Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Teahouse



assist upload picture [ edit ]

Hi Cullen, I am doing an article on family. I have uploaded a picture planning to use in on the content box. can you help me locate it and place it on the correct place? thank you Agantukaya (talk) 09:13, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Hello Agantukaya. You have successfully uploaded "File:Professor SR.jpg" to Wikipedia. You can add that image to any page on Wikipedia, if the licensing is legitimate. Please read Wikipedia:Images and associated links for more information. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 09:27, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Cullen, I am still struggling to upload/find the picture to the content box where I have marked. Can you please do it for me? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Agantukaya (talkcontribs) 02:06, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

@Agantukaya: I suppose Cullen might be a bit busy but I can assist you with any help you need. Just ping me or you can go to my talk page and ask whatever you want. Feel free and don't hesitate. - Call me Karthik 😉🤞 (talkcontribs) 13:38, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Naming conventions [ edit ]

I am trying to correct the naming of Bill_Hopkins_(composer)

He was born George William Hopkins. Was known to friends as Bill Hopkins and published his compositions (his most important work) under that name. He wrote professionally as a newspaper critic and used there the name "G. W. Hopkins", whom he said 'never wrote a note in his life'. So definitely a professional pseudonym.

'G.W. "Bill" Hopkins (5 June 1943 – 10 March 1981) was a British composer and music critic.' doesn't seem at all right.

What is the recommendation for this?  Mrmarbach (talk) 09:09, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse! The general policy is discussed at WP:Article_titles#Use_commonly_recognizable_names, which I would interpret in this case as saying that "Bill Hopkins" is OK if that's the name he mainly used when publishing what mainly makes him notable. Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:55, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Welcome to the Teahouse Mrmarbach. As for the opening paragraph, see MOS:OPEN. I would begin with Bill Hopkins... Mention other forms of his name if you think it important. —teb728 t c 11:11, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Note, Mrmarbach that this is a good case where a Template:Infobox_classical_composer or similar would help. The Infobox can explicitly put the birth name and other details distinct from the text of the article. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:23, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Many thanks. I'd appreciate feedback on how it looks now.

 Mrmarbach (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 20:18, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

removal of erroneous/fraudulent papers from the "further reading" list for "RNAIII" [ edit ]

Jow do I remove 3 articles that are erroneous and partially fraudulent from the "Further reading" list in an article (RNAIII) that I have been editing? Ricardus Cibarius (talk) 16:48, 28 November 2020 (UTC) Ricardus Cibarius (talk) 16:48, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Ricardus Cibarius, and welcome to the Teahouse. Like any other edit, you simply edit the section and remove the line that you think doesn't belong there. Two caveats: 1) especially when removing material, make sure that you give a reason at least in the edit summary; 2) calling some papers "erroneous and partially fraudulent" seems to me likely to be controversial (after all, somebody added those), so it might be better to discuss the question on the talk page first, and get consensus. See BRD. --ColinFine (talk) 17:00, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
All the references in "Further Reading" for that article are on PubMed and freely available. They all seem to have been peer reviewed at the time and hence any allegation of fraud seems quite a strong assertion. You should probably discuss the ones you wish to remove via the Talk Page of the article before you remove them. If you do go ahead and remove anything immediately, as you can under the WP:BRD policy, don't get into an edit war but explain your actions if someone reverts your change. You could use the edit history of the article to see which editor added the papers you object to and ping them to comment on the Talk Page. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:13, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
@Ricardus Cibarius: What was your rationale for removing and not replacing the Infobox from the article? If you do feel that a source journal or further reading is flawed in some way, I repeat my earlier suggestion to you to mention your concerns over the article's contents on its talk page, and then go ahead and make that change if you feel you can honestly defend it. You didn't do that then, I see, but I always feel that keeping a record of concerns and editing proposals closely associated with an article is a very wise thing to do. Listing the sources or reading material you are doubtful about, and your reasons for those doubts would be very sensible. Nick Moyes (talk) 19:37, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Dear Nick noyes, I have figured out how to delete these references, but have decided not to do so because it might cause a tempest in a teapot.Instead, I will post a note in the article's Talk box warning readers about the questionable nature of some the information in the referenced papers. Thanks for your input Ricardus Cibarius (talk) 01:37, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
On second thoughtI have deleted them after all, the reason being that their references to RNAIII are erroneous ands they do not contribute to the article. There is a long and complicated story here, which I could tell you if you wish```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ricardus Cibarius (talkcontribs) 13:42, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
Ricardus Cibarius, Nick Moyes I don't think that we need the whole story at the Teahouse but part of it should probably go into your comment on the Talk page of the article. I looked at the first (Simonetti et al, 2008) article you deleted and it was still being cited in April 2020 in a large review article (DOI:10.3390/microorganisms8081222, PMID:32796745). Could you add just one reference each (on the Talk Page) where the articles in question have been debunked by reliable sources, as your edit summary gave no such source? I, too, noticed the removal of the Infobox. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:06, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
Dear Mike Turnbull and Nick Noyes, Guess I have to fish or cut bait here. The easiest place to begin is with the following paper:

RNAIII inhibiting peptide (RIP), a global inhibitor of Staphylococcus aureus pathogenesis: structure and function analysis. Gov Y, Bitler A, Dell'Acqua G, Torres JV, Balaban N. Peptides. 2001 Oct;22(10):1609-20. doi: 10.1016/s0196-9781(01)00496-x. PMID: 11587789. In this paper it is reported that a heptapeptide, YSPWTNF, is an inhibitor of RNAIII synthesis. The following story negates this claim, as follows: Most staphylococcal species contain a global regulatory locus known as agr, discovered in parallel by Staffan Arvidson (Karolinska) and myself (see my recent wiki article "accessory gene regulator"), which acts by a quorum-sensing two-component signal transduction module that is induced by a peptide whose synthesis is also encoded within the agr locus. Variant homologs of this peptide are produced by all strains that contain an agr homolog. In general, the AIPs are cross-inhibitory in heterologous combinations. In our strain collection was one strain, RN833, whose peptide was a very strong inhibitor of all S. aureus strains tested and was therefore worthy of investigation. This inhibitory activity was readily demonstrated with culture supernatants, and was purified in the late 90's and sequenced by Edman degradation. The sequence came out YSPXTNF, where X could be either cysteine or tryptophan. By cloning and DNA sequencing, the agr AIP of R833 was found to be YSPCTNF and its activity highly alkali sensitive. suggesting a thiolactone ring. This was confirmed by in vitro synthesis by Tom Muir, then at Rockefeller. This structure is conserved in all but one staph species (The S.intermedius AIP has a serine, forming a lactone rather than a thiolactone ring). In the Gov, et al paper, YSPWTNF was synthesized and purportedly shown to inhibit RNAIII synthesis; however, a careful reading reveals that in the key experiment, demonstrating inhibition of RNAIII synthesis by Southern blotting, they used the native peptide (obtained from a strain RN833 supernatant) rather than their synthetic peptide - which can ONLY mean that the synthetic peptide did not work (incidentally, linear peptides generally do not inhibit RNAIII synthesis). Going forward, they have insisted that their peptide was not, in fact, an agr-coded AIP but was encoded by an unlinked gene. However, there is no coding sequence for YSPWTNF in any staphylococcal sequence in GenBank and we actually sequenced the RN833 chromosome and found the coding sequence for YSPCTNF in the agr locus but not the W variant; and RN833 produces a typical agr AIP. (incidentally, RN833 is actually a strain of S.warnerii, rather than S.aureus, though it had been sent to us as S. aureus) . On the basis of this dishonest experiment, these authors and their colleagues have developed a spurious and wide-ranging enterprise based on "RIP, the RNBAIII-inhibiting peptide". There is much more to this story, but I think this should suffice for the moment. In any case, I am always deeply concerned when I see references to these papers (although some of the findings may be legitimate, the intellectual basis - RNAIII-inhibiting peptide - is not). Three papers debunking part of this enterprise were published a few years ago, but this has not inhibited continued referencing. I will shortly add these to my comment.Ricardus Cibarius (talk) 06:23, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Purple Kiss improvement tips to prevent deletion? [ edit ]

I created the draft back in October so I could have people edit it. I left it for a little bit but today I saw that the draft had been heavily edited by someone else (as it should) and subsequently rejected three times in a row with lots of errors and little to no improvement back in November 26 and earlier in November 24. I don't want the draft to be deleted, I really want the chance to show that this is the article page that I created.

