclopedia.

I think that it would be good to have somewhat more agreement on practices about rejection. I think that it will be useful to recognize what the different types of SPAs are.

Robert McClenon (talk) 01:28, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

I'll take the last point now: the different types of SPA and COI for academic articles. (and except for the details, much of it applies to SPA./COI in general).

We are here at AfC /NPP in order to deal with COI, We can expect to find it in at least half of what we see. Screening them is one of our primary purposes.

If the subject is notable , and the article is not promotional , it does not necessarily matter if there is conflict of interest. The need for a coi statement is a warning that the article is likely to have coi; if we remove coi, there's no need for a statement. I will review articles with coi if the subject is in my field and notable enough. The academic self promotors are several types: Some are not actually the individual but the PR staf pretending to be the individual--sometimes even writing in the first person as if they were the subject. These articles can be distinguished by their following the pattern for the usual puffery and more specifically a very vague statement of what the specific interests are, a focus on the present institution and the one just before while ignoring hte earlier career, and the lack of references to specific peer reviewed papers (and, very often the timing--the article being written immediately after a major prize or promotion or prestigeous new hire or start of a related business. I am rather reluctant to work on these, because it often means in effect starting the article over, as almost all the usual elements of an academic bio are missing. (I am also much more sympathetic to naïve individuals not knowing our practices than I am to paid PR staff whose job it is to know better.) More often, it's the person, writing a great deal too much: the key is a list of all the papers, but there are usually also an emphasis on the individuals childhood and intellectual influences, a list of every prize, minor or major--even the in-house prizes, a listing of multiple academic committees and society memberships, a description of the research in detail--sometimes listing several papers for each point the way one does when writing a journal article, emphasise on the part one would put in a grant request about therapeutic possibilities, if relevant a strong focus of the individual's attempts to commercialize the work. These articles I am very willing to work on if the person is notable enough--it's usually just removing the excess and inappropriate material and adjusting the tone. I judge what I will work on here by two factors--first, how notable the person is, and second, how much we need the field covered--unusual academic interest or less covered areas like the humanities, a mix of academic and creative work, and under-covered groups or geographies.

There's another group--the academics who write about themselves, but write too little, just giving a bare directory entry. It can be difficult to judge notability here without finding the publications and seeing how much they are cited, unless there's a clear named professorship title. (I generally make the guess that any full professor in a major university will probably meet our standards, and an assistant professor generally will not; associate professors can be either way.)

However, as well all promotional articles, some of them are not actually autobio but people writing in the same tone. Sometimes this is a relative, sometimes a former student, very often nowadays a participant in an editing project. They write in the pattern they see. These can sometimes be told by theirelative incompetence , not getting honors and ranks worded correctly, and excessive use of quotes,--generally pulled from the persons PR blurb. Username resemblance is not always a guide--sometimes people in an class will adopt a username relating to the subject.

I like rewriting these articles--it's often easier than guiding the contributor. (and since its themain subject area I work on, I have enough experience doing so to make it fairly easy for me). As Bob.says, many other people here do not like extensive rewriting. Nobody likes rewriting articles in areas they have little sympathy with, or which they do not understand. I will sometimes not try to rewrite drafts on performers or sportspeople or small businesses, even when its's clear they are notable. In fact, I will not even try to judge these articles, unless they are so bad as to be obvious declines--and especially, if they are obvious G11s. I do not ask or expect anyone to work on articles outside their fields of interest, although I have enough experience that I can sometimes stretch this very far. I do however try not to work in areas I will make mistakes, either in judging the notability or the text of the draft or the appropriate tone. I think it is reasonable not to expect others to work on what they neither like nor understand. I just ask that they do what I do, leave them for those who can handle them--nobody should work here beyond their range of competence, and none of us are universal geniuses who know everything. I am perfectly willing to at least look at every draft on an academic that comes to my attention--those drafts (or articles at NPP) are my first priority. The article in question here was one I did not find myself--it was brought to my attention by another editor who knew that I would be willing to look.

my current manner of working is to try to hover over each potential article of interest to me in the list of forthcoming G13s. Out of a page of 200, I look at maybe 30, and rescue or postpone or even just accept perhaps 5 to 10. I'm getting a little more tolerant lately, because articles do get improved in mainspace unless they're very weird indeed-- and they also do get deleted if we made a mistake in judging they'd be accepted. We reviewers are not the only people capable of working with new articles or editors; in particular, a great many editors do not review because they do not like the pressure of the backlog, and do not want to be in a situation where they feel they must work too rapidly. I actually like pressure, and I like to see how quickly I can work while still being accurate (my technique is short bursts, never long stretches)

When I can, I also try to look at the incoming drafts, to pull out those that are good denough as they stand or are clear G11s or vandalisms or violations of privacy or matters of child protection. I have a great deal more to say about that part, but in a few days. (I had to deal with a particularly distressing one last night, and was glad I kept oversight after leaving arbcom)

the proper use of rejection, the day after tomorrow, maybe. DGG ( talk ) 05:40, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello! l would like to know why l created an article that was not in Wikipedia page and publish it for review's, l received message that article was connected to wikidata item. Ngangaesther (talk) 06:14, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't understand "article that was not in Wikipedia page". Which article was this? Anyway, it's normal to be informed that a new article has been connected to a Wikidata item. -- Hoary (talk) 06:28, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

This was the article ,Purity Ngirici she is a Kenyan politician

Ngangaesther You created the article Purity Wangui Ngirici last July. It is still there.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 07:22, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

To know about contest for deletion Why does content for deletion appears on my page. 106.195.118.147 (talk) 08:30, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Your comment here is the only edit from your IP address, so I'm unable to help you without knowing what page or article you are talking about. 331dot (talk) 08:32, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello! I'm a new user who wanted to start writing articles on the discography of C418. I started off with an album called "one", and the work I have so far is currently in my sandbox. However, every good album article needs a cover, but when I went to see if anything was already uploaded to the Commons, I found nothing, so I figured it would be easy to just upload my own image. Nope, instead I have to give myself a crash course on copyright laws. I am really confused on how this works, after all I did just join a few hours ago. I didn't find any copyright information directly on the artist's website, and I really don't want to wait forever to get feedback from the artist. Also, I have no clue how to use OTRS, nor do I even know if this issue is even something I should contact about. Someone help! FiveSecondsLeft (talk) 05:32, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

