Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1051

Recently I was traveling and was trying to find the renamed name of a famous railway station on Wiki but unable to get it so I created a page with official name and just redirected to existing page with old name. I thought initially to change the name but following WPCOMMONNAME definition i reverted back as suggested by other senior editors.

So the easiest way was to create a page with New Official Name as suggested by Wiki and then redirect to existing page. However on submission of draft for new page with redirection, it was rejected.

Deen Dayal Upadhyaya_Junction^[1]

Redirected to Mughalsarai Junction railway station ^[2]

Kindly note I have provided reference to change of official name through newspaper and a copy of draft circulation by the government on twitter. May I know if there is something that I missed or was it a misunderstanding?

DBigFacts (talk) 06:51, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

DBigFacts, this appears to have been sorted, with the redirect created now. Is it appearing how you intended now? ~~ Alex Noble - talk 07:56, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

…

DBigFacts, I've added your reference to the talk page so that people can find the supporting article. I was a bit lazy and didn't format it as a proper citation. Would you like to convert it to {{cite news}}? Pelagic (talk) 08:10, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

DBigFacts, redirects do not require references. Instead the claim should be established at the target article itself. You also seem to have tried to create the redirect in visual editor but using the instructions for source editing. These apparently led to your submission being construed as a test edit and was declined by the reviewer as such. I have fixed the formatting and moved it to the mainspace. Feel free to review my edits which are accessible through the history tab at the top of the redirect page. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 08:18, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks to Alex Noble , Pelagic and Usedtobecool for your help and clarifications. TeaHouse rocks. DBigFacts (talk) 09:10, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

@Usedtobecool and Pelagic: Kindly note that a lot of Indian cities, districts, etc got their name changed recently and quite a few overzealous new editors try to enforce that in Wikipedia, disregarding WP:COMMONNAME. These new name changes include Allahabad -> Prayagraj, Faizabad district -> Ayodhya district, Mughalsarai -> Pt. Deen Dayal Upadhyaya Nagar, etc. Since WP:COMMONNAME applies here, the RfC for move should happen in the main settlement articles, as in the case of Allahabad, and related articles bearing the name of the place should follow that. Since Mughalsarai was not moved to Pt. Deen Dayal Upadhyaya Nagar, there is no reason changing the article name of the railway station, or creating a FORK. Also note that Bangalore wasn't moved to Bengaluru (the official name, changed in 2005) despite multiple move requests. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 09:28, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I just created an article about a documentary film Shakedown (2018 film) that was released on Pornhub as its first non pornographic content. So is it OK to put a link at the bottom of the article that links to the documentary on Pornhub? It's not a pornographic film, but yeah just wasn't sure if that was ok or not since it's pornhub. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Avonsicier (talk • contribs) 21:57, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

@Avonsicier: I think it is OK, if I am reading WP:EL correctly. If someone disagrees, they will remove the link. Please don't ask the question in multiple places. RudolfRed (talk) 00:14, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

@Avonsicier: We don't add links to distribution services for film articles, regardless of type or venue. Mention of the unique situation should be OK, as long as it's cited. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 02:51, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

​Since Pornhub is on the Spam blacklist you can't add a link to it without asking for exemption on the Spam whitelist. We do occasionally link to films that are made available online (Big Buck Bunny), and your page seems fairly harmless as there are no links to the main Pornhub page on there. – Thjarkur (talk) 09:38, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Hello,

How can we edit company information to reflect the new CEO, location, products and company story/mission? I am being told me edits aren't contructive....not sure what that actually means.

Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by JKALINA22 (talk • contribs) 00:39, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

@JKALINA22: Post a request on the article's talk page along with {{Edit request}} and an unconnected editor will look at it. Also, accounts can only be used by one person. RudolfRed (talk) 00:43, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

You removed text which had references to published reliable sources and replaced it by text which was unsourced and used blatantly promotional language. The wording of your change suggested that you were editing on behalf of the company, so you need to read about conflict of interest and about paid editing. --David Biddulph (talk) 00:45, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

JKALINA22 (edit conflict) Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. First, you must review and formally comply with the conflict of interest and paid editing policies(the latter is a Terms of Use requirement). Once you do that, you may propose any changes you feel are needed to the article about your company on the talk page as edit requests. However, I can tell you that much of what you propose here would not be accepted. Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources say about article subjects like companies, not what the company wants to say about itself(such as what it considers to be its "mission" or what it considers to be its own history). It would be okay for you to propose adding the CEO of the company or its location- but the rest would need independent sources with significant coverage(not press releases, routine announcements, staff interviews or other primary sources) to support it. 331dot (talk) 00:47, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Courtesy link to unconstructive edit [] TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 03:14, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

@JKALINA22: To be specific, to Peeled Snacks, you added:

On the go or comfy at home, (redacted copyvio) feel good about snacking with Peeled Snacks.

This sounds like ad copy, and is totally inappropriate language for Wikipedia, which is an encyclopedia, like Britannica or Encarta. Please see WP:TONE and WP:NOTADVERTISING.

We do, however, want basic facts (like the CEO and location) to be correct. Please post at the article's talk page (Talk:Peeled Snacks) using {{Edit request}}, including a reference so we can verify the information. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 03:16, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

@JKALINA22: Also, I had to redact part of the original quote above because you copied it from the company's social media and/or other copyrighted source. Do not do this. It is a violation of copyright law and cannot remain on Wikipedia. Offenders can lose their editing rights. (Note to admins: I've tagged Peeled Snacks with RD1 and info about the redaction here as well, if someone will have a look please.) —[AlanM1(talk)]— 10:25, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Hello there and good morning! I would like to enquire when would my article be approved please? I have completed 10 edits and it has been more than 4 days. I'm checking to see if I missed any steps.

Thank you and have a lovely day ahead! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hiranmayii (talk • contribs) 02:16, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Not yet submitted. There is a blue box on your Sandbox draft to submit to Articles for Creation. At AfC there are thousands of drafts. Can be weeks to months for a review to select yours and review it. That said, it will absolutely be declined, as none of the text has references, and all of the references for the exhibitions list are to the company's own website. Also, wrong to hyperlink artist names to the company website. David notMD (talk) 02:26, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

@Hiranmayii: Courtesy link User:Hiranmayii/sandbox. Before you submit, syntax and formatting aside, you should know that there's no chance the article will be accepted. You are missing independent sources that demonstrate the gallery is notable. The gallery's own web site and social media sources do not show notability. I did a quick Google search for the gallery and can't find any media coverage at all. This is all I could find, and it looks user submitted. [] I'm sorry you went to all that trouble. If you can find one source, you can add a mention and the source to Kuala Lumpur#Arts. (Please remember to sign your posts on talk pages by typing four keyboard tildes like this: ~~~~. Or, you can use the [ reply ] button, which automatically signs posts.) TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 03:11, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

@Hiranmayii: I had a look at your draft as well and agree it with @Timtempleton that it will not be accepted without significant changes. It needs independent sources to establish notability, and a search I did turned up nothing much in that area, so it seems unlikely that we would be able to publish the article. I can see you have an interesting organization, but Wikipedia is not here to promote anyone's business, which makes what you have written ineligible.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 03:47, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Hiranmayii (talk) 06:40, 5 March 2020 (UTC)Thank you so much for your input. I will rework the page to establish notability.

All of the "references" to KL's own website must be deleted. David notMD (talk) 11:00, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Citations are very Important^[1]. I want to help Wikipedia by adding citations. Can you please Add a option to search for pages without proper citation? RhysTTime Inc (talk)

RhysTTime Inc, would Category:All articles needing additional references do? Usedtobecool ☎️ 10:21, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by RhysTTime Inc (talk • contribs) 10:35, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

RhysTTime Inc, also note that your username is in violation of WP:CORPNAME. I think you'd best abandon this account and create a new one. Best, Usedtobecool ☎️ 10:42, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

I was not aware of the username policy when I made my account. If I could change it, I would. Your regards RhysTTime Inc (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:51, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

As you just started using this account two days ago, I recommend you delete all the content on the RhysTTime Inc User page (promotion is not allowed) and then just abandon that account and register a new account with a different name. Does not have to be your real name (great majority of editors don't). David notMD (talk) 11:06, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

How to hide title of the page or username? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1008rajpuranalas (talk • contribs) 09:05, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

@1008rajpuranalas: Why would you want to do that? —[AlanM1(talk)]— 09:13, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Hello, 1008rajpuranalas. I'm guessing that you think you have created an article, but it has your user name as its title. I'm afraid that this is because you have made several errors that are very common among inexperienced editors.

First, you have attempted to create an article on your user page. That is not what your user page is for: it is for telling the Wikipedia community about yourself as a Wikipedia editor. See user pages.

I considered moving your user page to a sandbox, but I don't think there is much point, because I think it is likely to get deleted as promotional anyway. This is the second common mistake: a Wikipedia article is not for you to tell the world about something: it is a summary of what independent published sources have said about the subject. Creating a new article is one of the hardest tasks in editing Wikipedia, and I always advise new editors to spend a few weeks or months improving existing article before they try it. In any case, I suggest you read your first article carefully.

Contributing to Wikipedia can be very rewarding. But it is not easy, and there are many policies and processes to learn about. --ColinFine (talk) 09:44, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

User has added several links to their user page in articles - since deleted - Arjayay (talk) 11:07, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Hello Dear I`m Saeid, a new user of Wikipedia. I create my company page here but I don`t know how to start write the content. I need your advice to start edit my page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saeid.shanghai (talk • contribs) 11:33, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

The advice is on your user talk page. --David Biddulph (talk) 11:55, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Saeid.shanghai, firstly, please don't. Most businesses aren't notable enough, and will likely be deleted. If any topic hasn't received significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the topic, please don't create an article.

If you really have to, first read, and follow, the instructions at wp:conflict of interest, and wp:paid editing.

Then follow the instructions at wp:your first article, which will guide you through the process. ~~ Alex Noble - talk 11:58, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi,

I have posted an article, can see here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Soniasinghania/sandbox , Can any one help me what is exact problem there to publish. Should I give some more references to prove each and every line in the article?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Soniasinghania (talk • contribs) 06:39, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

@Soniasinghaia:, welcome to the Teahouse. References are just half of the story, and if the Times of India are a reputable source, I don't see too much of a problem with notability and subject coverage. The issue that pops out to me is the comment that appears after the  , and I have to agree: the tone is not neutral enough and is written from the viewpoint of the company (Robert McClenon). It is too promotional and that needs to be cleaned out before it is acceptable to be submitted for article review.

Of course, since you wrote the draft is written from said company's viewpoint, you would have a conflict of interest and must disclose this on your userpage (and preferably also on the draft's talk page). You are allowed to make small factual corrections that are properly sourced, but anything larger than that should be done through {{Request edit}} templates on the draft's talk page. For more reading on the subject please consult WP:COI and WP:PAID. --Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 06:52, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Tenryuu, edit requests in cases of WP:COI are for mainspace only, drafts can be edited directly, that's why they must go through WP:AFC. Usedtobecool ☎️ 06:57, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

@Usedtobecool: Ah, my apologies. I just assumed the process would be the same in both places as it would make it less likely for drafts to be approved if they were being written with a COI to begin with. --Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 13:16, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Soniasinghania! it would be easier to respond if you'd said that you had read all the bluelinks in the message that says the draft was declined and the additional note that was left, and asked more specific questions about what exactly you are having trouble with. Without that, here's what I can say:

Although having references to prove each and every claim in the article is one of the basic principles of Wikipedia (see Wikipedia:Verifiability), that's not what notability is. Before we can even have an article, we need to establish that the subject is notable (see WP:N, or WP:NORG which specifically talks about organisations). Basically, we need multiple (three or more usually) reliable sources (see WP:RS) which cover the subject in detail (as opposed to mere mentions) and are independent of the subject (not based on press releases from the company, not published by the company itself, not written by someone connected with the company, not a paid placement by the company) (see WP:SIGCOV which explains this in more detail). The draft was declined for not meeting this requirement. So, basically, better sources are needed. Personally, I think the sources you have are almost there but not quite yet. Many of them are routine coverages, or based on press releases, or mere mentions when talking about something else such as the project that the company is participating in. A few of the sources don't appear to be reliable to me based on just how they look and read but I am not an expert on Indian sources.

Secondly, the writing may not exactly be up to encyclopaedic standards. But as long as it is not overly promotional, other editors will help you with this when notability has been established. So, it's not a big deal, again, as long as it is not overly promotional, which I don't think it is.

Finally, you were told that it would be unacceptable for you resubmit without answering the conflict of interest question. Wikipedia values neutrality. It is almost impossible for someone connected with the subject to be neutral. So, we require connected contributors to disclose their connection with the subject and have all their edits go through peer review. That means creating articles only as drafts that go through the WP:AFC process, and once the article is accepted and published, using WP:Edit Requests at the article talk page. See WP:COI. If you have any financial interest, WP:PAID applies. You must disclose your COI/PAID status, or make a firm/explicit denial that you are in no way connected with the subject before you continue editing on a subject that another editor in good faith has queried to you about having a COI about. So, please read WP:COI and specially carefully read WP:PAID, and disclose your relationship with the company as instructed there if you do have a connection, or otherwise deny having the conflict of interest, for example at your userpage or the draft's talk page and then continue editing.

I think that about covers it. Feel free to ask a follow-up as necessary, after you have carefully considered my comment supplemented with a careful reading of the pages as suggested. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 07:39, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I'm thinking of a bot concept that allows the automatic, non-controversial tagging and cleanup of certain articles. It can, for example, add tags like {{lead too long}} or {{Uncategorized}}, but not, for example, {{copy edit}}. It can also potentially tag articles unsourced for an extended period of time for PRODding. What would be your opinions on this potential bot? Thanks. tLoM (The Lord of Math) (Message) 13:14, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Hello, I like your proposal, but WP:Bot requests is probably the better place to post this. PorkchopGMX (talk with me - what i've done) 13:32, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

The Lord of Math, you might also want to open a discussion at either Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab) or Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals), as this would likely have more impacts than a typical bot. ~~ Alex Noble - talk 13:34, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

@Alex Noble and PorkchopGMX: Thanks. BRFA required a "consensus" for bot tasks and I'm looking for one. So is Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) the preferred location for obtaining it?Thanks. tLoM (The Lord of Math) (Message) 13:50, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

The Lord of Math, Proposals would be the where consensus is made; the idea lab is for developing the details before it goes to proposals. ~~ Alex Noble - talk 13:58, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

All I know is that Widr blocked me with Vandalism and I have never been on this site prior to today. Those claims made against me are fraudulent, unfounded and slanderous. I will take this to a higher court if need be. I don.t have a user name  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.24.66.119 (talk) 14:15, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

All I know is that Widr blocked me with Vandalism and I have never been on this site prior to today. Those claims made against me are fraudulent, unfounded and slanderous. I will take this to a higher court if need be.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.24.66.119 (talk) 14:17, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

If you are blocked, you must make a formal unblock request on your user talk page, instructions should be provided there. You should also be aware of no legal threats. 331dot (talk) 14:34, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

First, that is a 31 hour block, so calm down. Second, given you have not registered an account, a different person may have created content ("vandalism") that led to the block. Best recourse if you want to continue being a Wikipedia editor is to register an account. And yeah, stop with the "higher court" threats, as there is no higher court. David notMD (talk) 15:14, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

David notMD, just for clarification: the 31-hour block was enacted after the question was posted, and was not the one mentioned in the OP. Moaz786 (talk to me or see what I've been doing) 15:56, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter Maybe Dstar (d*(380)hexaquarks should be added to this wiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.230.68.79 (talk) 09:40, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Hello IP editor! Improvements to articles are best discussed at their corresponding talk pages, in this case at Talk:Dark matter. Best, Usedtobecool ☎️ 10:18, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Please make a request at Talk:Dark matter - at the help desk we aren't experts in every single topic area on the Wiki, and the editors that watch the article's talk page are much more likely to know what they're talking about, and so can make a better decision about inclusion in the article. ~~ Alex Noble - talk 16:14, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi, apologies for asking another question. I wrote an article (Pride in STEM), and nominated it to appear at WP:DYK. I then made contact with the organisation to ask a question, and at the same time informed them that they now had a Wikipedia page article. As part of their reply, they sent back some links to third-party reliable sources, which contain information I'd like to add to the article. I just want to check—does the existence of that conversation constitute a WP:COI? They haven't supplied me with any text to add, they're not paying me, and I'm not a member of the organisation, nor do I know personally any of its members. YorkshireLad (talk) 15:58, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

YorkshireLad Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. You don't need to inform the subject of the existence of an article(not just "page", a subtle but important distinction). Since you have been in contact with them and they have provided you with information that you intend to use, you should declare that as a COI. It's not paid editing(a different policy). Just my opinion. 331dot (talk) 16:17, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

On "page" vs. "article": Thanks, I've corrected myself above (I got it right the other two times, though!) YorkshireLad (talk) 16:24, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

YorkshireLad, I wouldn't call this a conflict of interest. Yes, there might be a bit of a conflict, but realistically, we all have some form of conflict of interest with everything. You might want to mention that they sent the sources in an edit summary, but I wouldn't expect an editor to do anything more. Just bear in mind that they aren't going to send you sources critical of them. ~~ Alex Noble - talk 16:20, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Alex Noble That's essentially what I was saying, they should note that they have been in contact with the organization. That's all. 331dot (talk) 16:22, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

331dot, edit conflict. I wasn't disagreeing with you, but replylink doesn't tell you until it's been posted. ~~ Alex Noble - talk 16:27, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Okay, so an edit summary should be fine, rather than a declaration on the talk page? (I haven't normally contacted people to tell them they have a Wikipedia article, by the way! They're just quite a small operation—one that meets WP:GNG, but nevertheless small-scale—so I thought they might be interested to know.) YorkshireLad (talk) 16:25, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

YorkshireLad, personally;

• No need for COI template on user page {{UserboxCOI}}
• {{Connected contributor}} is debatable - you aren't really connected to the group, but it wouldn't harm to use if you want to be cautious
• Definitely mention in edit summary, or in any discussion you're involved with about the article. ~~ Alex Noble - talk 16:34, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Under use in combat there is only 1 entry. I know of another confirmed case where this weapon or weapon alteration kit was used. It was used on the night of 20-21st of January 2019 by the Israeli air force in a strike on Qatana, Syria.

https://twitter.com/QalaatAlMudiq/status/1087798994712084481

I know Wikipedia editors usually use largely unsourced articles as sources, but I find direct evidence to be much more convincing. Can someone update the page for me? Or can someone make me an extended confirmed user so I can do it myself? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yuvaez (talk • contribs)

Yuvaez, Please ask at Talk:Spice (bomb), using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. We aren't subject experts on every topic here, and it is better for the people knowledgeable about the topic to answer edit requests. ~~ Alex Noble - talk 16:37, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

but also, I imagine that you will need a better citation than a twitter account. We can't use original research for our articles, as there is no way for use to verify it - see wp:nor. ~~ Alex Noble - talk 16:41, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi there. I couldn't have https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Olga_Sorkine-Hornung.jpg being displayed in the infobox in Olga_Sorkine-Hornung. Can somebody pls fix that. p.s. uploading the same file to Commons didn't help: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Olga_Sorkine-Hornung.jpg

 Done There was a duplicate image = parameter in the template. Deleting the dup fixed the problem. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 19:09, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

I am a new user called Quantum squid and want to know how to add pictures to a page. Please help me. —Preceding undated comment added 19:10, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Quantum squid88, where are the pictures at present? The answer is very different for (1) "in my camera", (2) "on Wikimedia Commons", (3) "I found them on the internet", etc. Maproom (talk) 19:21, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Quantum squid88, Thanks for wanting to contribute here. The steps to add pictures are different depending on what type of images you want to add.