So I have three questions—what do I do to further improve the draft, how do I prove that the subject is notable, and how do I persuade the other editor to hold on before it gets submitted if they can't see what need to be improved? — beetricks ~ talk · email 21:14, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

XTools not showing any stats [ edit ]

Hello, fellow Wikipedians!

I can't seem to find any stats such as Article Creator, Contributions, Date of Creation, etcetera using XTools since yesterday. Is it just me or is everyone experiencing it? I added a screenshot for your convenience. Thanks a lot! Call me Karthik 😉🤞 (talkcontribs) 10:42, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

@Kartsriv: I failed to verify this. Please make sure that the tool is enabled in your preferences. Victor Schmidt (talk) 10:49, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
@Victor Schmidt: The tool is enabled in the preferences as you can see in this screenshot. There is a dot moving back and forth in the place where the toolbar should be. I did try disabling and enabling XTools but still no luck. Your help is really appreciated. - Call me Karthik 😉🤞 (talkcontribs)
@Kartsriv: It's working for me. Maybe it's something on your end?  Ganbaruby! (Say hi!) 12:35, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
@Ganbaruby: Thanks a lot for checking! I just noticed the xtools.wmflabs.org itself is not loading for some reason. Mostly a firewall or something. I checked if the wmflabs is down or not and it is not so the problem is in my end. Once again, Thanks a lot to @Ganbaruby: and @Victor Schmidt: for responding! - Call me Karthik 😉🤞 (talkcontribs) 13:01, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
@Kartsriv: Likewise - although I've never activated Xtools from Preferences before, I have just a few moments ago enabled that gadget and it works perfectly on Chrome, even with an active adblocker running. Nick Moyes (talk) 15:23, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
@Nick Moyes: Thanks a lot for doing that! For some reason, the xtools.wmflabs.org was blocked by my antivirus. So sorry for bothering everyone! - Call me Karthik 😉🤞 (talkcontribs) 13:32, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
There's always a logical explanation for things like that. It's working out what the actual cause is that takes the time! Nick Moyes (talk) 13:38, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Page was not approved and deleted. Draft:Electronics the Religion [ edit ]

Good day,

My page was today deleted by user Maile66, it was also reviewed by other user before.

There was no explanation besides that : Wiki does not support. Wiki is MAIN sourse of free knowledge. And that information does not exist. The post was well documented and it does exist as documentation. They mention that wiki is not a place to Host information, and that it is 'my responsibility.'

Is it possible to contact VPN head or (VIP ADMIN)?

EU — Preceding unsigned comment added by Orangmatter (talkcontribs) 15:31, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to the teahouse, what page did you create? Looking at your contribs, you've only made 3 edits to a mainspace page in 2017. Heart (talk) 15:32, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
@Orangmatter: which of the ones from today was it? One note for @Maile66: though, you deleted Draft:Electronics the Religion under U5, but U5 doesnt apply in draftspace. Victor Schmidt (talk) 16:05, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
@Victor Schmidt: Having looked at the deleted (and totally whacky content) of Draft:Electronics the Religion, I can advise that it was created by various IPs since 10th November, and was submitted to WP:AFC 5 days ago and rejected as "...contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia"! An experienced admin (Cullen328) subsequently proposed it for speedy deletion under CSD U5, and a second admin (Maile66) then acted on that CSD nomination. I would have done exactly the same thing to such nonsensical content - and clearly it is linked to Orangmatter as they uploaded the images used by various IP addresses whilst creating that draft. It stood 0% chance of ever going beyond a draft, and had no place here on a serious encyclopaedia. According to Template:Db-u5, applying it to "plausible drafts" is not acceptable, but - honestly - that situation did not apply here. A further rationale for keeping Wikipedia clear of nonsense such as this by applying CSD U5 after being rejected is, quite simply, WP:IAR. But I can see there might be a case for clarifying and expanding the guidance for that speedy deletion category to include such ridiculous content, or clarifying that CSD G11 can apply to WP:NOTWEBHOST content, and not just routine advertising or promotion. Hope this all makes sense, even if you are unable to view the deleted content yourself. Nick Moyes (talk) 16:51, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
Welcome to the Teahouse, Orangmatter. I am just as confused as HeartGlow30797, above. I cannot even find any deleted contributions that you might have made. This link shows every single edit you've ever made across all Wikimedia Foundation projects, and this link shows all of User:Maile66's actions as a deleting administrator. I can see nothing that might match your concerns expressed here via this account name. Which page are you asking about? Was it a userpage or an article within the main encyclopaedia? Perhaps Maile66 could comment on this, please? Nick Moyes (talk) 16:08, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
Per my comment above, it's clear the content was created by various IP addresses, and referred tp Draft:Electronics the Religion, now deleted. Nick Moyes (talk) 16:51, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Patent snowball clause/IAR target. Impossible to ever survive a discussion; the time should not be expended.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:40, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
That content explains the things... Why do I get the feeling I saw this draft somewhere before? Was this at WP:AFCHD or Special:AbuseLog somewhen? Victor Schmidt (talk) 18:07, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
@Victor Schmidt: I suspect you remember this post, which Cullen subsequently responded to. Nick Moyes (talk) 19:42, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I relied on the word "plausible" when deciding to tag with U5. As I see it, this is not a plausible draft. It is pretty much disturbed nonsense. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 19:27, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Maybe we should encourage a practice Teahouse !vote, with rationale: CSD U5? or CSD G11? or Keep? What say ye all? Nick Moyes (talk) 19:38, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Generally speaking, and this is just my POV, I don't have a problem restoring something I deleted as a result of a Speedy Delete. Unlike AFD where consensus is required, CSD relies on one lone editor tagging something, making it one lone editor's opinion. Some CSDs are obviouos non-starters as an article -vandalism, test edits, nonsense, self promotions, etc. - but I don't recall any of those being questioned. With the scenario of one lone editor being able to tag an article, and who knows how experienced the tagger is, I think there is always room for questioning. Questions over such a delete seldom happen, but I don't have a problem restoring when questions arise. — Maile (talk) 21:39, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
Just noting that, in this instance, it was actually one very experience administrator who tagged the article, and another who subsequently decided it was OK to deleted it (which was fine by me). But it's nice that people can see what the fuss was all about - thanks for that - and I imagine another CSD U5 or G11 may appear soon.Nick Moyes (talk) 22:23, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
Update: It has since received a CSD G3 (blatant hoax) from another editor. I have responded by deleting it with a CSD G11 rationale, plus a soupcon of G3 and WP:NOTWEBHOST. Hope that makes sense. Nick Moyes (talk) 14:49, 30 November 2020 (UTC)



Soupçon

Question by Faceless-doe-11.22.63 [ edit ]

why are my edits being removed although the material is not incorrect. as a member i thought my role is to better the wikipedia web site. Faceless-doe-11.22.63 (talk) 19:39, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