FiveSecondsLeft, you will find very few album covers on Commons. If you find no copyright information for an album cover (or any other recently made image), then you must assume that it's conventionally copyright ("all rights reserved"). Commons expressly excludes material that's conventionally copyright even if a "fair use" exemption might be claimed for use with a particular purpose. Conventionally copyright images are perhaps eligible for uploading to Wikipedia. (Even if they are eligible, this doesn't mean that you can then use them freely.) When you say "my own image", do you mean your photograph or scan of the album cover? If so, then no matter how much photographic or other skill went into your photography or scanning, it lacks originality and therefore for copyright purposes could just as well have been made by me or anyone else: the photograph or scan is not your own image but instead its copyright belongs to the artist, publisher, graphic designer, or some combination thereof. Copyright law is complex; few people aren't confused by it. I am not among the few, and shan't be surprised if some other editor comes along to correct what I have just written. -- Hoary (talk) 06:28, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello, FiveSecondsLeft. Album covers are almost always copyrighted and the copyright holders want to reserve all rights since they make money by marketing albums using this artwork. So, they are ineligible for upload to Wikimedia Commons. However, they can be uploaded directly to Wikipedia under the policy on use of non-free images. Such an image can be used only in the article about the album, and must be a lower resolution image. The policy requirements must be followed scrupulously, but if you follow the procedure, it is not that hard. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:13, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the replies, but could you describe how to submit a non free image, or more specifically, how to use it in a Wikipedia infobox album template? Thanks, FiveSecondsLeft — Preceding undated comment added 07:20, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

@FiveSecondsLeft: I've done it a couple times. Here's a step by step:

1. Find and download an image of the album cover with a resolution greater than 300x300. Keep the source URL, you'll need it later.
2. Resize that image to 300x300, or if not square, make the longer side 300px. MS Paint or Preview will do this easily.
3. Go to Wikipedia:Upload/Non-free album cover and click "an infobox that is written about the release".
4. Attach the file. Give it a good file name.
5. In the "Summary" box, there should be syntax for a template. Put the name of the article after |Article=. Don't use brackets.
6. After |Source=, paste the URL of where you got the image. Don't use brackets.
7. Fill out as many of the remaining fields as you can. In these cases, use brackets to link to their respective articles. Don't put anything in the "Override fields".
8. Click "Upload file".
9. Go to your article and immediately put that image in. If you don't, a bot will delete the image because it's unused.

That should be it. Let me know if you have any other questions. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 08:33, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

@FiveSecondsLeft: Wait wait wait. Your draft is still in your sandbox and not the mainspace. Per WP:NFCCP#9 fair-use images like this one is only allowed in the mainspace. Please don't upload an image until you move the draft. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 09:09, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

I created an article yesterday and I received a notice for speedy deletion as they say he isn't notable. Not yet deleted but they may do it. I contested for the deletion, since this person has been mentioned in a notable event (Tonga at the 2017 World Aquatics Championships) and I have added citation to every line in that article (the article is only five lines, a stub). Now I can't remove that notice but someone else can. So can someone please review the article and check if the notice is required or not? (For the reason I had given for 'no speedy deletion', visit Talk:Andrew Lapuka Excellenc1 (talk) 03:52, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

DoubleGrazing put a speedy template on it whereas I'd have taken it to AfD; but how does Lapuka satisfy Wikipedia:Notability (sports)? -- Hoary (talk) 06:43, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

The creator contested the SD; DoubleGrazing responded with an explanation as to why; reading DG's notes, I agree that the SD was a valid approach. In my opinion this clearly does not and can not qualify as an article, so processing thru AfD would be a waste of volunteer time. David notMD (talk) 10:08, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

This is a request for someone to help an editor in a way that I haven't had to ask for help in the past. The editor is User:Dangelvoice. Their main objective is to get an article accepted about a singer, Deelee Dube. Previous articles and versions have had copyvio. An article was speedily deleted, and a draft has been reported for copyright investigation and partially blanked. They then wrote a long, overly referenced draft in a temporary page. I moved the partially blanked draft, so that I could move the more recent draft into draft space, and I have declined it, and tried to offer advice on improving it. My guess is that the singer satisfies musical notability, but the draft is too long and has too many unreliable references. However, here is the problem. The editor doesn't use their talk page. They discuss on the talk pages of other editors, and don't sign their posts, but they don't use their own talk page. Some of us, including User:Justlettersandnumbers and User:Star Mississippi and I, are trying to help them, but I figured now that the problem is that they aren't using their talk page.

What can I or we do, or what can be done to help them? Robert McClenon (talk) 23:17, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Robert McClenon. Try pinging them on their own talk page. If that does not work, try pinging them on the most recent user talk page that they've commented on, with a request to pay attention to their own talk page. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:04, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Robert McClenon: Well, for a start I've left them a prominent single issue notice on their userpage. It doesn't take too much research to determine there's a serious undeclared WP:COI going on here, though I don't propose to expand on that in an open forum. Do you need me to email you some external links? I have also tagged the draft.

Failure to communicate is an issue, which reminds me of this recent post to Jimbo's talk page. For a start I'd suggest that Draft:Deelee Dube old is deleted as a routine action, bearing in mind there's a newer version of her autobiography. But if you aren't getting any response and she just continues editing her draft, then it's going nowhere fast. You could even try telling her that in the text of the draft article's lead (even in red, if all else fails, e.g. You are not responding to the feedback we have been giving you. This draft stands no chance of being moved into the main encyclopaedia until you respond to those trying to assist you, and address the issues we have raised in the feedback comments above. Failing that, some time could be spent harshly pruning out all the uncited waffle and self-made YouTube videos used as citations. Just a thought Nick Moyes (talk) 00:14, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Robert and Nick for getting this started as AfC is not an area I'm remotely familiar with. Nick, I was onto the COI fairly early in the first deleted iteration of her article so I don't need the ELs, but thank you. I think she's trying to edit in good faith which is why she hasn't been blocked, and hoping now that she's posting and attempting to respond she knows where to go for messages. I took out the YouTube and other links, which brought her to my talk. Is there a better source than WP:THREE to explain why we don't need 9 citations that she won an award? When it was in mainspace I tried to stub it to the basics as I think she's notable, but not 100% sure, but she also doesn't understand why we don't use all the interviews. StarM 01:18, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

@StarM: Classic "I want to show everything about me that's ever been written about me" syndrome. Try WP:OVERCITE as an explanation. I often mention the "less is more" concept. Would she have every instrument playing in her music, just because they're available, I wonder? Nick Moyes (talk) 10:13, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

As per your suggestion, I have updated the Draft:Sonu goel please review the draft and suggested if i can go to submit the article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rakeshsipher (talk • contribs) 08:49, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Courtesy Draft:Sonu Goel. You created it on 9 February. It was declined on 9 February. Editors made large cuts to bring it closer to Wikipedia tone, but commented that more work was needed. Many of the citations are to his journal articles, and perhaps not enough of the citations are about him, written by other people. You have not made any edits after the declined. I believe Goel is noteworthy, but in my opinion, if you resubmit without more work, it will be declined again. David notMD (talk) 10:16, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