If you want to add images that are already either uploaded to the English Wikipedia, or on Wikimedia Commons (our store of free media), this is done by adding [[file:imagename.jpg|caption]] to an article - see Help:Pictures for the details

If you want to add new images, not yet on Commons or the English Wikipedia, it gets more complicated:

• Firstly, did you take the images? If so, commons:Special:UploadWizard

• If not; are they released under a free license - (most Creative Commons licenses, except ones that include no derivatives and no commercial use), also commons:Special:UploadWizard

• If not either of the above, it gets more complicated. 99% of the time we can't just use images taken off the internet.

Have a read of wp:Non free content criteria, then submit a request at wp:files for upload, where experienced volunteers will handle the image . ~~ Alex Noble - talk 19:21, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

What does it mean? I tried to edit without using my account. i did nothing wrong as well, just trying to input the scores for an n.c. state basketball game. can someone explain plz? — Preceding unsigned comment added by WizardGoose1921 (talk • contribs) 20:22, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Please, see Wikipedia:Blocking_IP_addresses and WP:SOFTBLOCK. Ruslik_Zero 20:49, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

While creating an article. Is it best to cite sources that are already on wikipedia or sources outside wikipedia? Part of me thinks if sources are already on wikipedia, they've been already vetted so that may be the best way to go but please let me know. Thank you so much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Msansevieri (talk • contribs)

Msansevieri Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. It's certainly easier to use more well-known sources that are often used on Wikipedia, but if you have a source that you truly believe meets the criteria of a reliable source(in short, a source with a reputation of editorial control and fact checking), you are welcome to use it. The worst that will happen is that someone might disagree and ask you to support what you are trying to do. 331dot (talk) 16:24, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Msansevieri. Unfortunately the assumption that sources used in a Wikipedia article have "been already vetted" is not a safe assumption. If it is a Good article or a Featured article, the assumption is probably good; if it was created in the last five years, it's likely to have been vetted at some time (though it can happen that people insert badly-referenced material later). But many older articles are significantly substandard: more often, they lack references, but there are many which do contain references, but to unreliable sources. --ColinFine (talk) 21:49, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Is it possible for a copyeditor (who is not the original author of an article) to modify or update a reference? In my case, a new edition of a reference work has made a small change to an earlier edition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rogermccart (talk • contribs) 13:54, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Rogermccart Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Any editor is welcome to edit any article, editors that create an article have no more rights to it than any other editor. If you are concerned about stepping on others' toes, you can first discuss what you want to do on the article talk page. 331dot (talk) 14:36, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

@Rogermccart: Welcome to the Teahouse! Please remember that no one owns an article and you are always encouraged to be bold with your edits regardless of whether you're copyediting or modifying references. I also wanted to say thanks for your copyediting; if you're interested, the Guild of Copyeditors is always happy to accept new members if you want a centralised place for articles that need copyediting. We're in a month-long drive for completing old copyedit-tagged articles if you want to participate. --Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 21:56, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Many newspapers are limiting the number of "free Articles" a person can view on their website. For many, this includes archived articles that go a long way in expanding the Wikipedia pages of individuals which are considered stubs. So my question is this: How do we balance this issue going forward? This likely to become a huge issue in the future with more and more outlets doing this, or in some cases, requiring a paid subscription just to view any articles. How can we cut this problem off at the pass? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sportsfan1976 (talk • contribs) 21:33, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Sportsfan1976, Wikipedia policy says that a resource doesn't have to be easy (or free) to access, just that it be available in some way. So sources behind paywalls are acceptable (if they are reliable of course): see WP:PAYWALL. We also have the resource exchange for helping people get at sources they do not have direct access to. --ColinFine (talk) 21:56, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Please help me

I wrote The article List of leaders of dependent territories in 2017 which was not accepted for publication. I specify that all information was entered in good faith and after it was verified in the available sources. The article The article was considered unpublishable for reasons related to the missing citations from reliable, independent sources and to insufficient context for those unfamiliar with the subject matter. I don’t know what I can do. This article is of the chronological list type. For such articles, it is not possible to insert citations, because such citations do not exist. I wrote this article starting from the data presented in the websites which I presented as External links and from the results of my own research on various websites of the authorities that appear for different entities or on the site of CIA World Facebook, old editions.. On the other hand, the sites Rulers and World Statesmen are the most reliable sources in the field of arkhontology which can be easily accessed. If I try to find information from the press this would be a long research and I am not sure that I will find information for all the events that took place so long ago. On the other hand, quoting such sources would lead to a volume of information that would exceed the actual article. On the other hand I do not know what information I could add for those unfamiliar with the topic. I believe that the terms regarding the territorial entities and the functions of the leaders of its can be accessed implicitly through the links within the article. I do not think it is possible that a person who does not have at least elementary knowledge about the problems exposed would be interested in accessing the article. Starting from the above, please help me and suggest what should be added and what the modified event should be for the article to be publishable. I mention that I have a masters degree in political science so I think I have knowledge that will qualify me in approaching the problem.

Bogdan Ulaia 14:50, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Bogdan Uleia Please only seek assistance in one location. 331dot (talk) 14:59, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Bogdan Uleia, I just took a look at your draft and I could not find a single citation in it. As well as that, the reason that your submission was declined, was because it didn't provide context to people unfamiliar with the subject. It was an extensive list and used templates, but how were we to know it wasn't just random? I suggest you read WP:WBA for more info. Also, you sign your talk messages by using 4 tildes, like this ~~~~ Bᴇʀʀᴇʟʏ • ^{Talk to me}∕_{What have I been doing} 15:40, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

@Bogdan Uleia: Welcome to the Teahouse. Other than the question that Berrely asked you, what do your yearly articles contribute that the current list of leaders of dependent territories article doesn't? --Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 22:01, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi , so I'm a new member (registered yesterday) and I think I read on some article that I need to be autoconfirmed to add photos on pages, how do I know I'm autoconfirmed or not and do I need to wait 4 days to add pictures to pages ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meem0408 (talk • contribs) 17:45, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Meem0408 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Thanks for being willing to participate. You have met the 10 edits requirement to be autoconfirmed, but your account must be four days old, which it won't be until a few hours into March 8th. You won't be able to upload images until then. 331dot (talk) 17:49, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Meem0408, if the images are your own, or are released under a free license, you can upload them at commons:main page now.

If the images are under fair use, you can make a request at wp:files for upload, although it may be quicker to just wait until you are autoconfirmed. ~~ Alex Noble - talk 18:39, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi Meem0408. Being autoconfirmed will allow you to upload images to Wikipedia, but before you do so I suggest carefully reading Wikipedia:Image use policy, Wikipedia:Non-free content and c:Commons:Licensing. Image licensing and use can be tricky and it's easy to make mistakes. Lots of people upload images, but many of these end up being deleted shortly after because their licensing or usage doesn't comply with some relevant Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons policy or guideline. Once you figure out what image you want to upload, where you want to upload it, and which Wikipedia article or page you want to add it to, then you might want to ask for more help at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions, particularly if you're not 100% sure about which license to use for the image. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:07, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

how do u edit I can't find the button? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Waw2 (talk • contribs) 23:17, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi Waw2. Which article do you want to edit? Sometimes an article has been protected by an administrator which means that it may only be edited by certain types of accounts. If that's the case here, then that might explain why you're not seeing an edit button.-- Marchjuly (talk) 23:53, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

विकी लव्स वुमन 2020 किस तरह की प्रतियोगिता है ? कहीं कोई वन स्टॉप सल्यूशन है क्या, जहाँ से सदस्य बनने के बाद कैसे शुरू करें, ये मालूम हो सके

This is the English Wikipedia, so please ask your question in English or get help from another Wikipedia in your language. LPS and MLP Fan (Littlest Pet Shop) (My Little Pony) 18:58, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

@LPS and MLP Fan: Do you know if other language Wikipedias have a place similar to our Teahouse? --Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 22:09, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, you'll find 23 other language equivalents listed under "languages" in the left-hand toolbar. --David Biddulph (talk) 23:55, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

• Translation (from Hindi): What kind of a competition is Wiki Loves Women 2020? Is there a one-stop solution anywhere, where after becoming a member, one could learn how/where to start? Usedtobecool ☎️ 19:09, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

  Header translation: Could Wiki Loves Woman 2020 become a bit more user friendly? Usedtobecool ☎️ 19:12, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

​You are the MVP. --Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 22:09, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

@Wing Commander Anuma Acharya (Retd): Welcome to the Teahouse. I unfortunately cannot help you in Hindi, but the WP:Wiki loves women project focuses on creating African-women based content. The link I provided has more details. --Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 22:09, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

While researching the film The Last Starfighter, links to this page: The Last Starfighter (musical) brought me to this page: Storm Theatre. It seems like one compliments the other, and neither are really that notable for the categories they fall under (Broadway Musicals / Broadway Theaters) here at WP. Question: are they notable enough for inclusion? The Musical can easily be reduced and absorbed into the main Film article under Adaptations considering there really isn't any content or notable links within the musical article. Not really sure what the notability is of the Storm if the only claim to fame is this one musical. Maineartists (talk) 03:10, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi Maineartists. The article about the musical is unsourced and the one about the theatre only has a single citation. At first glance, neither would seem to meet WP:GNG, or any other subject-specific notability guideline. So, if you do some WP:BEFORE and think there's a way to WP:PRESERVE the articles, then that's great for Wikipedia; if you've considered that already, then you can WP:PROD (as long as neither has been prodded before) or start a discussion about them at WP:AFD. You might, however, want to ask about these at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Theatre before any prodding or AFDing just to see if any members of that WikiProject might be able to help out. That's were you're likely going to find editors familiar with this type of thing who might know where to look for sources and how to best assess notability. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:38, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

I have been a longtime Wikipedia lover, but recently, I have been a little vexed with some articles. I would like to point out, that your political articles are becoming very noticeably biased.  In regards to conservatives many assumptions and opinions have been written without scrutiny. On the counterpart, there are many individuals on the liberal side, who's controversies have been omitted or favourably critiqued.  I didn't seek this out. I have just been studying up and could not help from being aware of it.  Mostly of media figures I have been studying.  It's a shame that this isn't free of opinions. I want facts. It's becoming just like another mainstem news outlet.   Please be aware of some your authors and thier biasness.  It does no good for education. Well unless you want to completely brainwash the youth. 

Please, I beg of you.  Thank you for your time.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:989:4401:B0A0:4DC1:6CC8:85F5:AE0C (talk) 05:36, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Hello, IP editor. We deal with specific situations here, so please provide links to specific articles that you think are biased. Otherwise, nobody has a way to respond to your specific concerns, since we have over six million articles. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:59, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Cullen328 An almost weekly target of the "Article X is biased" complaint is Donald Trump. Perhaps that's what the IP is referring to... (just a thought) Mgasparin (talk) 06:19, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Well, Mgasparin, there are dozens of highly experienced editors who work every day to be sure that particular article complies with our policies and guidelines, and those editors have a very wide range of points of views about the current president of the U.S. Every sentence is scrutinized constantly, and the article is the product of consensus. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:29, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

I know, I am one of the editors working on that very article. Mgasparin (talk) 06:31, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your work in that particular battlefield, Mgasparin. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:36, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

I just made an account and I've made edits before, so I'd like to change the attribution for those edits with my IP to my username. I looked up how to do it in the Help, but I'm unsure how to implement it. The specifics are that I made the last 2 edits on Wisconsin Badgers football and probably other edits that I can't think of that I would like to be attributed to this account rather than showing my IP. -Packerfan213 (talk) 07:08, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Hello! Administrators can do that, and I am sure one will be along shortly to help.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 07:30, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi Packerfan213. I actually don't think that can be done. Wikipedia's licensing requires that edits be attributed to each account that made them; so, the edits you made with your IP address are probably going to have to remain attributed to that IP account. I think the best that you can probably do in this case is added something to your new user page stating that you previously edited with that IP account. IP accounts are often used by different people and while I believe you when you say you made the edits, Wikipedia's licensing requirements probably are not going to allow such a thing since it has no way of knowing for sure. Anyway, I'm not an administrator and there is a chance I'm wrong on this; so, if you want a more definitive answer, you can wait unitl one of the administrators who answers questions at the Teahouse comes along or you can ask for assistance at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:45, 6 March 2020 (UTC) Perhaps 331dot, Cullen328 or Nick Moyes can clarify whether this is possible. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:47, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

According to Changing attribution for an edit, it is possible, but I'm confused on the implementation. Do I add the table to the bottom of Wisconsin Badgers football, or have an admin do it? -Packerfan213 (talk) 07:54, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

The notice at the top of that page states "As of 2005, edits are no longer reattributed, so this page is no longer active", Packerfan213. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:00, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Ah, so it does. Rather large oversight from going from a Google result to an article header, my mistake. Packerfan213 (talk) 08:07, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

I wrote the article American Banjo Museum. The article was correctly tagged as being written from a fan's point of view, rather than a neutral point of view, and written like a personal reflection, personal essay, or argumentative essay that states a Wikipedia editor's personal feelings or presents an original argument about a topic. I think I have addresses these issues. Would someone look at the article to we if that’s true. I want to migrate sections to the banjo article, but wan’t to be sure I have satisfied the cleanup first. Thanks, Jacqke (talk) 22:07, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Jacqke, and thanks for taking the time and dedication to improve the article. At a quick glance I believe the language could be toned down even more to be neutral.

Shameless plug: If you'd like someone to look it over thoroughly you are welcome to leave a request at the Guild of Copyeditors' request page and someone can take it on for you; you are welcome to keep making changes to it in the meantime should you choose to do so. --Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 22:19, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. If it needs more neutrality, I’ll keep working in it. I'm still too close to writing it to be objective right now. Jacqke (talk) 22:34, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Jacqke. The article is very interesting and the opening paragraphs seemed quite neutral to me. Then, I ran across the statement "the banjo took on a role as big as the electric guitar holds in music today", and that statement impressed me so much that I read the two references that follow that assertion, and neither said anything like that. Please remember that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and you really ought to provide a reference to a high quality academic source to make that particular claim. Certainly not the museum itself. You may be correct that some of this content belongs in Banjo because an article about a museum should summarize what independent sources say about the museum, not what this museum says about itself, or what it teaches people who spend all day studying its exhibits. So, go though the article asking yourself if every sentence summarizes what reliable sources independent of the museum say about the museum. Anything else should be removed quite ruthlessly. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:23, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Hello Cullen328 Thank you for your appraisal and for taking the time to look at the sources. I will definitely follow your advice. I will seek out a wider group of sources not associated with the museum. On that note, I am waiting for the arrival of history books to broaden my sources. I will cut things from the article that aren't about the museum itself. I will go back through my sources to make sure they adequately cover the information, line by line. I tend to write after I have dwelled on a large body of information over time. Then it becomes a process of aligning sources with content; I am fairly certain I will find that the line "the banjo took on a role as big as the electric guitar holds in music today" came both from a recording of the museum's audio as well as from a presentation by its executive director. Either way, that line may need trimming from this article, since the question will be, "...What [do] reliable sources independent of the museum say about the museum?" You have given me much to think about and I appreciate yor effort and judgement. Jacqke (talk) 10:14, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Hello fellow editors! I have created an article before for an Swedish album that had an redirect to the page of the artist. The page I am talking about is Darin Zanyar and the album in question was Fjärilar i magen. Before I created the article the album name (in the article for Darin Zanyar) redirected to the page for him, but the User Sulfurboy helped me out with that and now it redirects to my article instead, that I've mentioned above. I just wanted to ask here now when I am making an article for another album of his, "Tvillingen", if there is anything I have to do before creating it, since it also redirects to the same page for the artist. You'll find the album I am talking about under "Discography" on Darin Zanyar. Thank you in advance! Zandor (talk) 18:15, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

DariuZzandor, I am not sure what the problem was or how Sulfurboy helped you but in case of Tvillingen, you should be fine just removing the redirect and converting it into an article. Best, Usedtobecool ☎️ 19:39, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Usedtobecool Thank you for the quick answer! I don't really know if there was a problem to begin with, but he helped me with nominating the redirect-page for deletion, which I believe is what you are recommending to me now. After that my page could be seen and I could link to it instead of the redirect. I have looked around how to nominate the redirect for deletion my self but I haven´t really understood the instructions, could you help me with this in any way? Thanks again :) Edit: Do you mean i should change this page to an article directly by removing the redirect and paste my already written information? Zandor (talk) 19:48, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

DariuZzandor, I did not know you'd already written up the article on your user subpage, so yeah, that's what I meant, just hit edit on that redirect page and add all the content to make it into an article. Although copy-pasting is generally a bad idea, in this case, there are little downsides. So, you could do it. But I think either a WP:HISTMERGE or a WP:MOVE would be better. So, we need an administrator or at least a pagemover, I think. @Cullen328, Nick Moyes, and 331dot: -- Usedtobecool ☎️ 07:44, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Oh, sorry for leaving that information out. I thought I could write it on my subpage just to have it ready after the deletion of the redirect had been made. However, I will wait for the administrators to act in this matter, thank you again Usedtobecool for your help. Zandor (talk) 09:22, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

DariuZzandor, if you don't get a reply here, either use copy-pasting or try WP:RM#TR. If you don't care about the edit history of all the work you did in your userspace, copy-pasting is fine. It's just that having a history would be helpful if one needed to get back to a previous version, which will be left behind in your userspace if you copy-paste. Usedtobecool ☎️ 10:16, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi, please tell how to make a knowledge panel. Thank You.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Suparno123 (talk • contribs)

Suparno123 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. If you are referring to Google knowledge panels, that come up in search results, you will have to contact Google for information. 331dot (talk) 15:58, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

@Suparno123: You may be referring to an Infobox that appears in some articles. Check out Help:Infobox for guidance on that. RudolfRed (talk) 17:12, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

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

In reviewing this page it was evident to me the photo of the house shown is not the Ashlawn that's included in the National Register of Historic places. Instead, the house which is, in fact, Ashlawn is maybe just a half mile or so away. The error was probably due to a misunderstanding in the application for recognition in the "National Register". When reading the application it cites the house as 1 Potash Hill Rd. I don't know if it was a mistake at the time or the street numbering has changed. In any event, the current address of Ashlawn is 179 Potash Hill Rd. The photo of the house shown on the referenced page may be 1 Potash Hill Rd, but it is not Ashlawn. The House in the National Register can be seen here: https://historicbuildingsct.com/ashlawn-1790/ Please note the photographer of the house also discusses the address problem.