@Faceless-doe-11.22.63: Because they could not be verified, which is a core principle on Wikipedia. Howewer, I have to agree with you that they appear to be in good faith. @CLCStudent: Am I missing something obvivius, or should the edit summary have been used here? Victor Schmidt (talk) 19:46, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
And I am perplexed. Should "Bone throwing" be an article? And if not, why would it redirect to Quid pro quo? David notMD (talk) 21:40, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

why is the views of a single editor able to remove my edit. it has been brought up to me that many times wiki editors will remove posts if they don’t like an edit, no matter how well-sourced or accurate the information is, it doesn’t go in. this is disturbing to me that this free encyclopedia is so censored.Wikipedia should be not be allowed to call itself an “encyclopedia” if this continues.why after all of the years wiki has been running is this still a common fear and problem the would be editors face. umbrella stops reign (talk) 20:06, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Faceless-doe-11.22.63. It is never going to be the case that everybody agrees about what should be in an article, so Wikipedia has procedures to reach consensus. If you make an edit, and somebody reverts it, all that means is that you disagree - it doesn't mean that they're right, and it doesn't mean that you're right. At that point you have two choices: either decide it's not that important to you, or else open a discussion with the other editor, and any other editors who are interested, on the article's talk page. See BRD. In this case, as Nick Moyes says, there seems to be no justification whatever for the redirect, and he has redirected it somewhere more suitable.
So your edit was right in principle; but the problem is, that you were effectively trying to create an article by typing some unsourced text in, and that's not how we work. It's quite possible that an article on bone-thro0wing could be written, but it would require reliable published sources, and should be properly developed as an article, eg by using the articles for creation process. --ColinFine (talk) 22:44, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
To Faceless-doe-11.22.63. Nobody's job is easier for you changing your visible comment signature to "umbrella stops reign". David notMD (talk) 21:46, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Ye gods - there's absolutely nothing I can find online that suggests Bone throwing should ever, ever be a redirect to anything other than something close to Divination or the I-ching, and certainly not quid pro quo. Noting that it is a term not mentioned in any of them. Am I missing something blindingly obvious, or ridiculously obscure? Sounds like this is a case for an RFD. Nick Moyes (talk) 21:54, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

I've now redirected this title to Methods of divination. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:17, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
  • I've moved Faceless-doe-11.22.63's signatures after the body of the post. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 05:58, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

ARIA Music Awards: handling multiple cluster refs [ edit ]

Check the article ARIA Music Awards, specifically the section Most Awards/Nominations. This table shows the highest awarded artists (provided they have won at least six). The References column contains 41 cluster refs with some artists (e.g. Paul Kelly) requiring some 30 sub refs. These same sub refs are used repeatedly in the table thereby causing the article to become far too big. I get the idea that this was done so that the each artist's articles could use the relevant cluster ref to support claims of their wins/noms.

Surely there is an easier way to do this? Didier Landner (talk) 23:12, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Didier Landner, hmm, that does look like a lot of cluster refs. Pinging the article's primary author, Shaidar cuebiyar, who might be able to help answer this. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 07:49, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
Didier Landner, Sdkb: It is certainly a significant problem. From my memory I changed the awards/nominations listings into a wikitable with a single simple ref per artist back in 2009. Later I found that an ARIA search per artist did not necessarily deliver all of the awards and noms that each artist had received. So I went for a year by year search and started using cluster refs.
The ARIA website has changed a lot over the years and some information has been lost from their current website, some is available in archives but even archive-urls have proven unreliable. Currently the website does not permit search per artist, per work or per year. It only has Previous winners shown per year and you have to scan year by year per each category (you can't see the final nominations until you click on a particular tab).
I agree with Didier that I used those cluster refs for the artist's main page (or List of awards and nominations... page) to verify all their wins/noms.
I also agree that there should be a better way without all that duplication and thank Didier for pointing this out. I am open to any reasonable way of reducing all that ref clutter.
Sdkb, do you have any advice on this?shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 09:22, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
Shaidar cuebiyar, not particularly. I'm not all that familiar with music awards pages. You could probably ask around on WikiProjects and find someone more knowledgeable, though. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 09:32, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
Shaidar cuebiyar, Sdkb: thanks for the answer and hopefully an easier way can be found.Didier Landner (talk) 16:48, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Delete auto-saved edit summaries in Visual Editor [ edit ]

The Visual Editor will save your edit summaries to save you time, which is useful, but the list can get to be cluttered. I can find no way to clean up the list, though they do seem to expire after a certain amount of time.

Is there something simple that I'm missing? If not, I'd really like to see this feature added. Thanks! 1980fast (talk) 00:47, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

This is browser-side. You should be able to clear your browser's form history from its settings. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Takes a strong man to deny... 01:43, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
Something so simple would have been nice, but, unfortunately, that is not true, for two reasons: 1.) My browser has form autofill expressly disabled. 2.) I have just verified that this behavior cannot be browser-side, by logging in to my account on a computer from which I have never logged in to Wikipedia before. Every one of my entries were there when I did an edit.
Ideas, anyone?
Thanks! 1980fast (talk) 04:22, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
1980fast, I think this thread on MediaWiki may apply to you. It doesn't seem there's a way to remove them manually, but they'll be forgotten if left unused.
WhatamIdoing, do you know if there's been any progress made on this or if someone started a Phabricator ticket for it? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 01:34, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the ping, @Tenryuu. VisualEditor (both its visual mode and the 2017 wikitext editor) checks your most recent 200 edits (at this wiki) for edit summaries. There are no plans to change this, although it may be something that the mw:Editing team will look at in future years.
Since it only checks your most recent 200 edits, then obviously if you make 200 more edits, it won't find any older edit summaries. I'm personally not dedicated enough to make 200 edits just to clear out my edit summary suggestion list, but it would work. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 01:04, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
Symbol watching blue lashes.svgCourtesy ping: 1980fastTenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 01:09, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
@WhatamIdoing and Tenryuu: Thank you both! 1980fast (talk) 03:42, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Is a reliably sourced section with sufficient information considered good encyclopedic content for an article? [ edit ]

I created a new section for the Sabaton Official Website with reliably sourced information as well as multiple references on the Sabaton (band) page, however someone deleted it saying it was not 'good encyclopedic content'. Is that fine? Because the section met most requirements of notability and sources. SenatorLEVI (talk) 05:52, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Diff with the actual reason for deletion. --bonadeacontributionstalk 06:53, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
Hello, SenatorLEVI. If you disagree with somebody's reversion of your edit, the next step is to engage with them in a discussion on the article's talk page, per BRD. But personally I agree with the deletion, for the reasons given. Only if an independent source had written about what was to be found on the website would it be even worth considering (and even then, it might not be encyclopaedic). --ColinFine (talk) 10:38, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
Bonadea,ColinFine I guess I also agree with the reason for its deletion. Thanks anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SenatorLEVI (talkcontribs) 11:05, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Is this vandalism? [ edit ]

I request someone to visit [(The Mummy)] and also Imhotep. I don't know for sure, but a part of it is a just copy and paste, I doubted if its vandalism, even if the link to the main article is given above. The reason I took forward the issue is because, I created an article named Molly Weasely, and the article was deleted as I had used some lines from another page. If I am mistaken, I apologize in advance.--Atlantis77177 (talk) 06:48, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

@Atlantis77177: there was some number vandalism in Imhotep_(The_Mummy)#The_Mummy_(2000) on 24th of November, it has been fixed on the same day. Yust something I noticed, if you link to full urls, the format is [link_url link Text]. Victor Schmidt mobil (talk) 07:23, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

@Victor Schmidt mobil: I failed to understand the meaning of what you said. Could you please elaborate. Thank you--Atlantis77177 (talk) 08:43, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

@Atlantis77177:, H:WIKILINK has some advice on writing links. If you're linking to a Wikipedia page on Wikipedia, you don't usually need the full URL (which starts with https:// and so on) - just put the name of the page between double square brackets like this: [[Imhotep (The Mummy)]], which looks like Imhotep (The Mummy). If you want to link to a section, add a # and the name, like [[Imhotep (The Mummy)#The Mummy (2000)]], which looks like Imhotep (The Mummy)#The Mummy (2000). As for the incorrect year (that said 200000), it was vandalism and was fixed. If there are other incorrect changes, feel free to fix them yourself or tell someone about them. Enterprisey (talk!) 08:57, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
@Atlantis77177: I think that perhaps you are asking about whether the section List of The Mummy (film series) characters#Imhotep is vandalism because it is very similar to Imhotep (The Mummy)#The Mummy (2000)? First of all, no, that is not vandalism. Vandalism is when people deliberately try to mess up an article, for instance by adding incorrect information or childish jokes, or by removing text to destroy the article. (More about the definition of vandalism here.) There are also types of editing that are not helpful or appropriate, but are not vandalism, for instance when somebody bases an edit on their own personal opinions in good faith, violating the neutral point of view policy because they did not understand it.
If two Wikipedia articles contain some text that is identical, it might be appropriate, or it might not be. (Copying text from one article to another has to be done in a certain way, but it can be done.) I can't really think of any situation where it would be helpful to have a whole article (or most of an article) that is a copy of another article, and maybe the text in the "list of characters" article should be trimmed down a bit. You could ask the question on that article talk page, or at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film, which looks pretty active. People there will have more insight into the guidelines on characters in films. Regards, --bonadea contributionstalk 11:35, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Formula [ edit ]