 77.28.237.166 (talk) 10:10, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Your first, and so far only edit, a massive deletion to an article (reverted), fits exactly to Wikipedia:My little brother did it. Perhaps the best path forward is to create an account and keep the password secret from your little brother. David notMD (talk) 10:37, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

And If you and your brother share a computer, make sure you aren't logged in with your acocunt when leaving your computer. the little brother excuse is a common one, and it is not accepted. Victor Schmidt (talk) 10:40, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

I recently created several Eurovision-related redirects. Should I also create a talk page for them to add {{WikiProject Eurovision}}? I noticed that some redirects do have talk pages, some don't, and some talk pages are also redirects. I couldn't find any info in Wikipedia's policies or guidelines so I'm wondering if there is any standardisation. ―JochemvanHees (talk) 09:26, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

JochemvanHees, theoretically yes, but they get seen by so little people that your time is probably better spent somewhere else. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 09:47, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

@JochemvanHees: I'd generally recommend not doing this. If you redirect an existing article, yes, but if you're just creating a redirect, creating a talkpage for it isn't really useful. Elli (talk | contribs) 11:56, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

How Do I make a new Wikipedia article? 118.209.28.204 (talk) 11:52, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Help:Your first article should help. Can I also recommend creating an account? Elli (talk | contribs) 11:56, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

I think I've already asked similar questions and read a few things on this before, but I was hoping for clarification. If I'm working on an article dedicated to an ideology or a religion and I cite a book by a proponent of that ideology or religion would that be a primary or secondary source? Obviously the source isn't self-published because an ideology or religion can't publish things, but it is published by a person that is "closely affiliated with the subject" so is it not independent? If this is the case then wouldn't every work by, for instance, a Christian be a primary or non-independent source for the article on Christianity? I would assume this would extend to all religions and ideologies, which seems like it would make it very difficult to find secondary sources. TipsyElephant (talk) 12:09, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

@TipsyElephant: it depends on if they're considered a reliable source. For example, citing the Bible would be a primary source. Citing a well-renowned academic scholar's works discussing the Bible - who just happens to be a Christian - would be a secondary source. Citing a random Christian's writings for information about Christianity in general would probably be a primary source - but also undue weight, and it shouldn't be included. Elli (talk | contribs) 12:14, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Can you translate this page into an English wiki? https://si.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thisarana_Arama UspLK (talk) 17:43, 19 April 2021 (UTC) UspLK (talk) 17:43, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

@UspLK: welcome to the Teahouse. It might not be very easy to find a Sinhala speaker here at the Teahouse, but there is a draft at Draft:Thisarana Arama which appears to have pretty much all the content that the Sinhala article has. The draft needs more reliable sources to show that the organisation is notable according to Wikipedia's definition, however. --bonadea contributions talk 17:56, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your information @Bonadea !UspLK (talk) 13:06, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

I need advice for my article. Harith CA (talk) 08:42, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Harith CA Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. You have submitted the draft for review and it is pending; you will need to be patient as there are thousands of drafts waiting for review. 331dot (talk) 08:44, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

331dot But my first article is good or not?

Harith CA Note that pings do not work unless you sign your talk page posts with four tildes like this: ~~~~ In quickly looking at your draft, it doesn't seem that you have independent reliable sources with significant coverage of this person, showing how they meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable creative professional. 331dot (talk) 08:51, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Harith CA, you mean Draft:Tim Pek? "Background" is unreferenced. "Director" is almost unreferenced. Add references. "Filmography (selective)" doesn't specify either the original titles of the films or what Pek did for each of them. Provide this information. And if File:Tim Pek.jpg really is your own work, then why is it so small? -- Hoary (talk) 08:52, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

I found the same picture in this [12]. So I second this question. --Maresa63 (talk) 13:23, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

hi i wanted to know how to add more information to a photo i recently had, can someone please help me Wikismarty12359 (talk) 13:09, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Your meaning isn't at all clear. Is it a photograph that you took? Is it a photograph that's already at Wikipedia? -- Hoary (talk) 13:16, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

FYI

 – Merging sections. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 13:16, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi guys i added a picture for a article, but i haven’t added enough copyright info, how do i add more? Wikismarty12359 (talk) 13:13, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Which picture? -- Hoary (talk) 13:17, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Are you perhaps asking about commons:File:The_Jamie_Foxx_Show_Card.jpg? If so, what right do you have to upload the file to Commons? Answer the questions accordingly. If you can't answer them, almost certainly you have no right to upload the image, and it will be deleted. (NB "I want it because it will make the article better", "Nobody will mind if it's in Commons", etc, are unusable.) -- Hoary (talk) 13:30, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

... or maybe it's about https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Dr._Lynn_Moody_visitng_Hurley_Elementary_School_in_2014.jpg , which has now been deleted. If I'm right, it's a matter for Wikimedia Commons, not for us here at en:Wikipedia. In any case, if Wikismarty12359 wants to pursue the matter, they're going to have to explain how they obtained the picture. Maproom (talk) 13:32, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

i just want to add more info, is there any details to do it? Wikismarty12359 (talk) 13:56, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

@Wikismarty12359: 1) About which picture is it? (We don't know Legilimency yet) 2) Have you taken the picture yourself? Victor Schmidt (talk) 14:11, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

FYI

 – Added header. Elli (talk | contribs) 12:11, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Need an experienced editor to review my draft if it's good enough for submission Thanks! D'phenomenal (talk) 12:03, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

@D'phenomenal: hi. If you're talking about Draft:Oluwa Memorial Secondary School - you have empty sections with just infoboxes, which are suboptimal - I'd remove the sections and just do one infobox for the whole school. Also, all of your citations are at the end of the paragraph, making it hard to verify the article's content. Elli (talk | contribs) 12:13, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi! Thanks for your help, btw since the administrative partitioning both schools now exist individually,with different principals and faculty members but still co-exist in the same school compound, how do you suggest I put them? Separately? Because they now have different mottos, uniforms etc but still maintain the same address and sometimes do activities together.