I have tried to edit the photo several times, to no avail. I used the photo in the later link, which I don't believe is copyrighted, but was continuously unsuccessful. I don't believe there are any other errors in the article, beside the photo.

As far as any cites go, I grew up in the area and know which house is Ashlawn.

Thomas F. Lepore (talk) 03:11, 6 March 2020 (UTC)Thomas F. Lepore

Hi Thomas F. Lepore. This sounds like something you might want to start a discussion about at Talk:Ashlawn. Starting a discussion about this on the article's talk page, will make it much easier for others who might also be knowledgable about the subject matter to join in. For obvious reasons, Wikipedia would want the photo used in the article to actually be of the right house, but sometimes whether that's the case might take some discussing to sort out. While I've got no reason to doubt you probably right about this, Wikipedia's standards are more stringent, and therefore something more than just taking you by your word is going to be needed. The current photo used in the article states it was taken back in 2008; so, if the house is still standing, then the easiest way to resolve this would to simply take a current photo of the house, compare the two, and see if or how they are different.

I'm not sure what problem you're having in trying to upload a new photo of the house, but if the house is still standing, then pretty much any copyrighted photo you find online of it is not going to be accepted per Wikipedia's non-free content use criterion #1 of Wikipedia's non-free content use policy as long as it possible for someone to simply take a photo of the house and upload it under a free license that Wikipedia accepts. So, unless you can do this yourself, convince someone else to do so, of get someone who's already done to agree to release their photo under such a free license, a new photo is going to be hard to upload. That doesn't mean that the other photo cannot be removed if it's clearly the wrong photo, but it might mean that article will have to go photo-less untll another suitable image is found or created. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:28, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

@Thomas F. Lepore: I've copied your concern to Talk:Ashlawn. Look for further responses there. Deor (talk) 18:23, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Hallo,

IHF World Men´s Handball Championship Tournaments 2023 Details Poland/Sweden

Qualification "The World Championship organizers will be directly qualified, ............ 32 places are distributed as follows:

+ Host nations: 2 + Reigning world championship: 1 + Africa: 6 + Asia: 4 + Europe: 12 + Pan America: 5 + Oceania World Card: 1 + Wild Card: 1

                              32 Teams

Look at Europe. Here can you read Europe 12 Teams.

Competition Dates Host Vacancies Qualified

Host nations 2 Reigning world championship 1 Africa 6 Asia 4 2022 European Men´s Handball Championship 4 Teams Pan America 5 European qualification 9 Teams Oceania/ Wild Card 1 Wild Card 1

                                               33 Teams

33 Teams is wrong.

What is right:

Europe 12 Teams or 2022 European Men´s Handball Championship 4 Teams plus European qualification 9 Teams = 13 Teams

Best wishes Manfred Kirsch — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.221.73.217 (talk) 12:05, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

What does all that mess mean...? --CiaPan (talk) 12:47, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

It may be about 2023_World_Men's_Handball_Championship. In any case, the best place to report an error is the talk page of the article in question. Maproom (talk) 12:55, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

But I can't see any error here. An error is usually a wrong word, an incorrect number, a misplaced sentence... Something that can be specified or pointed at. We got an unformatted copy of some data (without information if it is from Wikipedia or some other source) and one sentence "What is right", with no obvious connection to any specific part of the jammed data above it. Whatever it is, it certainly is not an error report. CiaPan (talk) 13:08, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

It makes more sense if you look at it in source form. In any case, it's correct that the original poster should discuss it at Talk:2023_World_Men's_Handball_Championship. I'd suggest simply providing a link to the source of the data that you posted. If you need to post parts of it and retain the formatting, put <pre> before it and </pre> after it. Place your comments after it (outside the pre tags). —[AlanM1(talk)]— 21:15, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I'm editing the Bob Quaranta article. The article has existed for about 10 years and now I'm being told it's not notable. As far as notability for a musician, the article sites associations, thru recordings, with a number of artists including Mongo Santamaria, Willie Colon, Adalberto Santiago, Jellybean Benitez and Ed Palermo BiG Band as well as Grammy nominations and chart positions for a few of these recordings. The information can be seen on Allmusic and Discogs which are listed as External References. The references have been criticized because they only mention Bob Quaranta as part of the overall article. I've been editing the article to try to bring it up to speed. My question would be how to fix this article for resubmission. Thank youDontwantone (talk) 15:57, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Dontwantone, here on Wikipedia, we use the word "notable" in an idiosyncratic way. It doesn't apply to articles, it applies to the subjects of articles. It means that the subject (in this case, Quarantina) has been discussed at length in several reliable independent sources. So, you need to find such sources and cite them in the draft. Writing about him here on the Teahouse won't persuade anyone. Maproom (talk) 16:55, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Courtesy: Item is now Draft:Bob Quaranta, as rather than pursuing an undeletion, content submitted as a draft (and declined, most recently 6 MArch). David notMD (talk) 18:12, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

As noted below, creator of the draft decided to end the effort, so draft no longer exists. David notMD (talk) 18:49, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Hello! ^_^ . I don't know If I actually changed anything, but I can't "Edit source", only that "Edit" that I can't ever understand and I prefer to edit as I did formerly, how can I change to that preference or it's default on Wikipedia now?, hope you can understand me ^_^ --CoryGlee (talk) 22:09, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

@CoryGlee: Welcome to the Teahouse! From your question I believe you do not want to use the VisualEditor? If that's the case, go to your Preferences → Editing → "Temporarily disable the visual editor while it is in beta". --Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 22:38, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

@Tenryuu: Excellent!, thank you very much!. ^_^ --CoryGlee (talk) 22:45, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

What should I work on? Do I need approval from one of the Wikipedia bosses before doing any big edits? — Preceding unsigned comment added by FoxyLOL (talk • contribs) 20:19, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

@FoxyLOL:, you should work on whatever strikes your fancy. Some people make large content changes or create new articles. Some people work on grammar and proofreading-type issues. Some people work on behind-the-scenes maintenance. There's a lot of opportunity and variation. New editors are often advised to start with smaller edits to existing articles and the Category:Articles needing cleanup has ~20,000 article to choose from. You don't need anyone's approval to edit (hence "anyone can edit") but you do need to follow certain policies and guidelines. This link goes to a page specifically designed to get new users started. I hope this helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:30, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

20,000 articles? I'll never finish that. Those links are helpful, but that sure is copious. Are all the rules and guidelines equally important? — Preceding unsigned comment added by FoxyLOL (talk • contribs) 20:33, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

FoxyLOL, I would personally recommend looking at Wikipedia:Everything you need to know, a very brief overview of the most important policies. If you know these, you'll probably be fine, and will pick up the rest whilst editing.

In terms of tasks to do, we have Wikipedia:Task Center, which is designed to showcase to newer users the kind of maintenance tasks you can do. ~~ Alex Noble - talk 21:18, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

That is simpler, thank you! There is so much to do here! — Preceding unsigned comment added by FoxyLOL (talk • contribs) 21:22, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

FoxyLOL, There is a lot to do- sometimes it seems overwhelming but if a lot of editors do a little, we'll get there. S Philbrick(Talk) 21:51, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

@FoxyLOL: Shameless plug: If you're interested in copyediting, you will be glad to hear that we have a Guild of Copyeditors here on Wikipedia where we focus on getting rid of as many copyedit tags on articles as we can. We currently have a month-long drive in clearing those tags if you're interested. :) --Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 22:13, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

You can stop socking. That's what. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 00:19, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Flyer - Are you privy to evidence that FoxyLOL is a sockpuppet? Otherwise, your comment appears unfounded, and rude. Also, you appear to have a vendetta against FoxyLOL, as you appear to have reverted every edit. David notMD (talk) 01:54, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

@Flyer22 Frozen: If you have evidence that FoxyLOL is a sockpuppet please submit it to WP:SPI. --Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 02:48, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

I do not understand. What am I doing wrong? I made small improvements as I read pages, is that wrong? What am I supposed to stop exactly? — Preceding unsigned comment added by FoxyLOL (talk • contribs) 04:34, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

@FoxyLOL:, the user @Flyer22 Frozen: is suggesting that you/your account is a Sockpuppet of someone else who is misbehaving on Wikipedia by using two or more accounts simultaneously to deceive other users and perpetrate mischief (see Wikipedia:Sock puppetry).

My reply here explaining this Assumes Good Faith in your not being a sockpuppet and in Flyer22 Frozen being mistaken. I myself have absolutely no view on the issue and will not be drawn into further discussion of it. Others may well pursue the matter, since both sockpuppetry and false/mistaken accusations of it are considered serious breaches of conduct on Wikipedia. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.123.27.199 (talk) 21:08, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

David notMD, yes, I am privy to evidence that FoxyLOL is a sockpuppet. I would not have reverted all of FoxyLOL's edits and stated what I stated above if I wasn't. Many editors know that. FoxyLOL's behavior is the same as a well-known sockpuppet. A WP:CheckUser has been run on the account, and the CheckUser was clear that the account was using a colocation host and that the colohost has been blocked. So if I report FoxyLOL in an SPI without CheckUser evidence identifying them, it will need to be based on behavioral evidence. I was not expecting a host to be used since this sock doesn't regularly use one. I wasn't expecting the sock to somewhat (emphasis on "somewhat") alter their useragent. If FoxyLOL wants to continue on with the FoxyLOL account instead of ditching it, so be it. Like I stated in a recent sock case resolved on my talk page, I can wait. I can wait for FoxyLOL to edit without their colohost and to make more edits that will lend evidence to an SPI report. Even if they get a new colohost, the behavioral evidence will pile up. As for being rude to socks and reverting their edits, and vendettas? Yes, just like in this other recent case, which I ended up taking to SPI, I am rude to socks who keep wasting my and others' time, especially when they scream that they aren't a sock and call me a cunt. Yes, per WP:EVADE, and unless they reverted vandalism or other disruptive editing, I may revert them across the board even if their edits are improvements. Vendetta? The only way I could have a vendetta against someone is if I'm familiar with them, which would make FoxyLOL non-new. But reverting FoxyLOL is not about a vendetta; it's about WP:Deny. I'm not going to debate WP:Assume good faith, which doesn't mean I need to play dumb. I don't need advice about taking things to WP:SPI or not stating anything about someone being a sock until I report them in an SPI. The top of my user page/talk page is clear about how I feel about and go about these things, and so is the aforementioned sock case that was resolved on my talk page. If you or others reply to me on this, there is no need to ping me. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 22:59, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

When I look at FoxyLOL's contribs, all I see is a bunch of gnomish grammar/style edits that could be anyone. Flyer22, could you share with us whom you think the behavioural pattern points to? Also, where you say there is no need to ping me, does that mean you are checking back on this thread, or that you don't intend to reply even if pinged? Pelagic (talk)

Merhaba Reklam amacı olamayan, 3 gündür üzerinde çalıştığım madde silindi. her defa maddeyi yazıyorum. yine siliniyor. wikipedia editörü olmak istiyorum. lütfen yardımcı olun — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aytemiz1 (talk • contribs) 22:51, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

@Aytemiz1: Welcome to the Teahouse. This is the English Wikipedia; were you perhaps trying to get to the Vikipedi? --Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 23:03, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

I am in a minor dispute over an article’s notability and the other user cited https://www.hopechannel.nz/show/the-story-keepers/ as an establishment of notability. Is this correct, and if not what should I do? 98.127.4.44 (talk) 21:16, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

The source the other user cited seems to just be a list of episodes with short descriptions. That would not be considered significant coverage. Also, it seems to be on the website of the company that produces it, in which case it also isn't independent. Given that all the sources currently used in the article are the show's episodes themselves, I definitely agree that it should be deleted. However, in your deletion proposal, you should probably have just left it at "no indication of notability" - especially "our notability guidelines" sounds like you're trying to speak for Wikipedia, which might be why the deletion was objected to. Next, you could try to get it deleted through Articles for Deletion, which is a slightly more complicated prodedure, but certainly doable. Keep your motivation simple: a quick description of how terrible the sources are should be enough. Kind regards from PJvanMill (talk) 23:25, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Deeply appreciated. Thanks! 98.127.4.44 (talk) 23:43, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

As new to editing, I would like to add topics to wikipedia, and don't know how. This is one issue. Another is that I would like to add to certain pages and don't really have the expertise to do so at this time. Some things are very basic and seem simple enough, but it can get a little confusing, I would assume until you 'learn' the pattern of how to properly include something.

As an example, I know a professional musician who plays numerous musical instruments. This musician has a page which someone created. I made a few corrections on the page and added, in addition to drums, which this musician does play, the rest of the musical instruments that this musician plays. Shortly, there after, a couple days later, the additional instruments were removed and cited as not being known for playing any instrument but drums. Now, if you go on this musician's youtube channel or other social media channels, you will see this musician playing other instruments besides drums. Plus, there are numerous public interviews, including TV interviews where this musician clearly states what instruments that which they play. I am not sure what kind of 'support' you would need besides visual evidence that the person does play those instruments and where they publicly state that they play those instruments.

So this is something I am trying to figure out. Not to put up anything about someone that isn't true but should be up on a public page like wikipedia as they have this skill set.

Any suggestions or direction would be appreciated.

Thanks, Bill — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tibetbill (talk • contribs) 21:24, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi, Tibetbill! Adding new articles is one of most difficult tasks at Wikipedia. I'd rather suggest you to start from small improvements and expansions of existing articles, so that you learn all technical details necessary for proper composing and formatting articles before you try to create a brand new one. Meanwhile please see the links I added at your talk page in the User talk:Tibetbill#Welcome! section – they will provide you with useful informations and hints about contributing. Happy editing! CiaPan (talk) 22:20, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Tibetbill. To your example: Wikipedia is pretty strict when it comes to biographies of living persons. Basically, everything has to be backed up by a source. If you want the information to be in the article, you should add a statement in the text of the article (not in the small information box) saying that she also plays this and that other instrument and then add a reference to back your statement up, for example to one of those interviews you mentioned. For how to make the reference, see Wikipedia:Tutorial/Citing sources. The reason it should be in the text and not in the box is because the box is supposed to contain only the most important information, and the instrument she is known for is drums. Kind regards from PJvanMill (talk) 23:52, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

I will add that interviews with the subject of a biography article are usually not accepted a reliable sources, as a person can say whatever they wish. David notMD (talk) 00:29, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Hello, I'm quite new to wikipedia and I am currently creating an article of a secondary school. Unfortunately, it got declined. It was due to not enough significant coverage of it. And the reference may not be able to be verified. I would like to ask how to improve the above problems. I understand the content may not be enough but how can I cite some more reliable reference? For a school, how can I cite some reference that can be verified? Please help, thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HunterThePenguin (talk • contribs) 16:02, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

HunterThePenguin Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia has articles about subjects that receive significant coverage in independent reliable sources, showing how they meet Wikipedia's special definition of notability Secondary schools are often notable, but there must be information from independent sources that do more than just cite the existence of the school. These might be news reports about the school itself, independent reviews, anything more than routine coverage. You may find it helpful to read Your First Article. Things like the school song and classes really should not be in the article unless those aspects are significantly discussed in independent sources. 331dot (talk) 16:08, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for responding 331dot, what about news article that may possibly promoting the school? i.e. reporting about certain aspects about the school that is good, or awards etc. Will these article be seen as advertising? How can I cite them properly. Thz! HunterThePenguin (talk) 16:24, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Previously I have mistakenly read the wrong feedback of the reviewer. Two attempts were declined due to my article is possibly not too neutral and the coverage is not significant enough. Since a lot of references are from the school websites or other possible promotions they made. I understand the tone may not be too appropriate. I think I can handle that part. Unfortunately, I would like to know how significant the coverage should be. For a school, what kind of information is needed to make it more full? Any help would be appreciated. Thank you. HunterThePenguin (talk) 16:51, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Courtesy link: Draft:Carmel Secondary School.   Maproom (talk) 16:57, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

HunterThePenguin Significant coverage goes beyond routine coverage and basic announcements. A news story that just tells of the existence of the school would not be appropriate; a news source that discusses some aspect of the school in depth(such as if a news organization chose to write about the education system of the school, or misconduct by staff, or anything as long as it is in depth). Mere announcements of awards or events at the school do not usually qualify; unless is a major, significant award or event.

Are you an employee of the school? 331dot (talk) 17:04, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

No. I create this page purely because I think the English information of this school is lacking as it also has a Chinese wikipedia page. Since it's an EMI school, I find it suitable to create a page for it. Perhaps I should collect more information before I resubmit next time instead. ZeroApocalypse (talk) 03:31, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Courtesy: the query editor (Hunter...) has changed name to User:ZeroApocalypse. David notMD (talk) 18:51, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Is it possible to print a draft article before publishing, so that I can edit it/mark it up manually, then make the changes on Wikipedia and publish?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by LPascal (talk • contribs) 04:33, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, LPascal. It is possible; just look at the sidebar to the left, under the Print/Export heading, and click either "Download as PDF" or "Printable version". --Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 04:48, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

I am currently working on improving the Nokia Android smartphones articles and I’m currently working on the articles of the first series of phones. I noticed that in most articles the product price is mentioned mainly in Euros but I don’t know if it is acceptable on Wikipedia. What I feel is that:

1. Since smartphone prices can vary over time and in different countries (taxes, marketing strategy etc.), there is no point in adding it
2. However, in some cases, the price can be notable (for eg. If the price is the highest or lowest for a production smartphone)

So, is it appropriate to add such info to an article, especially when the phone is not as popular as flagships? Besides, is there any place besides the teahouse where I can ask topic-specific doubts (because I have the feeling I’m asking too many questions here alone)? RedBulbBlueBlood9911 (talk) 06:53, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

RedBulbBlueBlood9911, see WP:NOPRICE, point 5 in particular. The best place to ask is the article talk page. If there is low activity on the article or the question is more general, ask at the talk page of relevant WikiProjects. If you want to know whether a particular guideline or policy applies in a particular case, ask at the talk page of that policy/guideline page. For example, there is a discussion related to NOTPRICES at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not. Asking here is fine too. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 07:23, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

There's also {{help}} and {{admin help}} to advertise a request for help from experienced editors and admins respectively in whichever talk page you happen to be. Usedtobecool ☎️ 07:27, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

I have to admit that a lot of the way articles on Wikipedia are formatted is beyond me. That's what's kept me from creating an account and becoming a regular participant. Every once in a while I'll see a grammar error and correct it but that's been about it - until today. I happened to see a picture while checking out Charlotte Greenwood's page and saw a picture that was marred with writing and other defects and thought it might be nice to submit (for approval, of course) a cleaned up version of it. For what it's worth, here's a link to it: Charlotte Greenwood Retouched

David C. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.3.138.195 (talk) 03:40, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

As the image is stored at Commons, our store of free media, you are free to make any derivative works.