What's the formula of Wikipedia? ... because my style of composing is Philippines-made. Geebei1988 (talk) 07:27, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

One part of being a successful editor is understanding neutral point of view. See Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Also see Wikipedia:Manual of Style. David notMD (talk) 09:38, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
But the main part of the formula, as two different editors have told you on your talk page, is to improve the encyclopaedia. That is what we are all here for. --ColinFine (talk) 10:45, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Question about references for article [ edit ]

I just wrote an article here and I see that it said that I had some bad sources (I think it said deprecated sources). I know there are sources that we should use, and ones that we shouldn't, but I am not fully clear about which are which! Can anyone let me know which source in this article (or sources) aren't good and perhaps explain why? I want to do a good job and do things right, but I just don't have the knowledge to do this right yet. Thanks! Dougles.Green (talk) 07:40, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

@Dougles.Green:WP:RSP and Wikipedia:Deprecated_sources should give you an overview. Deprecated but in the article is News Break (newsbreak.com). Note that the newsbreak source appears to be identical to the directely below one. Victor Schmidt mobil (talk) 07:47, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
wow this is helpful. thank you so much! Dougles.Green (talk) 08:00, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
Hello Dougles.Green. A lot of the references appear weak in Jim Wigginton. For example, I see no evidence that www.worldrecordacademy.org is a reliable source. They pretty much market themselves as being lenient about world's records. Then there is the reference to the Belleville Independent, an online publication that purports to speak for a Michigan town of less than 4,000 people. That source and several others appear to be reprinting press releases by Wiggonton's promotional campaign, and are therefore not truly independent sources. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 08:04, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

New York Food Truck Association [ edit ]

Need help for my article Hello, I have been seeking help for my organization's article on Wikipedia. It can be found at Draft:New York Food Truck Association. I have put all necessary disclosures as I was asked. Have ensured compliance with WP:GNG, WP:NPOV, WP:TOOMANYREF etc. Still can't seem to get through the review phase. I have tried contacting the reviewer too but I think they have been occupied in other places. Can one of the other reviewers help me out here? Thanks DavidfromNYFTA2 (talk) 11:30, 30 November 2020 (UTC) DavidfromNYFTA2 (talk) 11:30, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

I trimmed the draft (name-dropping and too many refs). Hope that helps. David notMD (talk) 12:50, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
@DavidfromNYFTA2: I am confused by the 'History' section in which you've used three references to simply state that this organisation approved what someone else voted to do. You also seem to be writing for a New York audience, not a world-wide one. You might know what 'posting letter grades' means - the rest of us are left totally clueless.
The purpose of an encyclopaedia is to inform, not to befuddle or promote, and I'm afraid I don't come away with the feeling that this is an association which the world has taken special notice of, above the hundreds of thousands of other such bodies. I'm sure your members do a fine job in feeding that part of your nation at a difficult time, but I would expect to see wider national coverage from non-insider and non-local sources if I were reviewing this article for inclusion on Wikipedia. See WP:NCORP for our notability criteria for organisations. Nick Moyes (talk) 13:56, 30 November 2020 (UTC)  
Hello @Nick Moyes:, thank you for the detailed response. I understand that a lot of the coverage has been on local sources but we have also been covered by highly reliable platforms such as NY Times, BI, and Forbes. This, I believe, has been due to our works for the food truck industry. To clear your misconception about letter grades, this is simply a mechanism to ensure food trucks in New York are adhering to the requirements by authorities such as the FDA, the Department of Health and others. Basically an attempt to ensure that there is no difference between how restaurants and food trucks in the city are being run. Food trucks are a large part of NYC's culture and economy and an association that voices the opinions of these businesses, that operates on a scale as big as ours, should be part of an encyclopedia. I have removed anything that points towards promotion for this very purpose. The goal here is to ensure that people know about this association just as they should know about United Food and Commercial Workers or the Writers Guild of American, East.DavidfromNYFTA2 (talk) 11:48, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Article in the Sandbox for three months [ edit ]

Hello, I created an article, and got an information that it will be placed in the sandbox and approved. It's been almost four months since then... Is there anything I can do in addition? A bit lost in all this... izabela joanna barry — Preceding unsigned comment added by Biblioteko (talkcontribs) 13:28, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Biblioteko, and welcome to the Teahouse. Your draft is indeed in User:Biblioteko/sandbox/Hanna Lachert; but you have not submitted it for review, and until you do, no reviewer will see it: there is a button at the top to do so. But please don't do that at present: it will waste your time and everybody else's as your draft is nothing like a Wikipedia article. The problem is, that like many beginners, you have written what you know. Wikipedia has no way of telling who you are, or whether your knowledge is reliable (or who I am, or whether my knowledge is reliable) so it insists on every single piece of information in an article coming from a reliable published source. Creating an article begins with finding the sources - and if you can't find enough indpendent reliable sources, that indicates that the subject does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability. I suggest you read your first article, and then start again. Sorry. --ColinFine (talk) 13:41, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
See List of contemporary classical violinists for many examples of existing articles about violinists. Some of these may be from Wikipedia's early years, and thus not meeting current standards, but in general, these articles should give you models for how to create and reference a draft about Hanna Lachert. David notMD (talk) 13:53, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Sara Radstone article, RSLLX [ edit ]

Cullen328 took out images of Sara Radstone’s work, them having been on for a couple of weeks and seen by a number of editors, on the grounds of image copyright release from the artist, namely Sara Radstone. I have been informed that she has sent a personal email to that effect, including such issues as OTRS and releasing such copyright under the standard CC-BY-SA-4.0 licence, therefore I presume the two images and captions can now be restored to the article. Also I noticed that at present there is no ‘google’ link to Wikipedia when one googled Sara Radstone, how long does it take for this to occur? Thanks! RSLLX (talk) 13:50, 30 November 2020 (UTC) RSLLX (talk) 13:50, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

RSLLX No, I think you should probably wait until the OTRS team have acted upon her email and actually flagged each image as approved by OTRS. That happens via volunteers on Commons, not the volunteers here. There is a backlog. If you have an OTRS ticket number related to the correspondence, I believe there is a way to indicate that an email has been sent. If you can do that, then adding the images in would be fine.
Articles that have passed WP:AFC do not get indexed by Google until they pass a 2nd review process, called 'New Page Patrol' this is often stricter, and pages get reviewed in no particular order. If a page waits for more than 3 months, then we automatically let Google index it. Does that help? Nick Moyes (talk) 14:05, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
Putting an OTRS ticket number into the edit history of the article when you add the image is fine, but it would be better all round to wait until the image e.g. [1] gets the explicit extra information, as I've explained at your talk page. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:09, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Reference Help [ edit ]

Hi! I'm stuck. I want to cite one source more than once but don't know how. I read the page and don't understand it. I don't know how to put in a ref name, and I'm using cite web. Please help! Dswitz10734 (talk) 16:02, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Dswitz10734. The process is not difficult but a little lengthy to explain in full. I'll do that on yout Talk Page shortly so we can get into a dialog if we need to. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:14, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Splitting an existing page up [ edit ]

Hi! I'm not sure if this is the right place to ask this question (please let me know if its not!) I'm hoping to write a more substantial page on the US Government's 1837 treaty with the Ojibwe people in what is now Minnesota and Wisconsin. This treaty is currently referenced in a page about a few treaties that share their most formal name, Treaty of St Peters. I would like create a new page and move the existing text about this treaty to that new page where I'll refer to it by its distinct, more informal, but widely recognized title "The White Pine Treaty." I know that in moving entire pages you're not supposed to copy and paste the content so that the editing history is preserved. In this case, however, where I only want to move some sections of an existing page to a new one I'm curious what the procedure is. Additionally, is the sort of thing that other Wikipedians with more experience could help me sort out so I don't lose any content in my learning? Eharris33 (talk) 17:18, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Okay! I found the page about section moving right after posting this. I've started a discussion in the page's talkpage, but can't quite follow what it would be to undertake step 2. Is this the sort of thing someone can assist me with? Eharris33 (talk) 17:56, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
Hello, Eharris33. I think you want SPLIT rather than the page you linked to. --ColinFine (talk) 19:31, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, ColinFine. I'll give it a shot! Eharris33 (talk) 01:46, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Is there a way to have multiple sandbox pages? [ edit ]