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by D'phenomenal (talk • contribs) 14:24, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello, I'm looking to make a new page for a film/video director but noticed there's already a page with his name that redirects to someone else with additional middle names - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Roger_Sargent&redirect=no How can I make a page for the video director Roger Sargent? Thanks for any help! Stripeyjane (talk) 12:16, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

@Stripeyjane: hi, I'd recommend creating the page at Roger Sargent (film director) (or some other disambiguation that you pick), then converting the redirect at Roger Sargent into a disambiguation page between the two people. Elli (talk | contribs) 12:27, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Stripeyjane, and welcome to the Teahouse. Unless you are very sure that you can create an acceptable article at the first attempt, I would strongly recommend that you use the Articles for creation process and create a draft (which you could call Draft:Roger Sargent or Draft:Roger Sargent (film director) as you prefer). Either way, when your draft is eventually accepted, the accepting reviewer will sort out the naming and disambiguation appropriately. --ColinFine (talk) 14:43, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

How do I make an account without it going away later on? I've made many different accounts on my other computer and when I come back a week later it says I'm signed out. Do I have to be registered/autoconfirmed to keep an account without me getting signed out? 73.2.129.126 (talk) 13:55, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Have you actually made an account or have you just been editing as an IP? Wikipedia:Why create an account? Heiro 13:58, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

73.2.129.126, all account sessions automatically expire after a certain time. Sessions end prematurely if your browser is set to delete cookies on shutdown. When you get logged out, you can go to Special:Login to log back in. Victor Schmidt (talk) 14:08, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Well when I get logged out sometimes I can't figure out how to get back in. 73.2.129.126 (talk) 14:15, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

To log in, you can click on the "log in" link near the top right corner of any page of Wikipedia. Maproom (talk) 14:22, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

When logging in, there's a box that says "Keep me logged in". Check that. --Aknell4 (talk • contribs) 14:29, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

In addition to what others have said above, some browsers (like Google Chrome for example) will save your password when you create an account which can make it easier to log back in as you don't have to remember your Wikipedia account password, as well as any other account password you may have. However sometimes it may not save so you should still write down your password somewhere safe just in case technology fails. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 15:18, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Going forward, use only one of the accounts you have created. David notMD (talk) 15:12, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello, I have a specific question about what to cite and what not, if there is some more specific page where I should ask, send me there. On an example of Kolding#Notable_people, what should be cited in this section? Is it bad that most of people don't have reference, as majority on the notable people sections have, and it is enough to have their occupation and connection to the city referenced on their pages and not the city's one, or are the currect references from IMDb Database pointless and shouldn't be on the city's page? Thank you! FromCzech (talk) 11:49, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

@FromCzech: WP:IMDb is not a reliable source. Generally citations are good - but for these lists, the articles existing and verifying the information tends to be de facto sufficient. Elli (talk | contribs) 11:55, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Saying the same - if the people named are the subjects of Wikipedia articles, i.e., names appear blue, then references nice but not required ((they are referenced at their own articles). People who are not subjects of existing articles should not be added to lists of notable people even if references are available. David notMD (talk) 13:10, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your replies! FromCzech (talk) 16:37, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Are users allowed to revert edits without explanation? I've had that happen to me. I did take it to the talk page (and we'll go from there), but from reading Wikipedia's policies it seems to me that this is not the correct thing to do. Am I misunderstanding something here? Rusdo (talk) 16:07, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Rusdo, If it definitely not encouraged - explaining why an edit was reverted is a key part of communication. I did not look into the situation, but new editors may be unaware of the protocol, or may have accidentally omitted an explanation, so I encourage you to ask politely for the explanation. S Philbrick(Talk) 16:20, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@Rusdo: Welcome to the Teahouse. Could you let us know which revert you are referring to? It looks like every time one or more of your edits have been reverted, there's been an edit summary explaining the revert, and I see that you have also had a very detailed introduction with various links on your user talk page. It is often a good idea to post a note to the reverted editor's user talk page describing the reason for the revert, but then again, at Vaticinium ex eventu you reverted back to your preferred version within a few minutes, so the reverting editor did not have a chance to comment, if they had intended to do so.

But again, unless we know exactly what you are referring to, it is hard to know exactly what the issue is. --bonadea contributions talk 16:24, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Ah I see the confusion. Edits to that page made by user 172.58.35.43 were by me, too, before I made a formal account. Those were reverted without explanation. Again, not too big of a deal as this is already on the talk page, but... I wanted to be sure that I understood the expectations of Wikipedia. And thank you for the welcome! The introduction on my page was filled with insinuations that I'm a fundamentalist extremist here to promote pseudoscience. I didn't really appreciate that very much.Rusdo (talk) 16:41, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

When was Romio and Juliet actually form? Peacemukami (talk) 16:33, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

@Peacemukami: Romeo and Juliet, the play by William Shakespeare, was first written and performed at some point in the 1590s, although the exact date is unknown. The play was first published in 1597. You can see the section at Romeo and Juliet#Shakespeare's day for more information. The story was inspired by earlier sources, namely The Tragical History of Romeus and Juliet, which is itself a translation of a story by Matteo Bandello, written in the 1550-1560s.

The Teahouse mostly aims to answer questions about using and editing Wikipedia. If you have further general knowledge questions about works of English literature, or other subjects, consider asking at the Wikipedia:Reference desk instead.

Hope this answer helps! RoxySaunders (talk · contribs) 16:54, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello, my Wiki page 'Houndstooth discography' was declined because "The record label doesn't have (or appear to merit) an article. Why would its discography?" but I have submitted the main page 'Houndstooth Records' for a review. So can the Houndstooth discography page be re-submitted for a review whilst the main page is still being reviewed? Cheynoel (talk) 16:33, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi Cheynoel There would be no reason for the discography article to exist if the "main" article does not already exist. So hold off on submitting the discography until (if) the main label article is accepted. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:57, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi, I've been going around adding coordinates I could find on other Wikipedias but not the English one, and I came across the following article: Atelier 17

I'm a bit lost as to how cases like this should be approached, as this is an art workshop that moved three times during its existence, should I just remove the coords missing template on this article or is there precedent on how such cases are handled? Sadenar40000 (talk) 15:36, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

@Sadenar40000: One option would be to give coordinates inline for all three locations (if they can be determined), inserting each in parentheses after a mention of the relevant location. In this case, the article would lack any title-position coordinates. Sometimes when an entity has moved around but still exists, however, it's more appropriate to just give the coordinates of the current location, with a title display. In any event, what to do is a matter of editorial judgment. Deor (talk) 17:10, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

I've gone through the article and this is getting really messy, it has moved 5 times, then got renamed in 1988.