To do this, go to https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Upload&uploadformstyle=basic, upload your version under a new title, and then copy the file information from commons:File:Charlotte Greenwood NYWTS.jpg into the summary field, which will copy over the license information etc. This is the information starting == {{int:filedesc}} == - Just copy the whole page. ~~ Alex Noble - talk 08:44, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

May please visit my user page--Jotham Mapenhure Zvinongoza (talk) 09:10, 7 March 2020 (UTC)Jotham Mapenhure Zvinongoza

Hello, Jotham Mapenhure Zvinongoza, and welcome to the Teahouse. You have tried to create an article on your user page, but that is not the right place for it, so I have moved your draft to User:Jotham Mapenhure Zvinongoza/Herbert Mahlaba. (It has left your user page redirecting to the draft: you can edit your user page to remove that. Your user page is for telling other editors a bit about yourself as a Wikipedia editor.)

Writing a new article is one of the very hardest tasks in editing Wikipedia: most people think that you do it by writing what you know. Unfortunately, this doesn't work very well, because Wikipedia is not interested in what you know (or what I know, or what any random person on the internet knows): it is interested only in what reliably published independent sources have said about the subject. Writing an article starts with finding published sources (and if you can't find suitable sources, you know there is no point in trying to write an article on the subject). I recommend reading your first article, and User:ian.thomson/Howto. --ColinFine (talk) 09:49, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi! I am a marketing manager. I have submitted this draft article about Alconost Company, but it has been rejected due to the lack of corporate notability. My question is, what exactly can I do to improve the article and make it actually published? 1. Shall it be submitted by someone else, since I'm considered related to the company? (I have take advantage some time ago of its services). 2. Shall I delete some sources which are considered self-published? If so, what sources? 3. Or is it something that I can't change (the company just doesn't have enough reliable links at the moment). I am looking forward to your feedback, thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khristina Adamovich (talk • contribs) 09:03, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi Khristina Adamovich. Since it seems that you are the marketing manager of the company, you probbaly should carefully read through Wikipedia: Conflict of interest, Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide and Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure before you do anything else. The fact that you are employed by the company doesn't mean that the company cannot have an article written about it or that you cannot be the person to do so; it might, however, be quite difficult for you to do so no matter how hard you try to comply with relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines simply because doing so may be contrary what you typically do to market the company; in other words, you might find it hard to write about the company in non-promotional neutral manner, especially if that means including unfavorable information about the company.

As to whether the either you or anyone else can create an article about the company, that is something that's going to depend upon whether the company satisfies Wikipedia: Notability (organizations and companies). If you can show that the company has received significant coverage in multiple independent sources (like what mentioned in Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Significant coverage), then most likely an article can be written; on the other hand, if the only sources you or anyone else is able to find are trivial in nature (e.g. listing in business directories or small blurbs in trade publications), then it's likely going to be hard for anyone to write an article that would survive a deletion discussion. Self-published sources can sometimes be used, but only certain types and only in certain ways. Moreover, badly written articles full of promotional wording, etc. about a Wikipedia notable subject can always be cleaned up; however, even the most perfectly written article about a non-Wikipedia subject is unlikely going to be able to be saved.

One other should you probably should read is Wikipedia:Ownership of content and "Wikipedia's Law of Unintended Consequences". Since your the company's marketing manager, you probably have lots of control over its online presence. A Wikipedia article, however, is not owned by those who create it and the subject it is written about; so, neither you nor anyone associated with the company will have any final editorial say over what type of content is added to the article. Only content deemed in accordance with Wikipedia policies and guidelines will be considered OK, and anything else can be removed by anyone anywhere in the world at anytime. In other words, if your starts to receive some bad press, there's a good chance that such information will eventually find its way into the article. So, you won't be able to use the article to promote the company and you won't be able to automatically keep out anything negative about the company. -- Marchjuly (talk) 09:31, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Khristina said they have take advantage some time ago of its services, so I didn't read their post as implying they work for the company. In that case, I'm not sure what I am a marketing manager is meant to signify. @Khristina Adamovich: without looking at the article myself, if the reason given was "notability", then it's most likely your case #3. Does that help, Khristina? Pelagic (talk) 11:30, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi there,

I'm planning to add a passenger railway map which is a screenshot of my personal website www.railaround.com and a link as an interactive map in one of the "Rail transport by country" articles. Besides COI issues, Billinghurst kindly pointed out that my website would not be considered reliable sources.

Basically, the GIS information of my maps are originally from OpenStreetMap, with corrections by compare with official railway operator manually. I can easily find some other personal made maps in Wikipedia articles and links to those interactive map website. I do want my map to be one of them. So I need suggestions. How to make a non-official map and map website to be a reliable source. Is there anythiny I can do? Please give me some advises. Thanks in advance.

Luojie820 (talk) 11:59, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Luojie820 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. You creating your own map based on various information you have would be original research. You should be citing where you are getting the information and using that information directly, not creating a map of your own based on it and citing your own website. I can't speak to it directly but it is entirely possible the other maps you mention are also inappropriate, as this is a volunteer website where people do what they can when they can, it is possible for inappropriate content to go undetected; we can only address what we know about. The only way you could demonstrate that your website is a reliable source would be if you could show that you are a recognized authority on the issue, with a reputation of fact checking and editorial control- which it doesn't seem that you are. Is there any particular reason you are so interested in directing people to your website? 331dot (talk) 12:15, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Luojie820 I agree with 331dot on this. Guidelines for how we identify reliable sources are found at RS. Your website doesn't have any details that I could see about where the information comes from, who publishes it etc., and so it's not easy to see how a reader could establish its reliability. If I read you correctly, you say that you take GIS data from OpenStreetMap, and then correct it yourself by gathering information from other maps and information sources, but we have no way of confirming whether you have done that work accurately - normally, we would look for a source with an editorial panel checking over the work of its authors, or that is written by academically respected experts in the subject it covers. So, while I am sure you have gone to great efforts to make it accurate, that doesn't mean that it's reliable in the way that we use that term here. GirthSummit _(blether) 12:22, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

331dot, GirthSummit, thank you both for your reply.

As a rail fan, the website I created is purely for my personal hobbie. I travelled a lot, each time before I went abroad, I read "Rail transport by country" series articles in Wikipedia and find a passenger railway map of that country to plan my journey. However, I always found a simple PNG map can not provide enough detailed information. That's the reason I create my website -- an interactive map of pure passenger railway information.

I think if there's currently no similar map with enough authority, the readers of "Rail transport by country" may willing to see a less authority map, even it says "hey, we can not confirm the accurate, errors may contains".

However, I understand your concern and respect all the rules which make Wikipedia such a great place. I just say what I think about of this question and hope it can be understand.

Thanks. Luojie820 (talk) 13:30, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

I would like to submit an article about musician Lee Fardon. Fardon is referenced in several articles but does not yet have his own entry. How do I go about this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fencedown (talk • contribs) 13:33, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Fencedown Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I would first caution you that successfully creating a new article is the hardest task to undertake on Wikipedia. It takes much time and practice. You will increase your chances of success if you first gain experience by editing existing articles in areas that interest you, to get a feel for how Wikipedia operates and what is expected of article content. Users new to creating articles often end up disappointed and with hurt feelings as their work is mercilessly edited and deleted by others, I don't want you to have a bad experience so I strongly advise you to get some experience under your belt. It's also a good idea to use the new user tutorial to learn more about Wikipedia.

However, if you still wish to attempt to create a new article about this musician, you should first read Your First Article as well as the special Wikipedia definition of a notable musician. If Mr. Fardon meets the definition and you have multiple independent reliable sources with significant coverage to support it, you can visit Articles for Creation to create and submit a draft for a review by another editor, that will help find any problems before it is formally part of the encyclopedia, instead of afterwards when it will be treated more critically. 331dot (talk) 13:39, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Hallo I want to inform you that there is no separate article page on Indian Locomotive class WAGC3 and WAG-11. If any one make separate article page on these two locomotives then it will be a very helpful for us. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suvadeep Saha56 (talk • contribs) 09:33, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Suvadeep Saha56, if you are requesting an article be written, you should ask at Wikipedia:Requested articles/Applied arts and sciences/Transport#Rail transport. ~~ Alex Noble - talk 16:54, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Here, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Doppelg%C3%A4nger&action=history , i suspect that a certain website is promoting itself inappropriately on this article. I removed mentions of the website's name, but i am not sure if this is the right call. Can someone confirm if my actions were appropriate?

Not sure if this is the right page for questions like this. If i should post questions like this elsewhere, let me know. I read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox_or_means_of_promotion before making my edit.

--Disoff (talk) 20:35, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi, Disoff. I agree with your edit. If anybody disagrees with it, it is up to them to discuss it with you on the talk page, according to BRD. --ColinFine (talk) 23:19, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

thanks--Disoff (talk) 17:01, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

I want to create a page in wikipedia but don't know which topic to write about. Can someone advise me any topics?I am interested in the field of science and technology , So it would be better if you give related topics — Preceding unsigned comment added by Universology (talk • contribs) 05:55, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

@Universology: Welcome to the Teahouse, and by extension, Wikipedia. If you're looking for suggestions you can go to WP:Teahouse/Suggestions to get SuggestBot up and running on your talk page to give you suggestions every once in a while. Creating an article is one of the most (if not the) difficult things to do on Wikipedia. I suggest reading through Help:Your first article if you want to get introduced to starting articles. You can only start submitting directly to the main articlespace when you're autoconfirmed (i.e., your account is at least 4 days old and has had more than 10 edits made). Otherwise feel free to start a draft in draftspace before putting it up for submission. --Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 06:06, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Update It seems you already have SuggestBot. Ignore my suggestion then. --Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 06:15, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Universology, WP:RA has some categories related to science and technologies where you might find something interesting. Be careful though, not all suggested topics are notable. Check the notability guidelines at WP:N before you begin. You might want to read WP:YFA too. If you are just looking for something to work on without being bothered about the somewhat complicated notability guidelines that we have, you could try working on an article for any species. A list such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Mammals/Missing mammal species might be of help. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 06:17, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

I have been wondering for 3 years now on how to a topic in wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eeskaay (talk • contribs) 17:12, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

I have a difference of opinion with another user whether something is worthy to be included. The item I'd like to include is from the person's official biography and the other user says it shouldn't be included because of WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE. I've read and re-read it and think it's worthy of inclusion. I've already posted the item to the talk page, but I don't think it will generate any traffic unfortunately. I'll give it some time to see, but I'd like to know where I'd go next. thx. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikethewhistle-original (talk • contribs) 15:45, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Mikethewhistle-original You can make your talk page comment a formal Request for comment. If discussion fails to resolve the dispute, you can move to dispute resolution. 331dot (talk) 16:12, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I wasn't sure if 3rd opinion would be a lesser step. Unfortunately the other user feels ownership over the page and has expressed it as such, and so they are pretty dogmatic. I'm trying to have a cool conversation/discussion and I think it might be at a breaking point but time shall tell. Also, other than the above WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE, is there a help topic that would be informative regarding "worthy" items to include on a page, and in particular those that are part of a newsperson's page? Thx. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikethewhistle-original (talk • contribs) 16:25, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

I don't know about 'worthiness', but if something gets significant coverage in reliable sources, it is usually fair game for inclusion. 331dot (talk) 17:14, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Hello there. I need your help, I created a page for a company that I work for (I am an employee). I submitted it 2 times but both were declined with the same reasons: 1 is "the submission appears to read more like an advertisement and the 2nd is "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". Thank you!Nice0903 (talk) 13:34, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Nice0903, in the nicest way possible, most businesses aren't notable enough to have an article here. As we can only write based on the sources that exist, if a business hasn't received enough significant coverage for us, then we simply can't have an article, no matter how much it is edited.

You might want to read Wikipedia:No amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability, an essay that goes into more detail about how and why this is the case. ~~ Alex Noble - talk 13:41, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Nice0903, Also, you might already have been told this, but please read and follow both the conflict of interest and paid editing policies. There are some extra steps you have to take as a paid editor, and you must disclose you are being paid - full detail in the links. ~~ Alex Noble - talk 13:42, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Hey Alex. Nice0903 did not say they are being paid to write the article, just that they are an employee. I'm reading "created a page for" as meaning 'created a page about' rather than 'created a page at the request of'. Kind regards from PJvanMill (talk) 00:07, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Nice0903 (edit conflict) Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. First, you must review and comply with the conflict of interest and paid editing policies(the latter is a Terms of Use requirement and mandatory). Looking at your draft, it is sourced to what seems to be nothing but press releases or routine business announcements; these do not establish that your company meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company(please review). What is needed is significant coverage in independent reliable sources, sources that have chosen on their own to write about your company in depth. For example, Ford Motor Company and Microsoft merit articles because many sources not associated with Ford or Microsoft have chosen to write about them, not just republish press releases or print routine announcements. Not every company merits an article here, even within the same field. If there are no independent sources with significant coverage of your company, it would not merit an article at this time. You may find it helpful to read Your First Article and use the new user tutorial to learn more about Wikipedia and writing an article- which is the most difficult task to undertake here. 331dot (talk) 13:44, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks everyone. I will research and see if I can find significant sources. How many sources does wikipedia required?Nice0903 (talk) 17:33, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi,

I'm new to the wikipedia community. I've made small edits and published my first draft. Articles for Creation has citied the draft is an Essay. Would like to address the issues with this draft and resubmit for publishing.

Thanks for your help! AWTNP (talk) 14:12, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

AWTNP Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. It's not immediately clear what it is you are writing about. Are you writing about the general practice of reporting tips, or a particular method of doing so? We have an article about gratuities that might already contain (or could contain) some of this information. What you wrote seems to be more of a how-to essay and not an encyclopedia article; an encyclopedia article should summarize what independent reliable sources state about the subject.

I see that you have declared a conflict of interest; what is the nature of your conflict of interest? 331dot (talk) 14:29, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi 331dot! Thanks for your explanation. The article is meant to summarize what sources state about the general practice, which includes methods for doing so. I will remove the Essay tone and follow the parameters of an encyclopedia article. Can I get your opinion on the draft after I make some changes, before I resubmit? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AWTNP (talk • contribs) 15:34, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Courtesy link. Draft:Tip Reporting TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:38, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Personally I might attempt to expand the existing gratuity article first. The only sources you have offered seem to be US IRS documents; that doesn't really establish this as a separate, notable topic deserving of its own article. What is needed is significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Again, what is the nature of your conflict of interest with this topic? 331dot (talk) 16:42, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

331dot, I'm in the Industry, providing assistance in that area. I will expand upon the current draft by providing significant coverage with additional sources. Thanks for your help. AWTNP (talk) 16:58, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

AWTNP, you say "I'm in the Industry", but you don't say what industry that is. That's part of your problem with writing the article – you're too close to the subject, and so you "can't see the wood for the trees". The article would make a lot more sense to the general reader if it made clear, in its opening paragraph, that it's about the reporting of tips from customers in the food and drink business, and covers only the US. Maproom (talk) 18:28, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi! Can someone tell me how to colour cells in a table? Thanks!SuraStina (talk) 13:37, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

SuraStina, firstly, check MOS:COLOUR - because of accessibility, colour shouldn't be used profligately.

The instructions themselves for adding colour to cells are at Help:Table#Color; scope of parameters. ~~ Alex Noble - talk 16:52, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

SuraStina, the easiest way to do so is to go to an article with a simple coloured table and follow the example. Help:Table#Color; scope of parameters has the actual instructions. Usedtobecool ☎️ 16:57, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks all for the tips! Can someone tell me how to do it in Visual editing? I am not very familiar with Source editing. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by SuraStina (talk • contribs) 18:12, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

SuraStina, I've just had a look in my sandbox, and I don't think it is possible with visualeditor.

As this sort of advanced table formatting is quite rare, it wouldn't surprise me if it has never been made compatible. ~~ Alex Noble - talk 18:44, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

That's correct. Visual editing is very limited. When it comes to tables, it's even worse. There are like four or five options: you can add and remove cells and edit text in them but that's about it, last I checked. Usedtobecool ☎️ 19:10, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

How can i post articles in wiki that are reliable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bahlool shah afghani (talk • contribs) 19:10, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Your user talk page includes links to various pages with useful advice, such as WP:Reliable sources and Help:Referencing for beginners. Note also that your user page is not the place for a draft article. You'll find further advice at WP:Your first article. --David Biddulph (talk) 19:31, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

I've started a page about the well-known French horn player Lucien Thévet, which is an English translation of the page on the French Wikipedia created by his daughter. I've been trying to upload my own photo of the Selmer Thévet model horn from Wikimedia, but so far all I see is the caption but no photo. Also, despite my efforts to fix changes to the formatting in "Edit Source," I can't seem to make those happen. For example, under "Discography," the first piece under Mozart is his Concerto for Horn and Orchestra No. 3, KV 447. There are two recordings, 1) Society of Wind Instruments, Fernand Oubradous, conductor (Gramophone);

                         2) Fernand Oubradous Chamber Orchestra, Fernand Oubradous, conductor (Pathé), 

but the second one has been moved to the left margin and is outside the grey box (which I didn't insert). How do I fix this?

    Finally, although I'm still awaiting a couple of other photos from the French source, at what point will my version be made public? How is that done?

Thanks! Corniste6367 (talk) 19:35, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

The problem with your second photo is that you omitted the file extension ".jpg". Your general formatting of your draft needs a lot of work. You mustn't put spaces at the start of a line as it screws up the formatting as it did in your question here. You also need to sort out your section headings and remove the misplaced external links. You need to look at the WP:Manual of Style. It certainly won't be made public in its current state. You'll find further advice at WP:Your first article. --David Biddulph (talk) 19:49, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

I have done research, and have information that directly contradicts a paragraph in the article. I am new to editing, what is the proper etiquette in this situation? Boss 429 Mustang Sbradley02 (talk) 00:19, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Sbradley02. I do not know what exact paragraph you are referring to, so let me split this into two cases. (1) If the paragraph references sources, please read those sources first. It may be that the sources do not actually support some of the statements made, in which case you may delete those statements. It may also be that some of the sources cannot be considered reliable, in which case you may remove those sources as well as the statements they support. (2) If the paragraph does not reference any sources, feel free to delete it.