I used to use Fandom/Wikia a lot, and you could have multiple sandboxes. Mainly, I always wanted to have this whole collection of sandboxes, probably about 10 pages, but I'm assuming that's not possible. Xiphactinus A (talk) 17:36, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

@Xiphactinus A: yes! You can have any number of sandboxes, though you should actively work on them. Yust use the input box below:


Hope this helps, Victor Schmidt (talk) 17:56, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

I created the page Vijilesh_Karayad [ edit ]

I created the page Vijilesh_Karayad. But i could not get any notification on acceptance of the page. After revision i dint even know. How it is possible. Rahul SomanDiscussions - contribs 17:47, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

@Rahulsoman: because the article Was manually moved into mainspace. Moving pages doesn't trigger notifications. Victor Schmidt (talk) 17:50, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
Is it allowed to do so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rahulsoman (talkcontribs) 20:20, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
Rahul Soman, it is allowed to do so, but, as a new editor, you would have been better off submitting it through WP:Articles for creation. As things stand, when your article gets reviewed, that will be the first feedback you get on it, but it may get deleted at the same time. You will then have to respond to the feedback to improve the article and go through far more red tape to re-submit it.
If, instead, you have an admin turn it into a draft and you then submit the draft, you might have the article accepted, and if it is not accepted it is far simpler to resubmit your article once you have fixed any deficiencies the reviewers have identified.--Quisqualis (talk) 04:47, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
I used to submit through WP:Articles for creation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rahulsoman (talkcontribs) 13:35, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Welcome [ edit ]

Can I create a welcoming template to welcome users? Larryzhao|Talk|Contribs 17:49, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

@Larryzhao123: in genral, yes, though you might want to put that a bit further away on your todo list. 395 edits isn't that much and I highely suspect that you haven't seen enough of Wikipedia already to be ready to answer the newcomer's questions, should they decide to ask on your talkpage. Victor Schmidt (talk) 17:54, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Ok Larryzhao|Talk|Contribs 17:55, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

There are already various welcome templates available at Wikipedia:Welcoming committee/Welcome templates.--Shantavira|feed me 18:31, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
@Larryzhao123: Please have a look at WP:INDENT regarding indenting on discussion pages. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 08:06, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Nominate article [ edit ]

How do you nominate a article? TigerScientist (talk) 18:04, 30 November 2020 (UTC) TigerScientist (talk) 18:04, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi, TigerScientist, and welcome to the teahouse! We have various processes that you can 'nominate' an article for, including did you know, good article and articles for deletion-- so what are you looking to do? If you specify a little more, we can better help you. Cheers, Eddie891 TalkWork 18:08, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Oh um like making a article a stub or making it protected and stuff. TigerScientist (talk) 19:15, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

See WP:STUB and Wikipedia:Protection policy.--Shantavira|feed me 19:29, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

how? [ edit ]

how do you people get Grammarly for free? Heeheetickletime (talk) 18:21, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

@Heeheetickletime: Welcome to Wikipedia. According to [2] it is free to anyone using certain browsers. This help page is for asking about how to use Wikipedia. In the future, questions like yours should go to WP:RD instead. RudolfRed (talk) 18:48, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
But it is worth mentioning here that Grammarly should be disabled and not used when editing Wikipedia – it causes a lot of problems, unfortunately. --bonadea contributionstalk 18:51, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Special pages [ edit ]

How do you request a special page or request a feature on a special page? -322UbnBr2 (Talk | Contributions | Actions) 19:39, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

@Unbinilium-322 Dibromide: try asking the developers at Wikipedia:Bug_reports_and_feature_requests. Victor Schmidt (talk) 19:55, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Adding an image of a document for a citation refrence [ edit ]

I have a scanned image of Warranty Deed for an historic building that I am trying to create a page for. I need to upload it as a citation. I have managed to upload it to wikipedia files, but when I cite the information from the document it flags for a circular reference. Without it the entire article is flagged for not being cited by reliable sources. How do I need to do this properly? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Warranty_Deed_for_Barth_and_Walker_Building.jpg Mollyblew (talk) 19:42, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

A deed is not generally a useful source in the first place. Our criteria are focused on how much newspapers, etc. have written about it, not whether it exists. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Takes a strong man to deny... 19:49, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
@Jéské Couriano: It establishes the names of the original commissioners of the building, the age of the building, the tenants that are referenced later in the article. As far as notability goes, many articles in the newspapers refer to the building as "the Barth and Walker building" and "The Old Eagles Hall." This document is verification that the two are one in the same along with the other business listed. The existence of the building was never in question only how to use a scanned document image as a reference. — Preceding (Mollyblew (talk) 20:08, 30 November 2020 (UTC)) comment added by Mollyblew (talkcontribs) 20:02, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
Okay, knowing that you have the notability sources is better. The issue with scanned documents is that they are, unless the document is public domain, all going to be copyright violations. You would have better luck seeing if a historical society or a gov't registrar has the same information on their website. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Takes a strong man to deny... 20:52, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
Mollyblew, do I perceive correctly that your image was scanned from a bound book in a public registrar's office, which a researcher could see (as you did) to verify the deed? If so, then cite the book, page, and perhaps title that the researcher could use. Wikipedia (including your scan) is not a reliable source. —teb728 t c 11:31, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
To answer your question, Mollyblew, the link you supplied above goes to a file on English Wikipedia. That's why you get the "circular reference" error when you try to add that to an article. The actual file is stored on Wikipedia Commons. The easiest way to find it there is to go to the page you linked and then look for the part that says "Information from its description page [meaning on Commons] there is shown below". Click on that and you'll be within Commons. Now you should see a series of icons above the image that provide the correct links to download the file, use the file on the web or (as you need) to use it on Wikipedia itself. There may indeed be an issue of copyright — I'm not sure for a 1915 document — but that's another discussion. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:45, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Writing an article [ edit ]

Writing abd article I am trying to write an article. But cannot find basic commands/instructions. Such as how to save what I have written. All the things I am used to having in Word, where I have written a lot. Where'sBenton? (talk) 19:45, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

You save the page with "Publish changes/page". (It used to say "Save page" but then people complained about it being visible; now it reads "Publish page" and people are complaining they can't find how to save the page.) —A little blue Bori v^_^v Takes a strong man to deny... 19:48, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
Hello Where'sBenton?. Please read Your first article. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 19:58, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

From WikiBlind.org folks - Is this the Help Desk for wikipedia? [ edit ]

Trying to find the best group of people to refer new volunteers to.

Is anyone here blind or low vision? Anyone who can talk on the phone? DrMel (talk) 19:56, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Close - This is for new users to seek information on how Wikipedia works in general. There's also Wikipedia:Help desk. As for offers to talk on the phone, you're not likely to see anyone willingly disclosing their personal phone numbers on Wikipedia so as to limit spam calls, SWATting attempts, and any appearance of impropriety/collusion if they work in a volatile topic area. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Takes a strong man to deny... 20:49, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
Hello, DrMel, and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm shocked that I can't find anything much about support for editors with disability, or even much about editors who have disabilities. There is a category Category:Disabled Wikipedians, but only about a dozen editors have put themsleves in that category, and the couple of them I've looked at don't say anything about their disability on their user page. There is a WikiProject Disability, but that is about articles related to disability. It's possible that some of the participants are blind themselves, or experienced in helping people with visual impairment, so you might ask at WikiProject Disability. There is also a WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia which is about providing articles in spoken form. But that's all I can find. I shall go over to the Village pump and raise the topic. As the previous answer says, it is unlikely that many Wikipedians will be willing to post their phone numbers. But there may be something we could organise; for example, a list of Wikipedian's who are willing to work with editors who have visual impairment: the person seeking help could email the editor privately with their phone number. I would be willing to do that, but I have no special knowledge of the needs of people with visual impairment, or the technologies available to help them. --ColinFine (talk) 23:07, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
DrMel, I've raised this at WP:VPP#Support for editors with disabilities, and mentioned it at WT:WikiProject Disability. I don't know if you want to add anything to my post. --ColinFine (talk) 23:36, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
@DrMel: There's WP:WPACCESS and meta:WikiBlind User Group. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 08:23, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