That brings into question whether the article should be called Atelier 17 and not Atelier Contrepoint, thanks for the advice though Sadenar40000 (talk) 17:21, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

I see the war I grew up knowing as the Zulu War is referred to in Wikipedia as the Anglo-Zulu war (Anglo suggests English rather than British Empire in my opinion, but that's a separate discussion), but for some reason it isn't the American-Vietnam War, but simply the Vietnam war. Is there any ongoing effort to be consistent about the naming of things such as wars? SophiaRex (talk) 15:12, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

SophiaRex Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia uses terminology that reliable sources most commonly use to refer to something as. See WP:COMMONNAME. Most English sources use the term "Vietnam War". 331dot (talk) 15:17, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

I would think most reliable sources in English would also refer to "the Zulu War". But it seems like a problem will arise as "most reliable sources in English" will be American due to population and we will be faced with an American bias... — Preceding unsigned comment added by SophiaRex (talk • contribs) 16:19, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Not necessarily actually. There are multiple countries that speak English as a primary language, the United States is just one of many. They will most likely each have some kind of source on "the Zulu War", some saying different things. We won't be forced to be face with American bias as long as we can find multiple different sources. If the majority of the sources refer to it as the "Anglo-Zulu war" then that will be the name of the article. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 18:37, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

In a thread just above, User:Nick Moyes referred to a post by User:Cullen328 to Jimbo Wales's talk page about mobile editing. Both the previous post here and the post to Jimbotalk were sharply critical of the Android and IOS apps. I will point out that there are three mechanisms to edit from a smart phone. A smart phone is of course a small programmable device with two main functions, voice communication and Internet access. The three mechanisms to edit from a phone are:

• 1. Use a web browser on the phone and go to en.wikipedia.org, which will put you into mobile mode, en.m.wikipedia.org.
• 2. Use a Wikipedia application that can be installed on your phone.
• 3. Use a web browser on the phone and click the button at the bottom that switches it into laptop mode at en.wikipedia.org.

The most immediate criticism has been of the Wikipedia applications. By the way, I will assume that the Android app and the IOS app are almost the same. Application developers usually make the Android and the IOS versions of an application functionally comparable. I haven't tried the applications. I have tried option 1, mobile mode on the phone. In my opinion, many of the criticisms of option 2 also apply to option 1. The "mobile" version of the web site has implemented much of the kludginess of the applications.

So I agree that to edit on a phone, one should avoid any software that is specifically meant for a phone. The mobile interface, whether an installed app or Wikimedia's own web interface, does something that reduces functionality.

I don't edit much from my phone, although I do browse from my phone, and I use an alternate account, User:McClenon mobile. But I agree that option 3, laptop mode, provides more functionality than either mobile mode.

Robert McClenon (talk) 17:56, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: I installed the official Wikipedia app on my iPhone 5S. For 'reading' Wikipedia articles, it seemed OK, but then so is simply using a web browser and ensuring it's in Mobile View (there's a tiny link at bottom of every page to switch back and forth between Mobile and Desktop view). Pretty soon I found the app quite useless for me as an editor, and soon thereafter I removed it. Quite why we have the app I really don't know, as Mobile View in a browser seems just as good to me, if not better, as it allows some degree of editing functionality. But I still prefer using Desktop View on my mobile for greatest flexibility and all-round functionality. Nick Moyes (talk) 18:14, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

User:Nick Moyes - I think that we are in agreement. The app and Mobile View may be almost the same. The app may be for people who don't normally use a web browser on their phone. You and I are saying that neither Mobile View nor the app is as good as Desktop View (which I think of as Laptop View because it isn't nearly as big as my desktop setup, but I'm a retired IT engineer). Robert McClenon (talk) 18:45, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

I have significantly contributed and expanded Draft:Anushka Sen. I feel it is ready for mainspace. As review process may take lot of time, I decided to move it myself but the destination is creation protected since 2 years. Now please remove that protection as subject is notable. The protecting admin is no longer admin, hence I am requesting it here. -- Parnaval (talk) 11:00, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Parnaval To contact administrators directly you should use the administrator's noticeboard; however, as an administrator I would encourage you to allow the review process to play out as it is better to find out any problems before the draft is made a part of the encyclopedia and not afterwards, especially with a topic that has been deleted and recreated several times. Do you have a specific need for a speedy review? Have you addressed the reasons for deletion given in the deletion discussions? 331dot (talk) 11:10, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

331dot, I am not in need of speedy review, just that it is first article I have significantly expanded so I am excited to see it go to mainspace. And I am rather surprised her article was previously deleted because she has already worked in pivotal roles in more than 3 notable TV shows, so this should be enough to prove notability. I believe the article was previously deleted because information was not properly sourced but now as I have sourced it it is ready for inclusion in mainspace. -- Parnaval (talk) 14:14, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

@Parnaval: The adequacy of the sourcing** should be judged by other Wikipedians in the draft before it is "promoted" to an article. This way, any problems can be found and fixed before publication, rather than having to be first detected in the article, possibly after misinforming users. --Thnidu (talk) 18:07, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

The Times of India is generally unreliable as a source, Facebook and IMDb are never reliable, neither is YouTube. I will leave it to another reviewer to decide, since I declined it before. Theroadislong (talk) 18:22, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

** And not just the sourcing, but any aspect of the draft. Out of curiosity I went to look at your draft. Mostly I just skimmed it, but I noticed that under (I think) "See also" you had entered

[[List of Indian television actresses|List of Indian Television Actress]]

I cannot imagine why you would label the link with an ungrammatical, incorrect version of the real filename. Maybe you wanted to capitalize the content words and just forgot the final "-es"? I fixed that & added the appropriate edit summary.

--Thnidu (talk) 18:29, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

User:Theroadislong, User:Thnidu, User:Parnaval - I think that the next step is to make a request to downgrade the create-protection of the article from admin protection to extended-confirmed protection, which did not exist when it was salted. The title has a long and contentious history, and has been to AFD twice, and drafts have been to MFD three times. The two options that I can see would be either to make a request for partial unprotection at Requests for Protection, or to request Deletion Review. I think that the salting was correct when it was done. In view of the history, I think that the admins at RFPP might be unlikely to downgrade it without going to DRV, so I would suggest going to DRV. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:35, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

@Theroadislong: The Times of India is reliable for cinema, per WP:ICTFSOURCES, Facebook and Youtube citation are of official accounts and IMDb is used just to verify existence. These I could have left unsourced but thought something is better than nothing. @Thnidu: Thank you for correcting but I didn't noticed it till your edit. It was done by creator Jenifree. Now I will request at WP:DRV. -- Parnaval (talk) 06:33, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

I did a detailed review on the subject and came to a conclusion that the young actress is now passing WP:NACTOR. So I have accepted the article and moved into mainspace. If anyone is having any concerns regarding the notability, please leave a message in my talk page. Regards.Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 17:29, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: I agree! I should have made it clear that in no way did I think that that single minor copyedit would ready the draft to advance. --Thnidu (talk) 19:48, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Back once again...

So I've noticed someone changing the classifications of cars and most of the time he doesn't give an explanation.

Like on the Tesla Model S page they're saying that it's not a full-size car it's an executive car, but executive is basically full-size. His edits keep getting reverting but every two hours he comes back on different accounts and keeps doing the same thing. I think he'll keep doing this no matter how many times his edits are reverted.