You may get into a dispute over your removals. If you remove unsourced or improperly sourced statements and another editor simply puts them back, you are in the right: ask them (while remaining polite, of course) to provide a source that backs it up.

Also consider adding the place where you found your information to the article as a source. Kind regards from PJvanMill (talk) 00:50, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your help! In this instance it is the first paragraph under Power. The source (based on the paragraph) makes the often repeated claim that muscle cars in the day were often under rated for insurance purposes. These claims are almost never backed up by actual dynamometer measurements on truly stock engines (also pertinent to this particular engine, I was able to find a reference stating that insurance surcharges were not added by the industry until the following model year, 1971). I located a number of period magazines, and was able to find actual dynamometer measurements on stock engines, therefore I would argue that it is a more reliable source. Unfortunately the referenced book in the Wiki page seems to be going for $245 used, making a check of the source problematic. Sbradley02 (talk) 01:05, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

I do not know what a dynamometer measurement is, but I am inferring that such a measurement would confirm that the horsepower was in fact 375 bhp. If I'm understanding that right, I would say the first thing you should do is add a statement saying "dynamometer measurements confirmed..." and reference the magazine (with page number, issue number &c) that says that is the actual horsepower. See Wikipedia:Tutorial/Citing sources for that. Then, you should probably make the false advertising statement a lot shorter, and maybe make it more explicit that it is speculation (there already is a "Supposedly", but you could replace that with something stronger). Kind regards from PJvanMill (talk) 02:12, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

After the second sentence in that paragraph you could add a sentence to the effect that dynamometer testing of stock engines as reported in automobile performance magazines stated horsepower ____ and torque at ____. That would support the 'official' horsepower of 375 without your having to see the ref that implied a higher HP. David notMD (talk) 09:30, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for both your help. I made the suggested edits. Any feedback is most welcome. This is my first significant article revision. Sbradley02 (talk) 19:56, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

This article has an IP vandalism problem because the topic is controversial. Would an editor look at and decide if it needs to be nominated for semi-protection? David notMD (talk) 21:25, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

​ Support semi-protection: Named editors seem to be behaving. If you're asking for a duration suggestion I'd say maybe 2 1/2 weeks? Any input from the article's primary editors on the talk page? --Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 21:55, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

User:Bookku, the creating editor, has asked for anti-vandalism help on the article's Talk page. I posted my query here because I am not familiar with the process of proposing temporary semi-protection. David notMD (talk) 21:58, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

The both of you may want to consult WP:ROUGHSEMI to learn more about semi-protection. You can request it by posting {{Edit semi-protected}} on the article's talk page. (David notMD—Bookku) --Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 22:31, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

I made a request for semi-protection here. Sdkb (talk) 23:58, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks to all of you for supporting the article In my absence too article remains is taken care of and remains protected. Feeling good. Thanks and warm regards Bookku (talk) 01:59, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

I see citation needed sporadically, and I just read about it and it has it can be inserted in what I would call long hand (by putting the left special brackets with citation needed and two right handed special brackets. I've looked over the items above this editing area, but I can't see one that's for inserting citation needed. Is there one or is the only way to do it longhand? Mikethewhistle-original (talk) 00:27, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

{{cn}} Meters (talk) 00:45, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Sorry. You mean you want a button to inset the 6 characters for you? If you select Wikimarkup you can select {{}} and save 4 characters... Meters (talk) 00:48, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

@Mikethewhistle-original: Meters has the best solution for you. {{Citation needed}} is a template and requires the curly braces on both sides, and {{Cn}} is recognised as the same template but abbreviated. --Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 01:03, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

lol "insert 6 chars". I apologize but I have a disability so I try to find a way to make things easier where i can. when i was younger and before life become more problematic i would not have asked such a question.Mikethewhistle-original (talk) 01:12, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Didn't mean anything by the "6 characters". I initially thought that you didn't know that that you could use a template at all, realized my mistake, but never thought that you might be doing the full template call. Meters (talk) 01:21, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

@Mikethewhistle-original: I understand what you mean; I sometimes edit very long articles and do everything in source code and references sometimes take up space that could be used for something else. While it might not necessarily solve your "citation needed" problem, are you using the Visual Editor? Otherwise you could install Cacycle's wikEd editor to use for source code editing; I've used it for years and it has buttons for formatting text and inserting tables and stuff. --Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 01:25, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm just using barebones is how i'd describe it. I will give it a try and truly appreciate the info. i've got more time to edit now (unfort b/c of my disability) so it's double-edged. TYMikethewhistle-original (talk) 02:01, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Mikethewhistle-original, from the top of the editing window, click 'Insert', choose 'Template', provide "cn" without quotes as the template name and click 'Add template'. More intuitive alternative to 'cn' would be 'fact'. The window refreshes with options but you don't need to do anything, just click 'Insert'. This works for both source and visual editing. In fact all things that are added by putting a pair of curly braces around them can be added this way. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 05:22, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

How does one determine "notability"? I would like to create an article on a US/New Zealand artist. He has about 25 hard copy references in catalogs and books and a reasonably strong online presence, but no monographs. He has won significant prizes, but most of them were in the USA years ago. He currently does quite well in prestigious video/film festivals. Any suggestions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndreaSG50 (talk • contribs) 05:12, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

AndreaSG50, to satisfy notability, the subject needs to meet the criteria described at WP:GNG. Short of that, we can have an article on an artist based on the presumption of notability if they meet at least one of the criteria at WP:NARTIST. After you read those criteria, if you think the artist meets either of those, you can start a WP:DRAFT and submit for review and advice from experienced editors. Note that the sources do not have to be online or new, but they need to be secondary, reliable and independent to contribute toward notability. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 06:02, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

A heads up just in case it applies to you, we have a strict policy regarding conflict-of-interest-editing. So, if you are connected to the artist or have a financial interest in writing an article on them, you must disclose it. See WP:COI and WP:PAID. Usedtobecool ☎️ 06:08, 8 March 2020 (UTC). Yes, I know the artist well. Everyone knows everyone in this small nation (with a population of greater Seattle) especially in the art world. I have looked at other NZ artists on Wikipedia and it is now clear that he has at least the same if not more qualifications for notability, if not nationally, internationally.

Can you change cell colours and text alignments on the visual editor or do you have to use source? WDM10 (talk) 23:49, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

@WDM10: Welcome to the Teahouse! An earlier question (#Colouring of cells) asked about this and it does not seem that the Visual Editor is able to do that and you would have to use source. Instructions for colouring cells can be found at Help:Table#Color; scope of parameters. --Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 01:00, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

@Tenryuu:Thanks. How about text alignment? WDM10 (talk) 01:20, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

@WDM10: What you're looking for is in this MetaWiki page. Scroll down to the align="right" section.

Ok so just to confirm, source editing is the only way to make these adjustments? WDM10 (talk) 01:37, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

WDM10, I have looked and never found a way to do much beyond adding and removing cells and editing text inside them. Adding to that what it says at WP:VE#Limitations and the fact that, in the past one year that I have followed Teahouse discussions, no one has come forward to say they have found additional functionalities, I would say the answer to your question is — almost certainly so. My best guess is, you can do no more than what is included at Wikipedia:VisualEditor/User guide#Editing tables. Most experienced editors don't use visual editing at all, so I find it unlikely you'll get an answer in the definitive here. The editors at the official feedback page should be able to tell you exactly what can/can't be done, why it is so, and when if ever that'll change. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 06:35, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Ok thanks for your help. WDM10 (talk) 06:45, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

My article (a living person biography) got deleted as ambiguous. I would like to seek help in getting this created by a neutral party as I am connected with the subject of the biography. How do I proceed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vinastrings (talk • contribs) 04:29, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Vinastrings, you can put in a request at WP:Requested articles but please know that all wikipedia editors are volunteers who work only on what interests them, and almost universally take a dim view of any attempts to use Wikipedia for promotion. The best advice would be to just stop trying, as Wikipedia is not for promotion and it's not necessarily a good thing to have an article here. When the subject becomes sufficiently notable, someone neutral and uninvolved will think of creating an article without your asking and/or even if you object. The second best advice would be that you declare your connection to the subject as instructed at WP:COI and try again, in draftspace of course. Please take a look at other biographies on people in similar professions for guidance. See MOS:PUFF for some examples of promotional words to avoid. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 05:45, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

It was not deleted as "ambiguous". It was deleted as "unambiguous advertising". Maproom (talk) 08:33, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Hello. My question is, is it uncivil to move a draft to an already existing article? I recently copy-pasted a draft to an existing article. By the time I copy-pasted the information I had not finished fixing formatting aspects of the cites. The creator of such already existing article got mad and started formatting the article as his like, writing in edits summaries that I copy-pasted my "entirely poorly formatted user draft" onto the article and claimed I was violating WP:OWN (I'm not the creator of the article, he is, and I could not find anything related to drafts in such policy). He later left a message on my talk page saying he would revert me if I do it again. Did I do something wrong? Did I actually violate any Wikipedia rule? That's what I want to know. Thank you. --Paparazzzi (talk) 06:19, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any actual "rule" against it, and I don't consider any good faith edit uncivil, but unless you're overwriting a redirect or a short stub with absolutely nothing worth saving, you might find other editors who have actively edited the article take offense, rightly or wrongly. If you do boldly overwrite an article and are then reverted, in my opinion the best thing is to avoid an edit war by editing the article piece by piece, retaining whatever existed that's worthwhile. Of course, if no one objects, there's no problem. Station1 (talk) 06:56, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Good to know. Thank you so much. I tried to move the draft to the article before but I could not do it. After copy-pasting, the creator of the article accused me of WP:OWN and said that he will revert me if I do it again. He also called me a "semi-experienced editor" that has "no idea how Wikipedia works" and said that my draft "was not even that well-written". Was that uncivil from his side? He has also labelled other user's editions as "crap", "stupid bs" and "fancruft bs". Isn't he being a bully towards other users? Regards, Paparazzzi (talk) 07:08, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

You can't actually move a draft over an existing article because that would destroy all traces of the old article in case someone wants to reinstate it, as well as its history. It would be the same as deleting an article without discussion and then creating a new one in its place, which is definitely not allowed. Overwriting an existing article is different, because, as in your case, someone who disagrees can simply revert your edit, just like any other edit. That revert was certainly allowed, and once reverted, you shouldn't try the same thing again without first gaining consensus on the article's talk page or elsewhere, but yes, in my opinion it probably could have been handled with a little more civility. Station1 (talk) 07:30, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

You're right Station1, it could have been handled with a little more civility on my part. I will not indulge in Paparazzzi's claims of me "bullying" editors in summaries when I think I was understandably frustrated when the user HaysonDage had restored their edits twice at that point, disregarding BRD, and inserted a claim to the lead, unsourced and not a quote, that Lovato's song is an "empowerment anthem". That's what I was calling "fancruft BS".

Now, onto what else Paparazzzi tried to take out of context and frame differently here. I said on their talk page: "It's like even despite being a semi-expierenced editor here, Paparazzzi, you have little to no idea how Wikipedia works." I said this because they went to WP:RM/TR with a request here, despite creating their user draft two days after I Love Me (song) was started by me, and tried to get the existing article erased in favour of their userspace draft. A user who would think for even a second that an admin is going to completely erase an article's detailed contribution history in favour of a draft you've worked on because you prefer your own work, is laughable and newbie-like behaviour. It does not matter that an article is a stub or less detailed than what you've written. We're not going to erase histories for stuff like this, as Station1 has rightly pointed out. Furthermore, editors should not be disregarding WP:CITEVAR and erasing everyone else's work. So it does not matter that you, Paparazzzi, "had not finished fixing formatting aspects of the cites". As I am the creator of the article who first added detailed references to it, per CITEVAR, that means you stick with the existing citation format and order. You did not do this regardless. You would not have formatted them back to how they were, because by overwriting the existing articles, you proved you don't care how it was. A subsequent edit proves Paparazzzi does not care to stick with the existing citation style that I originated.

Paparazzzi has previously extensively contributed to Demi Lovato's articles, including starting the article for her previous single Anyone, and seems to think because they have an interest in her as a pop singer that they now get to overwrite all of her articles with what they've worked on in their own time. I cannot recall specific instances, but I am certain I recall Paparazzzi has done this before. Replacing an entire article with outdated Template:Infobox song formatting, erasing all references and replacing them with citations that have an incorrect date format for an artist who is American, and making no attempt to include the authors of said articles or the publication dates, is not a draft that should be overwriting a previous article entirely. This is why I said I will revert Paparazzzi should they do this here or elsewhere in future. If the article already exists, you work on the article as-is bit by bit, or copy what is on the article into your userspace to work on it there. You don't originate your own article and overwrite what all other editors have done (Or if you do, be prepared to be near-insantly reverted for thinking that's going to fly). That is not on. Ss112 07:44, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Paparazzzi now also seems to be disregarding WP:BRD after my edits and restoring unreliable pop music blogs that I had already removed , as well as removing tags from others, claiming that I'm tagging or removing them because they're in another language . I have extensively used sources in other languages on articles where appropriate, and made plenty of K-pop articles and articles about works in other languages—it's not because they're in another language at all, so any implications to the contrary are inappropriate and untrue. It's because the non-English sources used are unreliable pop music blogs. One is a UOL HOST website, the Wiki article for which clearly states it's a "website hosting service", which sounds like a blog to me. If you have concerns about the use of "Je Ne Sais Pop" on the article, Paparazzzi, you discuss it on the talk page per WP:BRD. You don't continue to restore your changes. Ss112 08:02, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

• "Paparazzzi has previously extensively contributed to Demi Lovato's articles" That's wrong, here on the English Wikipedia I have previously contributed significatively only on Fix a Heart and Anyone (Demi Lovato song)
• "seems to think because they have an interest in her as a pop singer that they now get to overwrite all of her articles with what they've worked on in their own time. I cannot recall specific instances, but I am certain I recall Paparazzzi has done this before." So you are basically accusing me of something because of your intuition?
• Jenesaispop is a reliable Spanish website run by a group of Spanish journalist who have previously worked on other important Spanish publications, it is not a blog. Of course I will discuss it on the talk page.
• As of now, you have not said you will apologize for calling somebody's editions "crap" and "bs". Remember WP:BITE. Paparazzzi (talk) 08:25, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Paparazzzi, you overwrote the cooperative work of a dozen other editors with your own version, and described what you had done as a "merge". Ok, "crap" and "bs" are rude. It's hardly surprising that some of them were annoyed, but they should have used more polite language. I would describe your action as arrogant, incompetent, and dishonest. Maproom (talk) 08:52, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Ok. Thank you @Station1: for replying and telling me it is not ok to move/re-write a draft over an existing article. I apologize for that and it won't happen again. And thank you for your kind words, @Maproom:, they are really appreciated.Paparazzzi (talk) 09:01, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Okay, great, then I may be wrong about you copypasting your userspace work over mainspace articles in the past. My bad—it might have been another user. Whatever the case, you still did it here, which was wrong to do, and the two other users who have contributed here have basically concurred. Don't do it in future. Ss112 09:05, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Paparazzzi, yes, Ss112 could have been more polite but their advice is sound if you can look past that. Also, IMO, if you can cite BITE, it does not apply to you, WP:CIVIL still does though. If you think Ss112 has chronic behaviourial problems, the venue to raise that is WP:ANI but beware both editors' behaviours will be scrutinised there. Also, note that competence is required, so if Ss112, an experienced editor, has previously said why something is wrong and the other editor persists rather than cease or discuss, Ss112 gets a bit of a leeway to lose their cool, up to a certain limit of course.

In the case of what you did with your draft, it was insulting to Ss112's work, so I can understand their terse message at your talk page. We are a community working toward a common goal. Sometimes, your good faith actions can hurt others even when you don't use a rude word. So, I don't see a point to escalating this at this time. Ss112 has already acknowledged that they could have done better. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 09:23, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

I recently attempted to create a new stub for a Lebanese professional. I used a stub, specifically, because there is not sufficient material available for an article. I attempted to create the stub by creating a new article and adding a 'stub' tag. In less than 12 hours, a reviewer was eager to reject the 'article' because he was unconvinced that this person deserved an article.

I am confused, because a person from a third-world country who becomes a physician and then goes on to practice medicine internationally is indeed someone whose accomplishments should be noted. History has shown, in particular, that this cohort of individuals frequently rise to the top of society and have a lifetime of achievement recognized (once their life is over). To note: I sourced everything possible, and even created archives of the sources on the internet archive.

I am writing to ask if there is anything that I may have done to make it unclear that I was working on a stub? Are there any strategies that I can take to avoid conflict based on the subjective assessment of 'they're not worthy?' I really feel like I took the time to learn the rules, applied them, and promptly had my work trashed due to a failure to understand what I'm trying to accomplish. I did have nearly 40 such people lined up for stubs, but if this scenario is guaranteed to repeat itself I will simply delete my account and make no effort to 'grow wikipedia.'

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lebodiasp (talk • contribs) 11:08, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Lebodias Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm sorry that you haven't had a good experience; successfully writing a new article is the hardest possible task to undertake on Wikipedia. It takes much time and practice. Users are much more successful when they first edit existing articles in areas that interest them, to get a feel for how Wikipedia works. Diving right in to creating article usually ends up as it unfortunately has for you. I'm sorry to hear that.

If you are creating and submitting a draft for review, a stub will not be accepted. By using that process it is assumed that you will develop it into at least the beginnings of a full article, not just a stub. It's only existing articles that are started without a review that get marked as stubs, so others can work on them.

The sources that you offered aren't appropriate for establishing that the man you wrote about meets Wikipedia's special definition of a notable person. You must have independent reliable sources with significant coverage of the person- more than a brief mention. The article should summarize what those sources say. Your sources just cite his academic achievements and residency. If he is not written about significantly in independent sources, he would not merit an article at this time, regardless of how well you write it. Wikipedia is not a forum to merely recognize achievement- it summarizes what independent sources state.