How Do Talk Pages Work [ edit ]

If I ask a question in a talk page and I receive an answer is it okay to delete the section, reformat the question and answer, or move it to a different location in the talk page? I assume I should only ever change the text of my own comments, but what about reformatting a whole section to summarize the conclusion of the discussion and simply sign it myself? TipsyElephant (talk) 20:10, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

TipsyElephant, In general, don't move/change other editor's talkpage posts. The same applies to your own posts after someone has replied to them (WP:TPO and WP:REDACT). So deleting a post after a reply is not the way to go, but if you want to do that on your own talkpage you can. WP:HATTING can be done if appropriate, and like with everything else on WP, if someone disagrees with hatting they can undo it. Hope this helps. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:38, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia’s Leftist Orientation [ edit ]

We are living in a time where adults in this country are looking for 1st amendment protection, and young people are learning what it means to have freedom of speech. It is critical that forums such as yours not take a political position in reporting or opining. Unfortunately, we have seen Wikipedia take very liberal positions in delivery of information by being subtly critical of Conservative positions, or overtly kind to “progressive” and deliberately articles, “science”, etc.

People really need a place to go to find not just the behaviors of calico kittens, but also fair critique of renewable energy. Please refrain from politicizing details on your website. Be neutral, really really neutral. Don’t nuke the 1st amendment by censoring speech. Don’t do it. Half the country doesn’t want to see Wikipedia compromise conservatism to further your agenda. The other half needs to see that there is truly a place to go that doesn’t always agree with their political positions, in order to truly bring neutral information to seekers. Anyone can spin data. It takes a real encyclopedia to maintain neutrality in providing it’s users with no spin, no opinion, just genuine, unadulterated information. 2600:1702:F71:4430:3017:4BE3:9AEB:87BC (talk) 20:18, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, IP editor. Wikipedia is an international encyclopedia, not one that is supposed to reflect an American perspective on the world. Please see WP:NPOV for our policy on maintaining a neutral point of view. Anyway, the Teahouse is a place to ask questions about editing Wikipedia, so do you have a question? Cordless Larry (talk) 20:20, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
You may find WP:NOTNEUTRAL interesting. And WP:Content disclaimer. There is politics in this world, so it would be hard to keep all of it off WP. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:41, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
I would echo the above, but also add that you can contribute to articles as an IP, or create an account, and help us identify any issues you find or have found already. It is always best to provide Reliable Sources covering the content in question that covers the perspective you feel needs to also be considered. Koncorde (talk) 20:50, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
Which "this country" are you referring to? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:35, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

interwiki redirects [ edit ]

Is there such thing? I'm not including soft redirects a gd fan (talk) 21:19, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

@GeometryDashFan12: no, you cannot make a hard redirect between two pages on seperate projects. Victor Schmidt (talk) 21:22, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Creating a new category [ edit ]

I just created a new article, Deerfield Society of Arts and Crafts, and it struck me when I was considering categories that it might be appropriate to have an Arts and Crafts Movement category, just as there is a Colonial Revival Movement category. But before I rush in and add this, I thought it best to ask if there might be a reason there isn't such a category (such as it being too broad)? If it is a feasible addition (I can think of other articles where it would be appropriate), would some corresponding page listing the articles so ctegorized be needed? Does something like this have a go through review by members of a project? I appreciate any guidance I can get, so I can learn for the next time! Thank you. TrudiJ (talk) 21:20, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Category:Arts and Crafts movement 106 articles and a bunch of subcategories. Uporządnicki (talk) 21:54, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

@ Uporządnicki Thank you! I don't know how I missed the category. TrudiJ (talk) 00:58, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Notability of NFL Podcasts [ edit ]

Hi there,

I noticed that the official NFL Podcast network does not have any Wikipedia articles and after searching around the internet for a while, think that they really belong on here. Would these be considered "notable" enough to add?

The Flagship, "Around the NFL" typically rates highly on Apple Podcast charts, as do "Move the Sticks" and "NFL Fantasy Football Podcast". I'd love to work on these articles, but don't want to if they're likely to be removed. Any thoughts on whether these are worthwhile?

Thanks for the help! Smanney (talk) 21:51, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Smanney, and welcome to the Teahouse. The question, as usual, revolves around whether there is substantial independent material published about the Podcast. Have several people, unconnected with NFL or the podcast, and not prompted or fed information on behalf of these, chosen to publish significant coverage about them in reliable sources? If the answer is yes, then there could be an article, or more than one. If no, then there cannot. High ratings on charts and numbers of subscribers don't in themselves contribute in any way to Wikipedia's criteria for notability, only if somebody independent has written about the ratings or numbers. --ColinFine (talk) 23:44, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

How do I change my article's name after it has been re-submitted for review? [ edit ]

Hi there, I re-submitted by article for review after it was declined, but for some reason, it didn't keep the same title as before. How may I edit the title now?

Thank you! Hayleegraham (talk) 22:00, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Hayleegraham, another editor, Dan arndt, moved the page to a different title. Your account cannot move pages yet, that requires it to be autoconfirmed (10 edits and 4 days old). Dylsss(talk contribs) 22:04, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people) suggests that a person's performance name can be the title of an article. Either do more editing, in which case you will get moving rights, or contact the editor who made the name change and ask if they will reconsider. David notMD (talk) 22:32, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Banning Conservative Sites??? I'm sorry I ever donated to Wikipedia - never again!!! [ edit ]

Banning Conservative Sites??? I'm sorry I ever donated to Wikipedia - never again!!! 2603:6010:5142:B300:A07D:F535:B0B2:6365 (talk) 22:31, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Please let us know what you are referring to. RudolfRed (talk) 22:32, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
We've probably banned some site you don't think of as conservative too, does that help? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 22:39, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
Some sources are deprecated, mainly because they are not considered reliable. Yet other websites are banned via a black list, so that links to them cannot be added. Often these are being used to spam, or are otherwise harmful. It would be best for you to mention the actual site you are interested in to get a more specific answer or reconsideration of what you would like to achieve. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:47, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Seeing wikilnks to subtitles on my iPhone [ edit ]

Seeing wikilnks to a section on my iPhone When I create a link to a section, such as sight vocabulary it works fine on my MacBook but not on my iPhone. Is there a better way? John NH (talk) 22:54, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Greetings, Jnhmunro, and welcome to the Teahouse. I did some testing, and it appears that section links work on my iPhone using Safari in both desktop and mobile modes, but within the Wikipedia app they only navigate to the top of the article. Is this your experience as well? If so, I've opened a Phabricator ticket for someone to take a look at it (T269054). CThomas3 (talk) 23:59, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi Cthomas3. Yes, that is what I experience but only on my iPhone. My MacBook is fine. I always check Wikipedia on my iPhone because I believe most people access Wikipedia with a smartphone these days. Thanks for your help. John NH (talk) 11:51, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Valid Question [ edit ]

Hi I was wandering if you could get somebody to do the following as I work for the UK MoJ

Could your correct the following broken link as there are a few:

I think an established editor should do this as I don't want to be banned.

Mr Hall of England (talk) 23:07, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi Mr Hall of England. Please take a look at Wikipedia:Edit requests for more information, but generally the best place to request changes be made to an article is on its corresponding talk page. Posting such requests as a general forum like the Teahouse sometimes works, but you often get a better response posting on a talk page. From your question, it's not clear which article and which links your referring to, but you should be OK fixing things yourself per WP:COIADVICE if its only the link syntax that needs "fixing". -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:37, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Donating without facility . [ edit ]

Hi - I'm O.A.P. without banking facilities but would like to make donation - What do I do ? Can I send cash or postal order to a Wikipedia address ? 79.71.10.116 (talk) 23:33, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Please see this page for information on alternative means of giving. 331dot (talk) 23:51, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
One way to do this donation is to find another person who can do this, perhaps with a paypal account. You give them cash, and they make the donation online. This has proven to be a working method. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:55, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
You might like to read Wikimedia_Foundation#Finances before donating.--Shantavira|feed me 08:47, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Electronics the Religion [ edit ]

Good day,

My Draft was deleted today by: Wildr, Jimfbleak, Nick Moyes, Maile66.