Accounts I've suspected:

• User:Nicecorrector
• User:Donotchangepleaseanon
• User:Theonlycoreectcar
• User:Kim Arnolds

Similarities of these four accounts:

• All accounts have no userpage
• All of them edit the same page
• All but one of them has no spaces in their name and only one letter is caps

So, I think these accounts are controlled by the same person 73.2.129.126 (talk) 18:20, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

You can report these somewhere (I'll go find the page and post the link here for you to report them). Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 18:26, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Here it is, Sockpuppet investigations. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 18:27, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't know what space to report it in though 73.2.129.126 (talk) 18:37, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

If you scroll down the page a little bit, there should be a box with a button that says "show" next to it. You'll want to click on the "show" button and there will be a box that you can type in, type in the username of one of the users without the User: part, and then click submit. I will attempt to walk you through the rest. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 18:47, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Or if you would like (since you are an IP user) I could do it for you. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 18:54, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello IP editor. I agree with you that the Tesla S article is being repeatedly damaged by changed to the car's size description. I very nearly put semi-protection on the page to stop new accounts from editing it, but then realised that would have the knock on effect of stopping well-meaning IP editors like you from monitoring and correcting the article, and this does look like just one editor at work. I don't want to lecture you about the value of having an account, as you may well be unable to do so whilst at work etc. But if the problem continues, and you can edit from a registered account, do let me know, or raise the issue at requests for page protection. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 20:05, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

I wrote an English Wikipedia article for the Italian singer-songwriter Enzo Maolucci, based on the already existing article on the Italian Wikipedia. I used the sole reference from the Italian article which seems to be the best available reference regarding biographical information. My draft was rejected for not proving notability and not having significant references, so there seem to be different standards on the English and Italian Wikipedias regarding notability and references required, which makes sense. I'm just wondering what would be some good ways to go about establishing better notability, and if secondary references that aren't used in the Italian article but contain similar information might help? AccountableJune (talk) 19:43, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

@AccountableJune: Welcome to Wikipedia and thanks for wanting to add to it. Yes, the different Wikipedia language projects have different standards. See WP:NMUSIC for the English Wikipedia notability requirements for musicians. Yes, it will help if you can find additional sources that show the singer is notable. RudolfRed (talk) 20:06, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello, AccountableJune, and welcome to the Teahouse. You're right that the standards are different between different editions (but it's not necessarily the case that they are laxer on it-wiki than en-wiki: it might be that the article in question is like one of the thousands and thousands of seriously substandard articles in English Wikipedia which would not be accepted now, but nobody has been interested enough to go and improve or delete them). The criteria for establishing notability for a musician are in NMUSIC; but generally, the main way of establishing notability is to find several sources which are reliable, indepenedent, and have significant coverage of the subject. English sources are preferred if they are available, but non-English sources are acceptable. They also do not have to be online. --ColinFine (talk) 20:08, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello. I had a question regarding if an international broadcast table should be included on a television series page. On the page for Hercai, a Turkish tv series, a user insists on keeping a table listing every country that has aired Hercai including the channel, what days it airs and the time slot. My opinion is that it should be removed as the table itself only has two references, so some of the information on the table may be false and I think WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies to the table. Telenovelafan215 (talk) 20:54, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi Telenovelafan215, welcome to the Teahouse. I'd strongly suggest starting a conversation on the talk page for the article (I see there isn't one yet) and discussing it with the other editor and anyone else who's following the article. You've reverted them twice and they've reverted you twice. If that goes on it'll become an edit war and that's never good. There's a very useful essay called WP:BRD that gives some advice about better ways of handling this kind of situation. You've been around a few years so you've probably read it before, but I mention it because it's relevant and for the benefit of any new editors reading this.

For what it's worth, I agree with you; a table like that would likely be impossible to maintain and very hard to properly reference, since the facts will change quite often and the information will be across myriad languages. It does also seem to me that WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies. Nevertheless, that discussion belongs on the talk page. › Mortee _talk 21:20, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi,

I had a Draft Wikipedia Article under creation that was denied. The reasoning being "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 people)."

The person in reference in this Wikipedia article's predecessor and equals on San Jose City Council all have pages. Moreover, the sources are from published secondary sources independent of the subject. I was wondering what kind of changes needed to be made in order for this page to be published.

Thanks! Squishmallow218 (talk) 21:33, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi Squishmallow218. You have only two basic sentence in the draft, cited to two sources which you state are "published secondary sources independent of the subject", but neither of them are. The first is by Mahan and is thus a primary, connected source by the subject. The second is a "profile" of the subject, at website of questionable notability, by an insider publication, presenting a glowing, non-analytical, seeming puff piece, that reads as regurgitated press release type material. By the way, as to other similarly situated people having articles, please see by analogy WP:OTHERSTUFF. Best regards.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:01, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Just updated the page... kept the two basic sentences but found better sources from independent journalist sources. Please let me know if these still don't meet the Wikipedia standard though!

Hi Teahouse. I had found the request to create Buffalo Center for Media Study article through Wikipedia:WikiProject Sculpture > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Visual_arts/Things_you_can_do I started the article but I am not totally clear what needs to be done from here. Suggestions and edits to the page are welcome.

In general, I could also use help on my citations. I had edited some articles and now see the citations seem to appear as links only, not in proper format. Help and guidance would be appreciated. Thank you, ArtistWatch MuseumSurvey (talk) 21:52, 22 April 2021 (UTC) ArtistWatch MuseumSurvey (talk) 21:52, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

ArtistWatch MuseumSurvey, you will want to have a look at Referencing for beginners for guidance on creating in line citations.--Quisqualis (talk) 21:59, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. I think that links to a different page but also found it at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Referencing_for_beginners I will try this. ArtistWatch MuseumSurvey (talk) 22:09, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello, first I would like to thank CommanderWaterford for his feedback about my submission (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Shai_Emanuel_Yamin). I wanted to ask for help/feedback on improving this article so it may get approved. thank you.