I would be very sorry to see you leave, but I will inform you that for legal and technical reasons, accounts cannot be deleted- if you no longer wish to use it, just abandon your account. I would suggest you read things like Your First Article and use the new user tutorial before that, though. 331dot (talk) 11:18, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

331dot, A stub that shows the subject meets an WP:SNG is accepted, there's no requirement that an AFC submission should meet WP:GNG. All an AFC reviewer is supposed to do is evaluate whether the draft would be deleted at AFD if it were an article. Stubs meeting SNG aren't. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 11:43, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Lebodiasp, A stub on a subject that doesn't meet the general notability guidelines as explained at WP:GNG requires to demonstrate with reliable sources that the subject meets at least the subject specific notability criteria. In case of a doctor, that would be WP:NACADEMIC. Best, Usedtobecool ☎️ 11:24, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

WP:TOOSOON applies to any person in the early stages of their career who has not yet been written about by others. David notMD (talk) 11:28, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

I am no longer confused and there is no need for anyone to take their time to explain further. I regret that I cannot delete this to save you the time and effort.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Lebodiasp (talk • contribs)

In List of abolitionists#Individuals, why is the columns template (to display in two columns) not working? deisenbe (talk) 13:01, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

@Deisenbe: I see two columns as long as the browser window is wide enough for a reasonable amount to be displayed (starting at about 1500 pixels in my case). —[AlanM1(talk)]— 13:07, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

This is entirely proportional to the size of the browser window. I see 5 columns in my 2560 pixel window.--AlainV (talk) 14:25, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Hello everyone, I am a serial DOTA 2 addict and believe that we can add a lot of stuff about the game here. For instance, characters, players, etc. Because whenever you search for these you get links from other websites. Now I know, there isn't a lot of significant coverage about many of them (and that I believe to be one of the most important reasons for the lack of Wikipedia pages) but I was wondering if Wikipedia guidelines for characters and items differ in any way or we can go about them in some other way maybe? And also I haven't come across any WikiProjects regarding the game either. I would love to have inputs before I can move forward with my research. Thanks. NotJuggerNot (talk) 10:09, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

NotJuggerNot Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. It is important to remember that Wikipedia is not a game guide and any article about a game should not attempt to describe the characters and items extensively(unless there is much coverage about them in independent reliable sources). It's fine to briefly describe the plot of the game without a specific source, (such as how Super Mario Bros. or The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild do) as the game itself is okay to use as a source for its plot. Some individual characters merit articles (such as Mario or Sonic the Hedgehog (character)) because independent sources have extensively written about them. Unless something has significant coverage, it shouldn't be written about here.

There is a general video games WikiProject that may be able to give you better assistance. 331dot (talk) 11:02, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Hey 331dot, thanks for the help. Really appreciate it. not a game guide is honestly what I exactly needed to read. And yes I have started a discussion on video games WikiProject. Let's see what response I get from the people there. Thanks again. NotJuggerNot (talk) 13:50, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

NotJuggerNot Are you thinking about adding content to this site specifically? There's already a Gamepedia dedicated to it. --Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 15:05, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

March 8th is International Women's Day. The article is semi-protected due to recent vandalism. David notMD (talk) 12:26, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

David notMD, ?? Usedtobecool ☎️ 13:09, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

A statement, not a question or request. David notMD (talk) 14:44, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

David notMD, ah, ok! It was in the midst of an edit war. So, I was wondering if something might have been lost. Good to know. Thanks! Usedtobecool ☎️ 16:38, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

I want to change what a article merges with as it merges to something that doesn't make much sense compared to another existing article that would be more relevant. ("Carving ski" which goes to the page for skiing which should actually go to "Carve Turn") Dellwood546 (talk) 04:41, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Dellwood546, when you type in Carving ski and the page Ski opens, at the top, it will have "(Redirected from Carving ski)". Click on the bluelink there, and it will take you to the redirect page which you can edit to change where it targets to. Click edit and change the part that says "Ski" to "Carve turn". Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 05:56, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Note the correct target for the redirect would be Carved turn (i.e. with a 'd' and a lower-case 't'). —[AlanM1(talk)]— 11:48, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank You! Dellwood546 (talk) 17:27, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm working on an article about lighting visualization as a part of WikiProject Stagecraft and I'm running into some difficulties. Namely, since the article's topic is digital, I'd like to track down some web-based references. However, the only online sources I can find are either from sellers, blogs, or forums, none of which are particularly reliable. Is it alright to have primarily print references for a digital topic? The draft is in its early stages and I'm working on expanding it further, but I'd like to ensure that its references are up to quality standards before I do. Thanks a bunch! Codecinderblock (talk) 17:28, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi Codecinderblock and welcome to the Teahouse! If you can find more reliable sources offline than online, then go for it! You might also find Wikipedia:Offline sources to be an interesting read. If you have any other questions, feel free to come back and ask. Clovermoss (talk) 17:37, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Codecinderblock, yes. There is no requirement that sources be easy to access, and paper sources are generally considered more reliable on nearly all topics. ~~ Alex Noble - talk 17:39, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

I want to add in some templates to describe myself and my interests in my user page. Can I get some templates to start with? Aswin8 (talk) 17:46, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Aswin8, Yes. These are called userboxes, and there's quite a few of them. Wikipedia:Userboxes is the information page, and there is a list of all of them at Wikipedia:Userboxes/Galleries/alphabetical ~~ Alex Noble - talk 17:56, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Aswin8, Also, the easiest way to just look at the source of other users' pages, and just copy what they have done. ~~ Alex Noble - talk 17:57, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Aswin8, WP:USERBOX should help. You can also copy templates that you find on other users' userpages whichever ones suit you. Best, Usedtobecool ☎️ 17:58, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi, Maria Kavallaris's page is being edited by a username called Mkavallaris (more than likely the subject of the page). The edits are fairly minor, but this is a potential conflict of interest for the user. I generally stick to editing or creating pages, so I'm not sure how to flag this issue. If anyone has suggestions or knows what to do, please let me know or feel free to take action. Soulsinsync (talk) 17:18, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

@Soulsinsync: Have a brief look at the edits and check if they compy with WP:NPOV and so forth. As you have already created articles, you probbably already know this. then, insert {{subst:Welcome-COI|Article name goes here}} on their talkpage, along with some personal lines that mention additional policies, if nessesary. Victor Schmidt (talk) 17:26, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

@Victor Schmidt: Will do, thank you! Soulsinsync (talk) 18:40, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi, This is the page I'm creating: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Giuseppe_Cristiano I keep on getting it drafted because of sources, and it's getting very frustating. I have already worked on a wikipedia page before, and it got perfectly accepted as an article. I keep on finding good resources, but apparently it's still not good enough. How can I make it work so I get my page about this artist I want to make an article about finally uploaded as an article? I usually work with the visual editor. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mgab05 (talk • contribs) 19:30, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Mgab05 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I would suggest asking the reviewer that declined your draft directly as to what their specific concerns were. 331dot (talk) 19:37, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

It looks as if the vast proportion of the cited references were to material written by the the subject. What Wikipedia needs to demonstrate notability are references to detailed coverage about the subject in published reliable sources independent of the subject. --David Biddulph (talk) 19:52, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

I’m a musician/artist trying to create a artist page, so when people type my name in the search bar there is an informational in Wikipedia. I recently signed a contract with BMI;) soo excited! Just wanted to expand network opportunities -thank you -Isaiah — Preceding unsigned comment added by Isaiahvox (talk • contribs) 21:57, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

You misunderstand. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and is not for promotion. You can find advice about conflict of interest, and about paid editing. --David Biddulph (talk) 22:05, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

@Isaiahvox: Welcome to the Teahouse. Unfortunately this is NOT what Wikipedia is used for. Aside from the issues David Biddulph has posed above, perhaps Instagram, Soundcloud, or other social media apps are better suited for you? --Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 00:28, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Dear Wikipedians, Can we make a death rates based on the reference below? I think that it is quite beneficial information about danger of coronavirus but it is now missing in Wikipedia. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 04:58, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

• Link of coronavirus death rates: ^[1]

I would be against it on the grounds that it's a one-time snapshot of numbers, rather than a continuously updated record like some (such as this one) linked at the foot of the main article, that will rapidly become outdated, and therefore misleading.

I also question its basic logic. It's comparing the number of deaths to the number of total known cases, but currently around half of the total known cases are still in progress, and an unknown number of these may also result in deaths.

If one looks only at the cases that are known to have run their course and resulted in recovery or death, the death rate is very different – worldwide, about 5.6% so far. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.202.168.21 (talk) 05:17, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

@Goodtiming8871: Welcome to the Teahouse. It's more appropriate to ask that on the article's talk page. I have to agree with the IP editor above me; with the number of updates that the situation gets a day it will become outdated quickly unless it's stated that those were the statistics at that time. --Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 05:42, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

@Tenryuu: Thank you for your Kind response Goodtiming8871 (talk) 06:16, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi all need some help, I am a musician not as popular as some but how does one get their info onto Wikipedia for all to see? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Isaiahvox (talk • contribs) 09:11, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

You appear not to have read the replies which you received at #Musician above. --David Biddulph (talk) 09:56, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Hello Teahousers! Based on what I have encountered here and point # 7 of WP:DEL-REASON as interpreted there (arguably somewhat in conflict with #6), I seem to be wrong in my wish to continue to adhere to the principle that articles tagged for years due to lack of sources should be deleted. Must one oneself conduct a thorough search for sources which includes printed media before suggesting that such an article be deleted? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:55, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi SergeWoodzing and welcome to the Teahouse! Before nominating an article for deletion, one should follow WP:BEFORE. When it comes to your question, c and d are relevant. The absolute minimums all include online searches for sources (Google, Google News, Google Scholar, etc). This is the minimum before all AfD nominations, including articles that have been tagged as unsourced for years. However, if offline sources exist, they can be used and mentioned as sources in the AfD. Sources also don't have to be in English. Wikipedia:Offline sources is an explanatory supplement to the verifiability policy, and something you might find interesting. If you have any other questions, feel free to come back and ask. Clovermoss (talk) 16:21, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I now know how to double-check what you may have seen as my allegation that no sources do exist for a certain article, and also for future reference.

I have no objection or question re: "C", as long as we agree that "C-4" cannot stand alone for a "Keep" when there are no sources at all.

If no offline sources have been cited for several years for a clearly source-tagged article, must one attempt to search for them? I wouldn't know how to do that, to be frank. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:42, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi SergeWoodzing. Thanks for the thank you, it's nice to know that you considered my previous response helpful. As for searching for sources for articles that have been unsourced for years, yes that's still something that should be done. The minimum is searching for online sources. You don't have to search for offline sources, but if they exist they might be mentioned in a keep vote and result in the article being kept. When I search for offline sources, that usually involves a trip to my local library. The way I search for online sources involves searching for the article title and other key phrases used in the article likely to turn up results (although it's important to make sure that the results aren't circular sources). When there's articles tagged as unsourced, there are links on the template itself that you can click on to the search for sources, which is something I find quite useful. Clovermoss (talk) 01:46, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you again! My only remaining question was about offline sources when I wrote to you last time. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:04, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

This is going to come across as a little pissy, but I'm a little annoyed...and confused. I created a page for an index created by a Federal Reserve bank and cited it appropriately, yet it wasn't approved. Meanwhile, subjects that are less prominent that are cited in a way that is only as prominent but usually less are up and running. (See the links below.) It seems so scattershot. What has to happen to get things approved? It seems like the rules aren't being applied fairly.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:St._Louis_Fed_Financial_Stress_Index

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jiri_Zidek_(paleontologist)

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

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

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

(Wpearce1983.k (talk) 21:29, 8 March 2020 (UTC))

Welcome to the Teahouse, Wpearce1983.k. The article draft review process hasn't always existed, and some of those other articles you link to were created much earlier in the history of Wikipedia. It's also only new editors who have to submit drafts - more established editors can create articles directly, so some poor-quality articles slip through that way. The advantage of having a draft held to a higher standard is that once it's accepted, it's unlikely to be nominated for deletion, whereas poor articles that have yet to be noticed are always liable to have that happen. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:43, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

As for the specific issue of Draft:St. Louis Fed Financial Stress Index, the main thing to do is add references to independent sources that discuss the topic in some depth. You've cited two sources, but they're not independent of the subject. See Wikipedia:The answer to life, the universe, and everything on this. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:50, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the insight. I've added multiple additional sources that should suffice. Wpearce1983.k (talk) 23:40, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Wpearce1983.k, I went ahead and accepted the draft. You are definitely right about those other articles, however the excuse "well X exists and that's a bad article, why can't Y exist" is not an endearing argument for many new article reviewers. In my mind, actions speak louder than words. You put in the effort to put good reliable sources in your article that showed its notability and that's why it got accepted. Bkissin (talk) 13:45, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

I am a paid user. Where and how shall i use this code?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hellone69 (talk • contribs)

Hellone69 you appear to have done it correctly by placing the template on your user page. You should also mention your status in edit summaries whilst making edits. ~~ Alex Noble - talk 14:21, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Hey guys. I've had an edit request pending for nearly 2 weeks at Talk:Innocent Umezulike. If any willing editors could review and/or implement the remaining points of the request, that would be greatly appreciated. Davykamanzi → talk • contribs • alter ego 13:08, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Hello Davykamanzi, the last time you received a reply there was 4 March. So, no, it's not been pending for 2 weeks. All wikipedia editors are volunteers and work on their own time and interests. I can understand that unlike volunteer editors, paid editors may have a deadline or need to show timely results. But this is the best system we have got to try and maintain the neutrality and reputation of Wikipedia which makes paid editing on Wikipedia lucrative in the first place. So, please have patience. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 15:53, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

despite so many cons and drawback of crowdsourcing

Welcome to the Teahouse, 110.93.227.242. Did you have a question? It seems as if you may be on the wrong page. --Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 17:03, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Hello. I'm thinking of starting another article on this sports writer and best-selling author--it was deleted in January 2020 for not being referenced. Is there anything I need to do, beyond providing plenty of reliable references, because this was so recently deleted? Thank you for your help. Caro7200 (talk) 14:41, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Caro7200, Nothing extra. The only scenario when there would be is if you were submitting an exact copy of an article that was deleted at AFD. In this case, as the article was prodded, this wouldn't apply even if it was exactly the same, as it never went to AFD.

You could also ask for the original to be restored at wp:refund, if it would be helpful. ~~ Alex Noble - talk 15:31, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

What is needed is not "plenty of reliable references". It's "several reliable independent references that discuss the subject in depth". Maproom (talk) 17:47, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, I may do it this week. Caro7200 (talk) 18:08, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Need to add Franz Buchner 40 victories. Aug 17 to wars end. Reference Wikipedia page on Franz Buchner. I have his matchbox cover with his name cut into the medal. I would like to add a picture of this personal item he carried to his bio page. Can you help? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.186.229.178 (talk) 18:15, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

  Courtesy link: Franz Buchner.

You'd be best served bringing this discussion to the article's talk page. You would have to upload the image through Wikimedia Commons and ensure that it is free of any copyright; please see WP:IUPC for more information. --Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 18:49, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

This question is also being answered on the Help Desk. Please don't ask the same question in more than one place. RudolfRed (talk) 19:24, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

All of my edits seem to be coming from the 2017 wikitext editor. When attempting to edit, I also cannot switch to visual editing for some reason. Does anyone know why this is happening? Chlod (say hi!) 07:09, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

• I'm also here to find out what's going on. This is very buggy and annoying. —Мандичка^YO 😜 07:16, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

  @Wikimandia and Chlod: I haven't been able to replicate. You might want to open a thread at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical), where you'll be more likely to get an answer. ~~ Alex Noble - talk 07:54, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

• What do you mean, you haven't been able to replicate? Are you saying the regular source editor is still available to you and nothing is changed? This is what mine looks like, with no toggling of any kind on my behalf. There's nothing replicate, it just changed. —Мандичка^YO 😜 08:05, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

  Wikimandia, I tried a few pages and visual editor appeared to work properly, with both editors available to use. What are your settings at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-editing ~~ Alex Noble - talk 08:14, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

  Wikimandia, That doesn't look like the 2017 editor. That is just syntax highlighting being enabled.. Use the marker toggle in the editor toolbar to disable it. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 10:49, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, I eventually figured that out. I never enabled that so it was completely annoying and alarming. —Мандичка^YO 😜 11:19, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

@Chlod: The 2017 wikitext editor is enabled with "New wikitext mode" at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-betafeatures. I can switch to VisualEditor both with and without this. If it doesn't work for you then try manually changing action=edit to veaction=edit in the url of an edit page. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:37, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Chlod and Wikimandia seem to have different problems.

Chlod, if you want to find the visual editor (more like word processing, similar to Microsoft Word and Google Docs), then look in the far corner for a black pencil icon, and switch to visual editing. Follow PrimeHunter's directions to turn on (or off) the "New wikitext mode" if you'd rather have the toolbar for your wikitext editor match the visual editor's toolbar. Finally, if you prefer the visual mode, then you can also set this as your default in Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-editing.

Wikimandia, your screenshot shows the old 2010 wikitext editor, not the 2017 one. You've also got some extra user scripts involved. If it's still a problem, then please go to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Whatamidoing_(WMF)/sandbox?safemode=1 and see if mw:safemode solves it. If it does, then your best bet is to hope that PrimeHunter or TheDJ will volunteer to help you debug the user scripts (they are two of the best anywhere on this wiki). Either way, please come back here and let us know how it's going. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 15:36, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Switching the "New wikitext mode" feature on and off on the beta features page didn't work, but for some reason, an option in Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-editing named "Temporarily disable the visual editor while it is in beta" was enabled. I do not remember enabling this option, nor do I remember the option being there in the first place. After turning it off, the issue seems to have been resolved. Changing the URL to veaction=edit also worked, but I didn't want to keep on editing the URL.

Thank you to Whatamidoing (WMF) and PrimeHunter for the help! Chlod (say hi!) 19:06, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm glad to hear that you got it all sorted out, User:Chlod. Happy editing, Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 19:57, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi there!

My name is Ross Eberle. Ray Eberle ([]) was my grandfather, so you know. I am one of his grandchildren. On this note, I would like to inform you of the fact I know Ray's middle name. But here's my first question... 1: Did you omit Ray's middle name because you don't know it? Or is it because another member of his family told you not to include it? 2: I am a self-published 'indie-author', who has written 6 novels. The first four of these are actually novellas. If I send you free copies of each one, plus a web-site or two about me and my published works, do you think you could create an article about me, my novel series, and each of the books it contains?

Note: I also plan to publish 2 more books in the series, and a 9th part, which will act as a standalone/spin-off. So, please provide your answers...Thanks in advance!