By calling the page and text Vandalism in matter of being noncorrect. By using words Hoax and "Blatan" Hoax.

My draft can not be edited by IP only anymore.

Any help? 89.205.138.183 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.205.138.183 (talk) 23:39, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Is that draft: Draft:Electronics the Religion? Wikipedia articles are based on what is previously published, not on something you made up or created. To prove something is not a hoax, supply references. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:55, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
I'm really sorry IPv4s and Orangmatter, but I think it best if you seek another internet platform to promote your ideas. Wikipedia is not the right one for you. Of course, if you can find and supply some mainstream media sources that show the world at large has taken notice of this nonsense, then we'll happily reconsider, per WP:GNG. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:27, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
If you do find such sources, you'll also need to get some help writing the article. As I remember it (I'm not able to see deleted articles), it was practically incomprehensible. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 08:49, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Tagging accounts of sockpuppeters who are temporarily blocled [ edit ]

Temorarily blocked sockmasters



Many times, when a sockmaster is blocked, such as Destroyeraa or 3Oh Hexelon, they aren't tagged. Sometimes though, like with Leahmerone, they are tagged. (Or CPHL, before it became an indeff). I am confused-what's the norm? To tag(using parameters like timeblocked, or just not to even bother at all? HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 23:40, 30 November 2020 (UTC) Feel free to leave me a Teahouse talkback-it's more effective then pings. --HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 23:41, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

HurricaneTracker495, sometimes discretion comes into play. While the templates are for clerical reasons, and there's standard instructions for their placement, there's courtesy and etiquette that ultimately determine what happens. There's little point in tagging the user page of a productive non-LTA editor who is expected to return shortly once they've realised their mistake. The previous history will be in the block log should issues arise again, so rather than branding the editor they should be given the chance to get back into good standing. It's possible for the user to clean start but there's many reasons why they might choose not to.
I see you've pinged several blocked editors, how do you expect them to respond to this thread? It's possible to use noping, but honestly it would have been better to ask a more general question rather than linking specific users. Zindor (talk) 02:14, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
@HurricaneTracker495: In practice, we never add sock tags to temporarily blocked accounts. I'm aware there is a "timeblocked" parameter for {{sockpuppeteer}} that may have been used in the early days of Wikipedia, but nowadays the user pages of temporarily blocked accounts are left as is. I agree with Zindor that there's little point in doing so, as it amounts to nothing more than a badge of shame, and that is not the purpose of tagging. Mz7 (talk) 03:15, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Ok, Mz7 and Zindor. Maybe CPHL was only tagged because it was six months? HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 12:48, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
@HurricaneTracker495: the standard offer is six months, yes, but i dont know the exact determination used for tagging; I suspect it's less clear cut than that and requires good judgement. An indef can be lifted earlier than six months or left in place longer, depends on the user's track record and the sincerity and understanding displayed in their unblock request. You can get a good idea about whats gone on from a user's talk page and the block log, and any relevant AN discussions. Beans might apply too, especially with LTA socks, so you might not see the full picture. Mz7 will know more about this subject than I do. I mainly responded because I didn't want to leave your question sitting un-answered. Regards, Zindor (talk) 19:29, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
@Zindor: no, the facts are wrong. 06:47, 5 April 2020 Callanecc talk contribs blocked CPHL talk contribs with an expiration time of 6 months (account creation blocked) (Continued disruptive editing including persistent addition of unsourced content after previous blocks). So he was blocked previously. The indeff came in 04:21 April 21, 2020. ST47 came in and tagged them 01:52 April 21, 2020, before the indeff came in. The six month block was for copyright violations. I even quote this from ST47- Confirmed, tagged. The master is already blocked 6 months for an unrelated matter by @Callanec:, so they were evading / trolling. I'm not going to extend it, but maybe someone else will want to. Otherwise, please close. ST47 (talk) 01:51, 21 April 2020 (UTC). ST47 has been pinged for input. --HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 19:34, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
@HurricaneTracker495: I don't know the background behind those cases, but as I said before, in practice we only tag indefinitely blocked accounts. In general, sock tags should only be added by administrators or SPI clerks, so if I were you I wouldn't spend too much time worrying about this issue. Mz7 (talk) 19:44, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
@HurricaneTracker495:, ive already read that log thanks. In my post i was speaking in general. Hashing over a specific case isn't something I'm prepared to do, especially on a highly visible board such as this. Zindor (talk) 20:07, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Please help me please. [ edit ]

Some times it says that we canˈt edit the article because you do not have sufficient privilliɡes Please help me someone. IPAexpert (talk) 00:12, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

If you want to edit semi-protected pages, you should be able able to do it by now, since you've made 10 edits. If you want to know more about page protections, see Wikipedia:Protection policy. Enjoyer of World(bother me...) 00:17, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
It could always be full, 30-500, template, interface or other protection types. --HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 00:26, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
IPAexpert, check to see if the articles in interest have lock icons of some sort in the top-right corner. If you hover over it you can see what level of protection it is, and if you click on it, you will be taken to the appropriate section of WP:PROTECT for more information. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 01:41, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Correctly pinging this time. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 01:42, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

New people joining [ edit ]

Hi guys, I was wondering if there is some way to know when a new "wikipedian" joins. I would kind of like to be the "welcome wagon". I like welcoming people, and bringing a little joy to everyone is what I like to do.

Stay safe 😷, Scalyhawk121534 (talk) 01:05, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Try the user creation log. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 01:38, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
See welcome page Wikipedia:Welcoming committee David notMD (talk) 01:45, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Do you have a question [ edit ]

 2001:8003:2911:9A00:AC04:8F81:8371:4868 (talk) 01:18, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

I dont have a Question. Do you have a question about using or editing Wikipedia that the folks here at the Teahouse can answer? Victor Schmidt (talk) 06:43, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Help in Improving Article [ edit ]

Help in Improving Skillhouse Article

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

Good day, I was wondering if anyone can help me improve my article, it has been declined for being read as an advertisement but every fact I have stated properly referenced to a secondary source. How can I make the article read less like an advertisement? Thank you very much for your time and consideration. Shallou Vignette (talk) 03:58, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Shallou Vignette, I just glanced over the page, and I don't really see any major issues with promotional language. Pinging reviewer Theroadislong—could you comment on why you declined the draft? {{u|Sdkb}}talk 05:25, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Sdkb Thank you very much for taking the time to read through my article, is there anything I can do, or should do? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shallou Vignette (talkcontribs)
@Shallou Vignette: Just wait for Theroadislong to reply here. I don't personally see any changes you need to make to the draft, but it's considered bad form to resubmit it without making changes, so it's better to just address the concerns with the initial reviewer. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 06:36, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
The whole draft reads like it was written by the marketing department, which I presume as you are being paid it probably was. For instance content like this which is sourced to your own website "The company operates on a four-tier fulfillment structure in which there is a specific department responsible for each aspect of the IT staffing process" and the glossy interior shots of the business mke it look more like your own website. Theroadislong (talk) 08:08, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Agree, with Theroadislong; there is also some poor grammar that would suggest it was written by a non-English native, duplication of content (Mark Smith is very important) and a lot of the sourcing for basic content is referring to primary sources the equivalent of domestic company registration websites, or membership / affiliation, rather than notable secondary coverage in reliable sources. Not sure the company meets notability. Koncorde (talk) 08:30, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
@Shallou Vignette: I see from the malformatted userbox at your userpage, that you have a COI in relation to the company Skillhouse Staffing Solutions. Please note that in the case of paid editing there are are additional specific disclosure requirements that must be followed, per WMF terms of use, before any paid article can be approved at AfC. These requirements are explained in Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure#How to disclose and are most easily satisfied by the paid editor placing a filled out {{connected contributor (paid)}} template at their userpage. Nsk92 (talk) 09:00, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
@Shallou Vignette:, you asked How can I make the article read less like an advertisement? One key to this is that the article has to be based on what people with no connection to the company are saying about it. As an example, take the last paragraph in the draft, about the colour scheme of the offices and what the colour red and the company logo symbolise. That is promotional content presented in Wikipedia's voice, even though it is actually based entirely on what the CEO, Mark Smith, said in an interview – which, by the way, means that the source is not secondary. I can't see any secondary sources in the draft with the exception of one or two listings such as Bloomberg. The Temple University source which is supposed to support the claim that "Skillhouse is also partnered with Temple University in fostering IT education amongst its working staff and registered candidates" does not mention Skillhouse (and "fostering IT education" is another instance of promotional wording). I searched for "Skillhouse" on the university website in case the wrong URL had been added in the reference by mistake, but the only times the word appears are two editions of the university newsletter where Mark Smith is mentioned as a former MBA at the university. So in addition to the fact that it reads like advertising, it is also not adequately sourced to show notability. Have a look at this information to see what would be required. --bonadea contributionstalk 09:39, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
@Shallou Vignette: There's a lot of language used here that I would expect to see in ad copy (but not in an encyclopedia). The way the sentence Ever since coming to Japan, Mark has been involved in IT staffing and outsourcing services in Japan, US and Singapore for more than 30 years is worded promotes Smith's achievements. Another sentence with issues is The working staff of Skillhouse is made up of different nationalities to cater to both local and foreign clients and candidates, which isn't noteworthy (in the broad scheme of things) and is phrased to appease potential clients or hires. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:23, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Notability Guidelines [ edit ]