--Pinkvanila (talk) 22:11, 22 April 2021 (UTC)shai Pinkvanila (talk) 22:11, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

She's "[an] activist, mostly known for her activism calling out" X on website Y. This may be a very worthy endeavour, but it sounds humdrum. What has she achieved? (Or what has she helped achieve?) ¶ The draft says that she only started her activism "around 2020". That raises the possibility that she started it as recently as this year; it might be very new indeed. Perhaps wait a couple of years before attempting an article? But if you believe that an article is merited, please see Help:Referencing for beginners. -- Hoary (talk) 22:35, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi, i'm Antrotherkus, and I have a question. Where can I find the template that looks like a table of contents? (An example would be the ToC here.) I've tried to look up a template named Contents, but I only find this, and I don't think that's it. I want to add a ToC to this article, but I can't find it. Antrotherkus (Talk to me!) 22:10, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

TL;DR: Where is the ToC template? Antrotherkus (Talk to me!) 22:10, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

@Antrotherkus: The article you linked to already has a table of contents, below the large lede section. Can you clarify what you are trying to add? RudolfRed (talk) 22:13, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Oh sorry, I couldn't see the ToC in visual editor mode. Am not the smarts, I guess. Antrotherkus (Talk to me!) 22:19, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

@Antrotherkus: The requested template doesn't exist and isn't needed, because a table of contents is automatically generated by the software when there are at least four headings. It can also be forced with the code __TOC__. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:17, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi Ive found a image on Wikimedia commons that Id like to add to a article that Im working on. After much time trying to figure out the process, Im stuck and hope there is a simple way to get the image into the article. Palisades1 (talk) 19:58, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello there, Palisades1, and welcome to the Teahouse. Would you mind supplying a link (url) to the photo on Commons, and we can show you exactly how to do it? Is the image intended to go in an Infobox, or within the main body of the article? (There's a slight difference in the way you'd need to do that).

I am assuming you have already found an image image - lets assume its this one of a cup of tea that you want to use. So, click on the link in the previous sentence, or click the photograph you see here - you're taken to the same place - and look just above the picture, and beneath the filename where you'll see a line of five small links. Look for the link with the tiny Wikipedia 'W' logo and the words "Use this file". Click that link and select the text offered to "Use this file on a Wiki as a Thumbnail". (The convention is always to add an image as a thumbnail, no matter how much you'd love to make it larger.) Copy the link to your clipboard and then go to the Wikipedia page you want to add it to (let's assume we want to add it to the page we're on now). Edit the page (ie click the tab labelled Edit Source). Scroll down to the section you'd like to add it to, and paste in the text you copied at the very top of that section. By default, this adds the thumbnail picture and its caption on the right hand side of the page, as you see here. To change the caption text, just edit the text to the right of the vertical bar - or 'pipe'. Don't change the filename.jpg text itself or the image link will be broken. There are some useful links on this help page: Wikipedia:Images with further guidance and tweaks, or detailed layout possibilities at Wikipedia:Picture tutorial.

Of course, if you are using the alternative Visual Editor (which is a bit more WYSIWYG), the process is slightly different. You once again navigate to the section where the image is needed, then, in the editing toolbar, click Insert > Media. At the search bar in the popup that then appears, type the keyword to search for certain image types, or just type in the filename of your image you've already chosen from Wikimedia Commons. Select the image and then click 'Use this image'. Before inserting it you'll be prompted to add a caption. Captions can include hyperlinks, but that's probably best left for another time. I hope this helps. Nick Moyes (talk) 20:12, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your help. I do have an image that Id like to insert to a article. When I click on the image no links appear above the image.

Remember_the_Hunger_Strikers_Glasnevin_Cemetery_Dublin.JPG/360px-Remember_the_Hunger_Strikers_Glasnevin_Cemetery_Dublin.JPG

I was able to do it! I used "Image:" instead of "file" and it worked. Thanks again.Palisades1 (talk) 20:48, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Palisades1. Do you see a message below the picture saying "This is a file from the Wikimedia Commons. Information from its description page there is shown below"? If so, you need to click on that link to get to the Commons page and see the link that Nick is talking about. --ColinFine (talk) 20:28, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

I found the image on Wikipedia Commons and that statement isn't there.Palisades1 (talk) 20:37, 22 April 2021 (UTC) Id like to insert it to this article: Tony D'Arcy. Palisades1 (talk) 20:39, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

You're right, Palisades1, Commons:File:Remember_the_Hunger_Strikers_Glasnevin_Cemetery_Dublin.JPG doesn't show that link. I don't know why - My guess is it's because of the various bits of information which are apparently missing, according to the categories it has been automatically put into - I don't think those missing items are crucial, but it stops it generating the code automatically for you. But I see you've managed to insert in into the article. --ColinFine (talk) 23:39, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

I have recently improved the Mike Soroka article after some small consultation at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball/Archive 46#Soroka, in hopes of it become a Good Article. Is it up to scratch yet? NotReallySoroka (talk) (formerly DePlume) 16:24, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi NotReallySoroka. The article does not have a manual-of-style-compliant lead section. The lead section should provide a "concise overview of the article's topic"; "summarize the most important points" in the body, etc. Here the lead does not provide a real overview; this is too concise. I would expect the lead here to be a minmum of two paragraphs providing a canonical overview. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section (WP:LEAD). This is just what struck me immediately. I did not check for other issues. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:45, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi, NotReallySoroka, and welcome to the Teahouse. To add to what Fuhghettaboutit said, it seems like Go Phightins!, who you were speaking to in the linked conversation, would be exceedingly qualified to answer this question, as what constitutes a "good" article is heavily reliant on the sort of subject matter, and Phightins!, having created a featured article and over two dozen good articles on baseball etc., has a fantastic understanding of what a good baseball-related article should look like. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 16:49, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

TheTechnician27 I have pinged him, but unfortunately he doesn't seem to respond. NotReallySoroka (talk) (formerly DePlume) 00:19, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

NotReallySoroka, baseball is an interest of mine, and I left some comments at Talk:Mike Soroka for you to consider. My comments are by no means a line-by-line review - really just a couple of thoughts I had after a quick read. I had not looked at the thread with GoPhightins! at that point, but you'll notice that the feedback is similar. I'd be glad to help with specifics if you let me know. Larry Hockett (Talk) 23:50, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

There's a user that has been adding lots of unsourced content to James L. Buckley so I did a rollback, that person then threatened me because they didn't like what I did. See here. What do I need to do to get a administrator or reviewer to look into it? Snickers2686 (talk) 21:10, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi Snickers2686, welcome to the Teahouse. One natural option is WP:ANI. I wouldn't recommend it to a new user but you've been here 8 years, much longer than me, so I imagine you know how it operates. The page notice at the top suggests WP:Civility § Dealing with incivility, WP:Dispute resolution, or asking a recently active admin as alternatives to consider before posting there. Alternatively, there are some admins who hang out here watching for spilled tea, so it could be that you've answered your own question in asking it. › Mortee _talk 21:37, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

I have warned the other user. 331dot (talk) 21:57, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi Snickers2686. Before I begin, let me say that none of what follows excuses the other user's behavior. But your reversion was not done well at all, for two reasons, and set yourself up for a problem. First, and most importantly (but for some irrelevant exceptions), you are not to use rollback for anything but vandalism. Please don't ever do that again. (As a point of clarity, edits that are merely inappropriate but do not evince bad faith, determinable from the edits themselves, are not vandalism). This was a misuse of the tool, that you agreed you would not misuse when you made your request for the permission. Second, not leaving an informative edit summary here was a very, very bad idea. It was almost sure to end with a problem, even if you didn't used rollback.