SnarkyEberle (talk) 18:53, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Re: #2, the requirements for books to be included on Wikipedia are found here. Do your books meet the criteria listed there? Useight (talk) 18:55, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

SnarkyEberle, Wikipedia content is based on information that is verifiable from reliable sources. Your grandfather's middle name will be included when editors who work on that page find/are-provided-with a reliable source that gives that information. Self-published books or authors are generally not notable according to the English Wikipedia's special definition of notability. But, a sure test is whether an author meets WP:GNG or at least the WP:NAUTHOR criteria. For books, that would be, again, WP:GNG and failing that at least WP:NBOOKS. Finally, even if you deserve an article, editors who will create one on-demand might be very hard to find, but if the subjects get very notable/popular, independent editors without prompting may choose to create one of their own volition. Hope that answers your question. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 19:02, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Usedtobecool , thanks for this information. How can I tell if either I or my books would qualify for the guidelines you listed above? I read all of them, though some of the terminology used within confused me a little. I'm also new to editing on Wikipedia, so please forgive me for not understanding everything on its pages. Would I need to send you entire copies of the manuscripts I've written? Or at least either my Amazon Author-Central Page and/or my Good-Reads Author Page? And by the way, my grandfather's middle name is George, so you know. If you want, I can post a citation of this as proof. To do this, however, I'd have to obtain a copy of his birth certificate. Doing so may take a while. Also...If I don't qualify, then would it be possible for me (Or a group of volunteers) to create a Wikia or Fandom about my series? Thanks again for the fast response and links! SnarkyEberle (talk) 19:33, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

SnarkyEberle, while I personally believe that providing first-hand evidence such as a birth certificate should be enough to prove that his middle name is most definitely so, Wikipedia would ideally prefer there to be secondary sources to support this (see WP:PSTS for more information).

In regards to creating a Fandom (formerly Wikia) about your series, go ahead; as far as I'm aware, Fandom is (no longer?) affiliated with the Wikimedia Foundation and doesn't pose the same set of notability standards that Wikipedia does. Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 19:45, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

SnarkyEberle, yes, if you provide a source for the information, the middle name will be added. It's a simple non-controversial addition for which we can expect no objection. So, that's that. You will have to read the lists at WP:NAUTHOR and WP:BOOKCRIT and decide whether any of the criteria would be met by you or your books, but as for the GNG, it basically boils down to this: The subject needs to have multiple (at least three, independent from each other, i.e. not based off each other or reporting on the same event) significant coverage (some detail, not passing mentions, not routine coverage such as press releases but without necessarily being the main topic of discussion) in reliable (generally factual, having editorial boards, independent experts, peer-reviewed, reputation for fact-checking and neutrality, redacting when necessary) secondary (not the subject itself or someone who has an emotional, familial or financial connection, not interviews or autobiographies, not self-published or primarily based on those) sources.

If still it doesn't make sense, ask yourself whether any of these questions you can answer in the affirmative:

1. Are there at least three detailed discussions on you in reputed national level newspapers, or books from independent academics or have you won a national or higher level literary award?
2. Does your book have at least two reviews from reputed independent critics or has become a national bestseller or has won a national or higher level award or has derivatives/adaptations that have?

Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 19:55, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

We can't speak for fandom or wikia, but yeah, the answer is most likely, yes. Amazon or Goodread links are no good here. We don't need manuscripts either. See above! Best, Usedtobecool ☎️ 19:58, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Does "war hero" violate this? This was in reference to John McCain but not on his page. When I look at his page "war hero" a/o "hero" is on his page, but the context in which they are used are negative comments. So I guess I'm trying to understand why if it violated the npov would the comments with it presenting it in a negative manner be ok. thx Mikethewhistle-original (talk) 10:05, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Mikethewhistle-original, NPOV isn't about the intrinsic quality of words themselves. It's about reflecting the sources proportionately and accurately without introducing editorial bias by Wikipedia. So, if a given subject hasn't been called a war-hero by very many sources in the positive sense but a lot of them have discussed the issue when it was used in the negative contexts, Wikipedia would reflect that and it would not violate NPOV. The best place to hash it all out is the talk page of that article itself though, that's where editors should discuss the number and quality of sources that use the word with regard to the subject in each context/connotation and arrive at a consensus as to whether the mention should be in the positive sense, the negative, both or neither, in Wikipedia's voice or attributed and with quotes, and so on. Usedtobecool ☎️ 11:56, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks that is helpful. (Although I have to be honest that I've not found the talk page too helpful where I've tried to use it but that could be related to low traffic on pages or interest). I guess as a Navy vet myself, McCain was a bit of a hero to me who I respected a great deal for his sacrifice so it was without any thought that I used it and I'm glad the other user removed it and gave me the ref and I found my way here. TY Mikethewhistle-original (talk) 12:15, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Mikethewhistle-original, sorry, didn't mean to ignore, I just figured if yours remained the last post, someone else might take a look and provide their perspective. Anyways, about the talk page activity, when I was new, I used to have a lot of trouble with that but nowadays, there are about 2500 pages on my watchlist, so I can wait months waiting a reply on one page while working on other pages. Unless it's an emergency, I have learnt to take as much patience as is called for. I am guessing, you are having a similar problem. You have only a few articles you have worked on or have an interest on, and once you encounter an obstacle there, you've really got a problem as the other editor although readily available to revert you, won't have much of a hurry to resolve the issue speedily so you can move forward. The only solution I fear, is to put the particular issue at hold and move on to other things. About the second thing, I wouldn't worry about it, this happens all the time, and many experienced editors even have trouble remaining neutral on occasion. But, as long as, you step back and reassess, as you've done here, as soon as someone points out a possible issue, you should get along fine. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 16:05, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

thx usedtobecool. good advice. there's more i'd like to say but for once i'll be quiet. tc. Mikethewhistle-original (talk) 21:06, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

King of Scorpions here. Okay, I know this is kind of trivial, and I apologize for wasting everyone's time. I just wanted to know, is it possible to copy userboxes from other people's user pages? I've found a couple that I like. I also want to know if there's a way to put them in a drop-down side column, like I've seen before. Thanks, King of Scorpions 17:29, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

King of Scorpions, yes, that's usually how they spread around. Very few regularly get to the repository. Do you mean the "side column" like the one in my userpage? You can copy it from there, and modify as per your need. Best, Usedtobecool ☎️ 17:42, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Usedtobecool! I really appreciate how helpful everyone is around here... and yes, I did mean the side column. King of Scorpions 17:45, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Cheers! Usedtobecool ☎️ 17:56, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

i have an article i would like to be approved and published as a page about an artist that i admire. how do i go to the next step? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jenrebecc (talk • contribs) 16:15, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Jenrebecc, firstly, remember that writing an entirely new article isn't easy, and we recommend that you have some experience elsewhere first, to acclimatise yourself to our policies.

The instructions are at wp:Your First Article, when you think you are ready. ~~ QRA: Alex Noble - talk 16:31, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

can you review my article? i have it under my username..... i honestly don't know how to submit it. this is new for me. help!!! maybe someone who is an admin can create her page? Gin Stone, artist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jenrebecc (talk • contribs) 16:53, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

  Courtesy link. @Jenrebecc: Welcome to the Teahouse. Your draft has been moved to Draft:Gin Stone. When you're ready to submit the draft for review, add the code {{subst:submit}} to the top of the page and someone will review it. --Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 17:11, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

THANK YOU — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jenrebecc (talk • contribs) 17:15, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Jenrebecc, hello and welcome to Wikipedia! I have left a message at your talk page with a list of helpful links. Coincidentally, it also instructs how to sign your posts in discussions such as these. I have signed it for you, for your last post here. I have moved your draft to Draft:Gin Stone, since that is where an article draft should be located, i.e. at "en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Title". I have blanked your userpage at User:Jenrebecc. Please feel free to introduce yourself to the Wikipedia community by editing your userpage after you have read the page, WP:UPYES. As for your draft, I have added a template which gives helpful tips about writing a draft and at the bottom provides a button to submit it for review. When you are ready, you can submit it, but as long as you keep improving it, there is no deadline/hurry. Your draft currently cites no sources. As such, it can't be accepted in its current state. Please ready WP:V to understand why adding sources to support the claims you make is important, then you can refer to WP:REFB which provides simple instructions to beginners on adding references. WP:RS has information regarding what kind of sources are acceptable. Finally, make sure the subject meets the criteria at WP:N or WP:NARTIST before you submit, otherwise Wikipedia can not have an article on the subject. I know this is a lot of information to digest but writing articles is one of the harder tasks on Wikipedia, and I fear doing it successfully requires understanding at least this much. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 17:25, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

But please don't submit it in its present state, Jenrebecc, because it will certainly be declined, as it has no references at all, and therefore is not capable of establishing that Stone is notable (in the way Wikipedia uses the word). Remember, Wikipedia is basically uninterested in what you know (or what I know, or what any random person on the Internet knows): it is only interested in what reliable independent published sources have said. For example, you say what Stone is known for: which reliable published source, wholly unconnected with Stone, has said that? An opinion like that should never appear in Wikipedia's voice: it is acceptable in an article only if it is ascribed to an identified reliable published source.

As a more minor issue: the table of basic information you have created manually is normally displayed as an infobox.

One more point, and a rather important one: You uploaded a photo File:Gin Stone.jpg to Commons, identifying it as the work of Joe Navas, and claimed that it was your copyright. Aside from the fact that this seems surprising, it prompts the question whether you have a conflict of interest in writing about Stone. If you have any connection with her, you need to read that link; if you are in any sense paid to edit this, then it is mandatory for you to declare your status as a paid editor. --ColinFine (talk) 17:36, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Joe Navas gave me permission to upload this image from research. and i have added references

Hello again, Jenrebecc. Unfortunately, I don't think the references you have added are adequate to demonstrate notability. I can't see the truro.wickedlocal site in Europe, so it may be independent (though I'm not sure how reliable Wikipedia would regard it) but the other two are clearly not independent of Stone. Also, you have not cited the particular sentence I remarked on (which is not the only example of non-neutral language).

As for the photo, Navas' "permission" is probably not relevant. Do you personally hold the copyright in the photo? If not, then you do not have the power to release it under the CC-BY-SA licence, as you purport to have done here, and it does not meet Commons' licensing conditions. Assuming that Navas does hold the copyright, he may license it by following the procedure in donating copyright materials, but you cannot, unless you are the copyright holder. I have tagged the file in Commons as needing clarification.

Please also clarify whether or not you have a conflict of interest, and whether or not you are a paid editor. --ColinFine (talk) 19:44, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

If I were a paid editor, I would be a lot better at this, don't ya think? I am just trying to give this artist the credit she deserves. That's all. No conflict of interest. I simply thought I was capable of doing it, but apparently I am not. Def seems like a boys club here. I guess I will wait until some larger articles are written about her, but that's really too bad, as I have seen other artists on here with less info. I am totally new to this, and tried my first page, and learned a lot. I mean, you can google Gin Stone artist and come up with a ton of stuff, images and all. But I'm not sure how visual artists become 'worthy' of wiki. Women artists need a boost in a male dominated genre, I was just trying to write about someone who is under-recognized. I live in the same part of the country as her and have seen her work, and was just trying to help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jenrebecc (talk • contribs) 20:02, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Jenrebecc, you have shown more competence than some of the paid editors I've encountered here (that is, people who've accepted payment for trying to create an article – I doubt they'll be getting any repeat business). The problem is not with the way you've created your draft, things like the way you've formatted the references can easily be put right. But it seems that, as far as I can tell, Gin Stone does not currently reach Wikipedia's standard of "notability". I've tried searching for better sources about here, and found nothing. Admittedly my search was hampered by the existence of things called "gin stones", which, as I've just learned, are used to cool beverages. Maproom (talk) 22:45, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Jenrebecc, we don't generally humour the "other stuff exists" argument, and as far as I'm aware the guidelines for creating new articles have become more stringent than when I first joined Wikipedia. As such looking for sources that meet general notability guidelines is a task in itself. Please understand that creating a new article is one of (if not the) the most difficult things to do on Wikipedia.

Idea: While you are revising the draft, perhaps you would like to take a look at two of our WikiProjects dedicated to giving articles on women more visibility, Women in Red and Women in Green? Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 22:49, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

well thank you everyone — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jenrebecc (talk • contribs) 22:56, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Since ranked voting is being employed more and more, and since there have been some critics of the plan who have cited the above, it would be nice to understand Arrow's problem with the procedure. But that article needs to be explained in plain English! As it is, perhaps (perhaps!) a few logicians or mathematicians might understand it but average voters will not. How about a supplement? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.45.224.90 (talk) 21:16, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

if you have ideas on how to improve an article, you should start a discussion on that article's talk page. RudolfRed (talk) 21:41, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Expecting the OP to know how to improve the article, when they don't understand the theorem, is optimistic.

A couple of times, I have written on the talk page of a mathematical article, saying that I can't make any sense of it; and found, some time later, that someone had rewritten parts of it to make it more accessible. Maproom (talk) 22:50, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

In addition to what RudolfRed has mentioned, could a Simple English version of the page be created? --Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 22:58, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

(ec) I think RR's point was that the place to discuss it is the article talk page (in this case, Talk:Arrow's impossibility theorem). —[AlanM1(talk)]— 23:00, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I'm improving the Alta Vista Homeowners Association, Sonoma County, California as I go, and one of the maps on there is one of Sonoma County and the surrounding area. On the location map, all the pogs get shifted to the left, but the latitude is fine. I was wondering if there is some way anyone could help me, since I am new to Location Maps. I went through the source and everything is fine, it's just that the longitude is messed up. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks.

--Yeetstuff (talk) 23:01, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

@Yeetstuff: I haven't worked with those maps before, but looks like you swapped left and right at Module:Location map/data/USA California Sonoma County, which I fixed. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 23:33, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

This is a picture that has been floating around the internet for years professing to be Molly (Maggie) but is not. No one knows who attributed this as her, but the picture is actually a photo of Ruth Aulbach Sellers. There are no known photos of Molly (Maggie), but according to historical accounts where she lived - Murray, Idaho - she was really a blonde. She did work as a madam, but there are differing accounts about the prostitute part.

If you want to know about her ask the resident historian. Larry Hammer of the 1884 Murray House. It's a bed and breakfast which served as a bank and newspaper office in its prior lives.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.32.249.150 (talk) 22:54, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

  Courtesy link: Maggie Hall

Welcome to the Teahouse. I would suggest taking your concern over to the article's talk page where editors versed in the subject can discuss the matter with you. Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 23:39, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

OK, I'm certain there will be more to the answer than the question because the question I hope will be simple. I'm trying to get some clarification on consistency and the example below should be a whamdinger. If you compare the three pages:

• Mary-Kate_Olsen#Birth_and_family
• Ashley_Olsen#Birth_and_family
• Elizabeth_Olsen#Personal_life

You will see that two are not like the other. MK & Ashley list the 3 sisters' half-brothers, but Elizabeth does not. Both brothers have some acting credits to their name and one of them is effectively in the clothing business with his half-sisters.

So can someone clarify why 2 pages have info that the 3rd does not? Neither of the guys have wiki pages, but both are on imdb and have some other google hits. In my opinion only one has what I think is enough activity to overcome the do they have enough activity to be included bar, but I'm hoping someone can maybe make more sense of it. Also, in case someone can answer it before I re-read guides again why this same type of info is also listed (or maybe I should say not listed), in two different sections - ie birth and family vs personal life. I guess it was my military service that has caused me to want consistency because we depended on it and it mattered. Being able to to get a clip off a buddy or know where something was on his tac vest mattered when seconds counted. But I don't have the day of the week on my underwear, I promise. thks.Mikethewhistle-original (talk) 22:38, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

I would guess that two of the sisters' articles list their half-brothers while the third does not because no-one has got round to adding that information to the third article. I doubt it's the consequence of any policy or deliberate decision. You military guys have a command structure, us volunteers don't. Maproom (talk) 23:02, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Someone actually added it the 3rd article and it was reverted by a user. That's what's got me stymied. Either people looking at two pages are missing something that someone on the 3rd page knows that no one on the other two pages knows, and they might. I think whether someone is of enough publicness to be on wiki can sometimes be debatable, but it must be the same on all 3 pages. If it doesn't belong on the 3rd page, then it doesn't belong on the first two either. Mikethewhistle-original (talk) 23:19, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Mikethewhistle-original. Wikipedia doesn't have an Editorial Board, or a Department of Consistency, or any other such structure: it has thousands of volunteer editors who work on what they choose. Some, like yourself, are concerned about consistency and wlll do their best to make this consistent; many more do not bother much about consistency. I doubt if anybody would argue that consistency is a bad goal, but many people are not concerned enough about it to spend time on it.

You think those pages should be consistent in that way. Somebody else removed the information: maybe they aren't aware of the inconsistency, maybe they are but think it less important than some other factor, or maybe they believe there is a difference in the two cases which means that the inconsistency is only apparent. I don't know. But the way to resolve such question is not to put out a general appeal about a principle, but to open a discussion with the individuals who appear to disagree with you - see WP:BRD. --ColinFine (talk) 23:52, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I've two issues, (a) I've just been trying to sort the info box from disappearing on a page. I think that I've made a mistake somewhere in the code or I've mistakenly deleted it. (b) I'd also like some advice on how to ensure that text written about a live individual doesn't sound as if they're intending to boast. I do hope that you can help. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 35winds (talk • contribs) 22:39, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

  Courtesy link: Mark Wood (explorer) Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 23:05, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Hello, 35winds. You had a lot of syntax errors in the infobox, which I have mostly fixed. (I suspect that the redlinks should mostly be unlinked, but I haven't done that).

As for the text: the way to write the article neutrally is basically to ignore and forget everything that Wood has ever said, or wanted to say, about himself, and instead base the text 100% on what people who have no connection at all with Wood have chosen to publish about him. Note, by the way, that none of the BBC reports are independent of him (they are all obviously based on interviews or press releases), and the fourth reference is to a blog: blogs are hardly ever regarded as reliable sources. At present, therefore, you haven't got a single independent reliable source, and so there is almost nothing which can validly go into the article, and it is liable to be deleted as non-notable. --ColinFine (talk) 00:14, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

hi Team, how do you add a person to Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.196.52.84 (talk) 01:52, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

(by talk page watcher) Hi 203.196.52.84, did you mean to create an article about a person? Unfortunately as you have not created an account yet, you aren't eligible to create a page directly. You can either create an account and wait for it to be at least 4 days old with at least 10 edits, or can create a draft via the Article Wizard and follow its instructions.

There are several points to keep in mind; please see Wikipedia:Your first article. However, to avoid wasting your time, please take a few moments to check if your subject is notable. Quoting the Article Wizard, it said:

In short, the topic of an article must already be covered in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. These include academic journals, books, newspapers, magazines, and websites with a reputation for fact checking. Social media, press releases or corporate/professional profiles do not qualify.

Once you have confirmed that your subject is notable, I assume that person is living. Therefore, it would have to adhere to some strict policies on biographies. In particular, it must have at least 1 (ideally more than 1) source. There are many other points that you might have to pay attention; you may read more about it in the Article Wizard.

When the draft is done, you may submit it for review (more instructions will be provided by then) and if it is accepted, you could see it in mainspace. After the page is accepted, you would still have to wait for 90 days (or until it is patrolled) (see this guide for more details).

All in all, I hope you have a great time editing! Thanks and see you later! tLoM (The Lord of Math) (Message) 02:34, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

I am relatively new to active editing here. I have an interest in reactivating an inactive WikiProject. I am reading the docs on WikiProjects, the history of the project, watching the active editors on pages related to the project, and exploring WikiProjects similar to the one I am interested in. What is unclear to me is the current community temperament related to WikiProjects? What say you? Fool's errand or worthy effort to undertake. philoserf (talk) 21:10, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Which WikiProject are you interested in reactivating? --Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 21:15, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

I intentionally left that out. I am less interested in advice about a specific WikiProject than I am in the community view on reactivating WikiProjects in general. philoserf (talk) 21:22, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

I found this here and here about reviving a Wikiproject --Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 21:27, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Thegooduser. I found those too. philoserf (talk) 21:32, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

It seems I was right to wonder. I found this current conversation Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#In defence of wikiprojects — philoserf (talk) 07:06, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Philoserf, these sound like good ideas. I'll be glad to help if I can. keep us posted. --Sm8900 (talk) 04:52, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Hello, I submitted a page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:The_Way_of_Wrath

And it was rejected because of lack of reliable sources: 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. Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

I found the following secondary sources, could you help me with this? would any qualify?

• https://agenda.ge/en/news/2019/1130
• https://www.oneangrygamer.net/2019/10/the-way-of-wrath-tactical-turn-based-survival-game-sports-nudity-and-mysticism/96058/
• https://rpgcodex.net/forums/index.php?threads/hold-the-fort-in-upcoming-turn-based-tactical-rpg-the-way-of-wrath.130092/
• https://www.strategium.ru/forum/topic/89545-the-way-of-wrath
• https://player.me/g/the-way-of-wrath
• https://turnbasedlovers.com/lists/upcoming-turn-based-strategy-tactical-rpgs-2020/
• https://www.igdb.com/games/the-way-of-wrath

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sothasil1 (talk • contribs) 00:33, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Sothasil1, the issue is not the reliability of your sources, it's their independence. The sources you list above all appear to be based on statements by the publisher of the game. It's not surprising you haven't been able to find anything better, when the game hasn't been released yet. I suggest you wait until a month or so after its release, and then see what independent reviewers have said about it. Maproom (talk) 08:23, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

I actually donated to Wikipedia in the past. After this (article of Wikipedia airbrushing list of climate skeptic scientists--which this page didn't even allow me to mention...!!! wtf!!), no longer will I consider it. Am spreading the word about this type of closed-minded censorship with Wikipedia. So. Disappointing. As someone with a PhD in physics, I've found that those who censor challenges to their positions, or demean those who challenge their positions, can't defend their positions in the open. Nothing is "settled" you fools. Nothing in physics or science is "incontrovertible." If that were the case, we would have stopped learning science with Lord Kelvin's pronouncement 120 years ago, and your precious addiction to youtube and that device in your pocket wouldn't even be possible because quantum mechanics wouldn't exist, to name just ONE subject. What a bunch of maroons. Again, pathetic. Asking questions, and challenging ideas is how science works! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.123.248.93 (talk) 02:13, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi, welcome to the Teahouse. We have six million articles and I'm not sure what you refer to. Your post is the only result on a search for "climate-skeptical scientists". After searching deleted pages with somewhat related titles I did eventually find List of scientists who disagree with the scientific consensus on global warming. It was deleted in November after discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of scientists who disagree with the scientific consensus on global warming. Maybe this is what you refer to. It doesn't have climate or sceptical in the title and I would have expected a physics PhD to be more precise. As far as I know, it was the only list of scientists based on beliefs on any subject. It's not really something we make lists about but we have many articles about climate sceptics, e.g. in Category:Climate change denial. Anyway, the top of this page says this is a place where you can ask questions and get help in using and editing Wikipedia. I don't see a question or help request. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:50, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, that's the one. Brietbart just today found out the article was deleted four months ago. --

AntiComposite (talk) 04:33, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether being called a "maroon" is uncivil and if so whether it is better or worse than being called "teal", "puce", "indigo" or "burnt umber". I suspect that the worst is probably "pistachio" but I'm no expert in colourology.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   05:01, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

This place is full of taupes, in my experience. —Мандичка^YO 😜 07:20, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Maroons in maroon communities in the Caribbean showed great courage and resourcefulness in preserving their freedom in a racially unjust society. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:25, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

And for the purposes of challenging your position. You did not donate to Wikipedia, your donation was to the Wikimedia Foundation. - X201 (talk) 09:27, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

A couple of IPs (presumably the same person) seem to be going through all the Chicago 'L' stations and changing all the buses to be in monospace font (e.g. Jackson station (CTA Red Line), Chicago station (CTA Brown and Purple Lines)); in the latter case, they've also changed references to other lines to use a coloured template that I think is intended for line diagrams. I'm pretty sure I'm right that this is all inconsistent with WP:MOS and should be reverted, but I wanted to check that was the right thing to do before I go ahead and revert basically every contribution two users have made. YorkshireLad (talk) 20:52, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

• Example diff.

@YorkshireLad: I agree the nowiki tags should be removed, but the rest of the edit looks fine to me (or at least, it should be inspected carefully rather than reverted in bulk).

You should really try talking to them, though I am not sure how. That diff is from an IPv6 with four edits in a 10-min window, so the IP address is changing and they cannot be reached via user talk pages. My best guess would be to open discussion somewhere central (is there a Chicago public transportation Wikiproject?), and point to it through edit summaries and hidden wiki comments in the source text. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 21:26, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

@Tigraan: Many thanks for your answer. There isn't a CTA Wikiproject, though there is one for Chicago and one for rapid transit (inactive), so I guess either would work, or perhaps Talk:Chicago 'L'. When you suggest edit summaries/comments, do you mean I should remove the <code> ... </code> tags when I find them and add the note there? Or add a note to all the as-yet unchanged pages? YorkshireLad (talk) 10:12, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

@YorkshireLad: Yes, I would suggest to remove the code tags and leave a hidden comment next to the resulting text, pointing to wherever you decided to open the discussion. (Copy-paste the comment across pages to make it easier.) But honestly that's a bit of a long shot, I do not know of any consistent way to contact editors on dynamic IPs. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 12:33, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

@YorkshireLad: Buses also use monospaced font on the Orange line page. AlaricStatus 19:47, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

AlaricStatus, Thanks, it seems to have been added by an IP about a month ago. Will remove. YorkshireLad (talk) 10:39, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Header added by ColinFine (talk) 08:53, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Hello team I hope you are doing well

I submitted my article and unfortunately it was rejected, can i get some help too update it so that it can be accepted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Namulinda Brenda (talk • contribs) 07:51, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Courtesy link: Draft:Eleanor Nabwiso - X201 (talk) 09:10, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

I've removed uses of Wikipedia as a reference. Wikipedia can't be used as a reference in articles. There was also a reference that was created five times in the article, I've merged the five individual uses into a single reference by using a named reference. I haven't checked that reference for quality. - X201 (talk) 09:20, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Namulinda Brenda, I fixed quite a lot of stuff in the draft that you wrote. In particular, the IMDb and YouTubve references were replaced by newspaper sources. I still need to work on the Career section; you might like to help. Anyway, when we're done, I (or you) might submit it for review again! Thanks! tLoM (The Lord of Math) (Message) 10:11, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Cleaned it up a bit more. Remember to 'sign' your comments at Teahouse and Talk pages by typing four of ~ at the end. David notMD (talk) 12:50, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi there's nothing about this topic in Wikipedia - can you find someone to write it. I wanted to find out more so can't write it myself as I know nothing.

THANKS KATH — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.81.131.144 (talk) 10:35, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

What is the topic about? "Strong men" as in Strongman (strength athlete)? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:30, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Example mention at http://guam.org.gu/gary.heathcote.muscle/Legendary.Chamorro.Strength.2012.Heathcote.htm that the Chamorro people were tall to very tall compared to early European explorers and had great strength (factual) and native beliefs in great feats of strength (folklore). Maybe best place is adding to that article rather than as a separate article. David notMD (talk) 12:57, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

"Accounts of Chamorro physical appearance (e.g., Driver 1988; Levesque 1990-96) from the early European contact period (A.D. 1521-1700) lend credibility to de Loyola's tale of Chamorro brawn, for European scribes universally described Chamorros (probably young and middle adult males) as possessing great strength. In 14 chronicles that explicitly mention strength, verdicts ranged from "they appear strong" to "among the strongest (indios) ... yet discovered in either the Orient or the Occident" (York 2001: 6, ll). Regardless of the extent of exaggeration, the unanimity of multiple and independent testimonials about the great strength of Chamorros is compelling."

I am trying to improve hospital articles in Tanzania and accidentally "moved" an article called "Moi Teaching and Referral Hospital" for a Kenyan hospital to "Muhimbili Orthopaedic Institute" mistaking it for the abbreviated form of a hospital in Tanzania by the same name. I can't seem to move it back and freaking out a bit! Help! [] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cryptogene (talk • contribs) 12:51, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

You can press History and undo it, if this doesn't work glide over "move" which is near the "History" tabber and there you go. Editoneer (talk) 13:07, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I had an article declined with helpful comments. I thought I had met all the requests before resubmitting the article. The article was declined a second time with no comments, so now I'm not sure what to do. This is the article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Richard_R._Wilk Thanks. Nuala Claire (talk)Nuala Claire — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nuala Claire (talk • contribs) 13:32, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Both reviewers gave you a clear answer on the draft and your Talk page: no hyperlinks allowed in the article, and references need to be in a proper format. In addition, many of the factual statements in the body of the draft are not referenced at all. David notMD (talk) 14:59, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi Teahouse, I've written an article on Shigeru Izumi. Would someone familiar with Japanese names check my default sort, also if anyone can add the name in Japanese characters it would improve the article. There is already an article on him on Japanese Wikipedia. Thanks! WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:12, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

@WomenArtistUpdates:  Done. I'm not sure what you mean exactly by "default sort", but I've added the {{nihongo}} template for you in the lead section. Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 04:30, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

WomenArtistUpdates, I have used the standard defsort as it looks like that's what is done with Japanese names from my brief perusal of WP:MJ. You might want to take a look at the guideline yourself. I have also added the article to WikiProject Japan. Hopefully, someone who knows Japanese will add the Kanji in time. Best, Usedtobecool ☎️ 10:50, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Already done. Kanji added to lead section. Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 12:23, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Usedtobecool and Tenryuu! Looks great. Best, WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 16:05, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi I want to move draft content or publish to Wikipedia's live space using move function in the more tab, but I can't find the more tab. Can you show me where is it (the more tab)

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by MISudrajat (talk • contribs) 16:32, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

MISudrajat, you are not yet autoconfirmed, which is required to move pages. You need to have had an account that has made 10 edits over 4 days, which you haven't reached yet.

We strongly recommend new users submit their pages through wp:articles for creation, rather than moving the pages themselves. ~~ QRA: Alex Noble - talk 16:35, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

And you can submit your draft for review by picking the blue button on it. However, I recommend you don't do that yet, because I'm sure it will be declined. Though you have some references, as far as I can see, not one of the references is about the SCENT programme. Please be aware that Wikipedia is basically not interested in what the subject of an article says or has said, or wants to say. It is only interested in what people who have no connection with the subject have chosen to publish about the subject, and any article should be 90% based on such independent sources. Furthermore, the text as present is somewhat promotional: for example, no Wikipedia article should ever describe anything using evaluative terms like "innovative" unless it is directly quoting an independent published source. Please have a look at your first article; and you might also find User:ian.thomson/Howto useful. --ColinFine (talk) 16:44, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm seeing "expanded date' being used on some pages, but when I look at what differences it's creating on a page it's unclear to me. I tried a search for it but couldn't find anything. Can someone either tell me what it does or where I can read up on it. thx. Mikethewhistle-original (talk) 21:16, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

@Mikethewhistle-original: Can you provide an example or some context? A search reveals no recent usage of that term anywhere on Wikipedia. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 22:54, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Sure. I was going to put it above but then couldn't find it. finally did here. thx Mikethewhistle-original (talk) 23:25, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

@Mikethewhistle-original: From what I can tell the diff is making dates consistent as per the {{use dmy dates}} template at the top of the page. It's a minor edit, though I myself would not have used the word "expanded". Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 23:30, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

thks. I think that was my problem, ie focused on "expanded" and trying to see what it was really doing when my search needed to be for {{use dmy dates}}. TY. Mikethewhistle-original (talk) 23:41, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

@Mikethewhistle-original: In User:KyleJoan/common.js the editor uses User:Ohconfucius/script/MOSNUM dates.js with documentation at User:Ohconfucius/script/MOSNUM dates. The script calls it to expand dates when month numbers are changed to month names. The edit changed 2020-02-06 to 6 February 2020. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:51, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Editor has been blocked for possible socking. Their new sock who'd created a new thread below has also been blocked. Usedtobecool ☎️ 19:29, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Essentially I want to know if I'd spend a lot of effort, for little reward. There's an actor and actresss that I'd like to do a page for but reading the blp and all the other things makes me very iffy. If it would be too great, any suggestion on what might be an easier page to do? thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justafriendlyguy60 (talk • contribs) 17:45, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

@Justafriendlyguy60: Writing an article is the hardest task in Wikipedia. You should probably read Help:Your first article, but to do a brief summary: any article you write must have Inline citations to reliable sources, and the subject must meet the notability guidelines (basically, whether or not it's worthy of being included in an encyclopedia). Click those links to learn more. Also keep in mind that if the subject that you want to write about is in fact notable, someone will (likely) write the article eventually. Just one question: who did you want to write the article about? Hope this helps, King of Scorpions 17:52, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

OP blocked as a sock of Mikethewhistle-original who has a few other active threads on this page but had since been blocked for suspected socking. Usedtobecool ☎️ 19:33, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi there,

Is there a way for me to make my own sandbox? I noticed that the sandbox is cleared as soon as you are done with your test. I want to test inserting some references and making a side info bar so I will probably need to edit multiple times. Thanks for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DarkHorse234 (talk • contribs) 19:03, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Hello, DarkHorse234, and welcome to the Teahouse! It's actually quite simple; just go to Special:MyPage/sandbox and hit "create". You can access it by clicking on your "sandbox" link at the top of your page next to "preferences". Hope this helps, King of Scorpions 19:09, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Oh right, thanks for that :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DarkHorse234 (talk • contribs) 19:19, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

@DarkHorse234: You're welcome. Also, you should sign your comments on talk pages with 4 tildes (~~~~)King of Scorpions 19:23, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

DarkHorse234, you can create multiple personal sandboxes such as User:DarkHorse234/Sandbox1, User:DarkHorse234/Sandbox2, etc. Any subpage of your personal userpage will do. Best, Usedtobecool ☎️ 19:25, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Ah, good to know thanks. DarkHorse234 (talk) 19:33, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Hello. I think that an article should be nominated for deletion due to, for what I feel like, it not meeting WP:MUSIC. How do I nominate this article for deletion? And are there any more prerequisites that I must follow beforehand? Thanks, Biscuit3413 (talk) 20:38, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Biscut3413 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. You may begin an Articles for Deletion discussion by following the instructions written at WP:AFDHOW. You might also want to read the section above it(direct link: WP:BEFORE) to learn more about things you should look at before taking that step but it sounds like you might have weighed other options already. Twinkle is a tool that makes it easier to do make AFD nominations- you can enable Twinkle in your Preferences. 331dot (talk) 20:43, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Biscuit3413, Instructions are at WP:BEFORE, continuing down to WP:AFDHOW. After you become an autoconfirmed editor, you can use WP:TWINKLE to automate the actual nominating part. Best, Usedtobecool ☎️ 20:49, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. Biscuit3413 (talk) 21:00, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

I Need some help posting a reference — Preceding unsigned comment added by Music web guy (talk • contribs) 20:14, 10 March 2020 (UTC) I am trying to add my interview with Buzzy from 2008 but I don't think I did it correctly. I own mwe3.com since 1999 and I was the reviews editor with 20th Century Guitar mag from 1997 to 2009 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Music web guy (talk • contribs) 20:19, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

  Courtesy link: Buzzy Linhart.

You would add it via <ref> tags around your reference which you put in the body of the text, right after where you would mention the topic. If it's a website I suggest using the {{cite web}} template within the <ref></ref> tags. Would you happen to have another source? Wikipedia doesn't tend to do well with interviews as sources; it prefers secondary sources more than primary. Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 21:00, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Hello Music web guy, see WP:REFB for instructions on basic referencing. But before that, you have a conflict of interest in wanting to add these links to Wikipedia. So, you need to follow the WP:COI policy, disclose the nature of your conflict and use the article's talk page to suggest edits using WP:Edit requests rather than make them yourself. Please carefully consider whether your links improve the encyclopedia before you make such a request. Usedtobecool ☎️ 21:07, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi,

How do I insert the top box with the picture and birth details in the sandbox?

Or is that function in the sandbox?

I am also having a problem itemizing the references. Is there a place in the site with a tutorial on that?

Thanks

Jennifer — Preceding unsigned comment added by JGoldwell (talk • contribs) 19:29, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, JGoldwell! The top box is called an infobox. Infoboxes can be tricky as you have to pick the right template and the right parameters. Maybe you shouldn't worry about that yet. About the references: I assume you mean a list under a section called "References" in an article? If so, what you do is insert the reference between the <ref> and </ref> tags Then, in the "References" section, you put in {{Reflist}}. See WP:Citing sources to learn more. Hope this helps, King of Scorpions 19:36, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

JGoldwell, welcome! WP:TUTORIAL would be the actual tutorial page with Wikipedia:Tutorial/Citing sources being the one about referencing. Please consider completing the The Wikipedia Adventure. The box you are referring to is most likely the WP:INFOBOX. The easiest way for a new editor to build an infobox is to copy one from existing articles on similar subject as the one you are working on and to change the details. WP:REFB has information on the easiest way for a new editor to master basic referencing. Best, Usedtobecool ☎️ 19:44, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

@JGoldwell: What do you mean by "itemize"? Usedtobecool and King of Scorpions have provided links to you, but if by "itemize" you mean numbering them, you don't need to worry about that; the software does it for you in order of when they appear in the text. Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 21:16, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you all of you. Great explanations. I have the box and the references figured out. Now to figure out how to upload the pic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JGoldwell (talk • contribs) 22:34, 10 March 2020 (UTC)