These edits were fairly on-their-face made in good faith, even if you perceive them as misguided in aspects; and this was an addition of rich content by Mtstroud, obviously with a serious time investment by the user. What did you think would happen if you reverted without any explanation? I think it would be fair to say with that dynamic in place, of course this resulted in a problematic interaction (the exact degree of escalation/threat is not what I'm talking about); it will nine times out of ten in similar situations, even if the ruffled feathers/hurt feelings were followed "only" by a more subdued reaction. Moreover, that informative edit summary would not just set an entirely different stage, going a very long way towards avoiding inevitable bad feelings at inception (and make an edit war far less likely) but could affirmatively pave the path for a great result, such as if you carefully explained and linked to WP:BURDEN in the edit summary. For all you know, that might have resulted in the user coming back and citing good inline citations. Regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:55, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

This is very well put and I agree fully. It's also true that the reaction was quite something (both initially and the latest reply, subsequent to the ANI report). At that point it's very hard to de-escalate without outside intervention, which also isn't always successful. That's one big reason why discussion (even if it means tongue-biting) and, at the very least, edit summaries matter: to avoid things blowing up in the first place. › Mortee _talk 23:10, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

@Fuhghettaboutit: So when Mtstroud reverted and I left it alone, but an administrator later got rid of the same edits I rollbacked, then how are they in the right but I wasn't? Seems inconsistent. Snickers2686 (talk) 23:36, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Morte. Hey again Snickers2686. Sorry but that is so non-responsive to every thrust of my post, that I suspect you did not actually do more than skim it in the most cursory fashion.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:48, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

@Fuhghettaboutit: No, I read your response but I still had questions. If you don't want to answer it, then fine. I thought this was the place you came to to ask questions, perhaps not. How does one even leave a summary when they use the Rollback feature? I didn't think you could? Snickers2686 (talk) 00:05, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Snickers2686 that's part of the reason rollback was inappropriate here. It's used for obvious vandalism where a one-click button that doesn't leave a summary is fine because it's so clear what was wrong. If you're rolling back 34 edits in a row by someone who seems to be putting work in, that suggests there's a need to discuss it. One way to start that would be to use the "undo" feature instead, which lets you leave an edit summary explaining your concern. Either way, once they undo what you've done it's clear there's a disagreement and at that point it's a good idea to start a discussion. (As with Fuhghettaboutit's original reply, I'm not commenting on who's right or wrong, just saying there are other ways of approaching a situation like that when it comes up). › Mortee _talk 00:09, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Just to add, this absolutely is the place to ask questions. If we're not being clear, let us know. We do also try to calibrate our responses to what we think people will already know, so as not to patronise anyone. I expect I at least get that calibration wrong from time to time. › Mortee _talk 00:15, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

@Snickers2686 and Mortee: No, you don't use undo (well you can, once in a while, but mostly it's extremely limited) you often can't. You simply do a manual revert:

1. Go to the edit history;
2. click on the revision you want to revert to (any, from the first edit made ten years ago, to 500 edits back, whatever);
3. click edit;
4. leave an edit summary;
5. save the page (voilà).

The reason it didn't seem you took in my response at all is because it seems to address a post disagreeing with your revert of the user, and that I was siding with them, when that couldn't be farther from anything I said. I disagreed with the specific, mechanical, manner you did so for two reasons, that not leaving an edit summary for this type of revert set up a terrible dynamic that was almost sure to result in a highly negative interaction in its wake with nearly anyone spending hours on a good faith but poor edit. Your response also does not seem to take in that edits that are inappropriate for whatever reason can and should be reverted but by policy cannot be reverted using rollback. (This is essentially the opposite of the type of edit a rollback is allowed to be used for). (BTW, the fact you don't know how to manually revert is partially an explanation, though it's such a basic and powerful tool of the interface that any IP can do, that I am surprised.)--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:42, 23 April 2021 (UTC)]

@Fuhghettaboutit: I don't know where or how you got the impression that I didn't know how to do a manual revert, nothing could be further from the truth. Snickers2686 (talk) 00:47, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Fuhghettaboutit what's the difference between that and an undo? My understanding was they both had the same effect, i.e. you go back some number of edits to a previous point, and you can give an edit summary while doing it. I apologise if I've given bad advice but at least in this case I haven't understood the difference. If it'd be better for us to talk about this somewhere else rather than here (i.e. separate from this one case, which has other issues involved) I'm up for that too. › Mortee _talk 00:49, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Then your response "How does one even leave a summary when they use the Rollback feature?" makes no sense, because the only difference between a manual revert where you're clicking on the revision immediately before the user's series of edits and a rollback is how fast you can do it by a couple of seconds (a manual revert is actually more powerful because it can isolate any specific revision to revert to, rather than just the last series by the same user), but the manual revert lets you leave an edit summary. No you can't leave an edit summary using an actual "rollback" (except using Twinkle), which couldn't be more irrelevant. Did you think I was implying or ever said "use rolback but leave an edit summary"? We're talking about reverting. @Mortee: undo will fail if there'a single intervening edit to the same content.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:59, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Oh, sure. There were none in this case, so at least I didn't steer anyone wrong. Undoing/reverting the work of more than one user at a time doesn't crop up that often in my experience, but of course you're right that mechanisms exist to handle it. My point was just that there are ways of backstepping that do involve edit summaries. › Mortee _talk 01:08, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

I have developed this article Desigual trying to give as much information as possible about this Spanish company. It has been an exhaustive information so it has been considered promotional. I have removed a lot of information but I need the article to be revised by someone else, because right now I don't know where to remove information. If you can help me to improve the article so that the promotional template is removed, I would be very grateful. Thanks in advance, --Ursulabela (talk) 11:39, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Oh my, there is a lot of detail information that could be summarized. It would be better to put the history sections in prose rather than bullets. Is there a way to summarize the number of locations to state the countries or continents rather than each location?

There is a Wikipedia guideline, Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not that would be good to look over, particularly 2.3 and 2.10. I couldn't find the exact language, it may be in another guideline, but it should not be what one would expect to find on the subject's website.

I wonder if this is a good example for you Ralph Lauren Corporation. I am happy to help with more comments, etc. - but I am guessing that you are in a far better position to roll-up information.–CaroleHenson (talk) 03:43, 23 April 2021 (UTC)