I was wondering what counts as notable, especially in the case of YouTube channels. What amount of following or media attention is required for these pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lurker no more (talkcontribs) 04:30, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Lurker no more, you can look at WP:NYOUTUBE for a bunch of thoughts and examples. The actual guideline used is that the creator needs to pass either WP:GNG or WP:ENT. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 05:23, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Creating a page about my former teacher's modality [ edit ]

Hi there. I'm trying to create a page on a modality. It's my former teacher's modality, which sometimes I use. I want to do it right, but wasn't sure what option to choose.

Do I need to pick "this article is about me or somebody close to me"? It is not about me. And that person is not close to me but was one of my many teachers.

What should I do?

Thank you. Gamze Cassandra Evren (talk) 08:44, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

@Gamze Cassandra Evren: What exactly do you mean by "modality"? If you're writing about your teacher, then we do consider that as conflict of interest editing. It's very hard to write about someone you know because it is very hard for you to write from a neutral point of view. Be sure that the subject fulfills the notability guideline, and refer to WP:YFA for more details.  Ganbaruby! (Say hi!) 10:38, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
@Ganbaruby: Possibly you may look at Gamze's sandbox User:Gamze Cassandra Evren/sandbox to see what they mean. --CiaPan (talk) 14:25, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
@Gamze Cassandra Evren: Please be aware that creating a brand new article from scratch is one of the most difficult task at Wikipedia. For a beginner it's close to impossible. Wikipedia requires us to obey many policies and guidelines, WP:N and WP:VER as most important, also WP:NPOV. It is better for newcommers to begin with minor corrections and expansions in existing articles, preferably in their area of competence, and not start new pages until they reach some basic level of proficiency. --CiaPan (talk) 14:25, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Ganbaruby, thank you very much for your comment. I saw that you referred to what was in my Sandbox. That was the old version. After receiving the comments, I realised that there is a different way to how to write things. I changed it and rewrote the whole thing according to Wikipedia guidelines in the best way I could. Now, my question is; The subject I’m writing about is a modality created by my teacher. I’m not writing about my teacher. I’m writing about a psychotherapeutic process which is in use in the world, created by her. I was just wondering if it’s still considered writing about a close person, although it’s not written about a person? Although it’s not the main modality I use,( or you can call it like an intervention technique, with it’s own rules, like Cognitive Behavioural Therapy, Hypnotherapy etc) it’s partially what I do in my profession. My main job is Clinical Hypnotherapy. So, with this in light, Which option I should pick. Article is not about me, this article is about me or somebody close to me? With appreciation, looking forward to your reply Ganbaruby. @Ganbaruby: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gamze Cassandra Evren (talkcontribs)

Gamze Cassandra Evren Please make follow up comments in this existing section, instead of creating additional sections. Thanks 331dot (talk) 09:38, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Working on stubs is fun! But what happens next? [ edit ]

It's quite easy to find stubs to work on, but is there a guideline for de-stubbing? Is it only the jurisdiction of affiliated Wiki-projects? Is it poor taste for the person who added refs/material to 'rank up' an article themselves? Or is removing stub notices considered a low-priority task?

Best, Estheim (talk) 09:14, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Estheim Hello and welcome. If you have improved an article and you feel that it is no longer a stub, you are allowed to remove the stub tag. It isn't something you have to wait for a WikiProject to do or anyone else. 331dot (talk) 09:16, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Personally, I feel comfortable upgrading Stub to Start, and perhaps Start to C-class after having worked to improve an article, but not C-class to B-class. If not sure, you can create a section on the Talk page to ask another editor to assess the quality of the revised article and decide to upgrade or not. David notMD (talk) 10:47, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

@Estheim: See WP:DESTUB and WP:RATER for advice and a useful tool, respectively. Don't forget to remove any stub template from the bottom of any article as well as the stub rating on the talk page (I so often forget about the article templates!) The fantastic things about improving and simultaneously removing stub templates is that not only enhances the encyclopaedia in a fast and effective way, but it also helps other people who like to work on groups of articles in WikiProjects. One good tip is to work through all the most important articles within any given WikiProject that interests you is to check that they genuinely still are Stub-rated. They might well have been improved but never upgraded. See this guidance which I wrote on using the Quality Assessment Table to help you find the most worthwhile stub articles to work on. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 12:16, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you 331dot, when I am ready to put on my Assessment Cap, I will wear it with confidence.

That is a good rule of thumb, David notMD. That's roughly how I feel about WP:Assess, sticking with obvious stub-to-start as I learn.

Thank you for the resource links and tips, Nick Moyes. I have been using the Project Ratings grid and indeed it makes the efforts feel more rewarding. Cheers all, Estheim (talk) 13:00, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

How to find authentic citation ! [ edit ]

Thanks User:HostBot (talk · contribs) for the invitation, I am feeling lucky here and my greeting to all the members of The Teahouse. I Have a little doubt, please guide me if possible.

Which type of citation accepted on the wiki? I am trying to write an article the first time so a little bit nervous about it. Visit too many guidelines but can't understand the same subject. My real confusion is how do I find the citation is authenticated and real. Micromadmonkey (talk) 11:26, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Micromadmonkey, and welcome to the Teahouse and to Wikipedia. You may find an answer to your question at citing sources; but I want to give you more general advice. I understand the desire to make your mark by creating a new article - I remember feeling that way myself back in 2006 - but in all honesty, creating a new article is one of the worst ways for a new editor to contribute. Creating an article is not easy, and for an editor who hasn't got used to Wikipedia's unique requirements it is often very frustrating, as other editors can seem to be cruel as they try to guide you to understanding Wikipedia's policies: you might find all your work thrown away if you haven't understood the foundations of an article. We have over six million articles, and tens of thousands of them (at least) are in a sorry state; almost all six million could be improved. I would strongly advise you to put creating an article on one side for the moment, and find some existing articles that you can improve. You might do that by finding articles in an area that interests you, or perhaps by going to the Community portal. If you haven't already, I suggest you take The Wikipedia Adventure, and that you read your first article before you try to create one. Happy editing! --ColinFine (talk) 12:00, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Question about my first submission [ edit ]

I believe I managed to submit my first draft for revision today, but I didn't get any confirmation which I could see. How can I know the submission was successful, and what's next? Also, I added an image to go with this submission but I didn't see it added to the draft copy. And, how do I add tags of WikiProjects, which I read it's advisable in order to speed up review? Thanks for any help you can provide. - Susan Wrote This (talk) 12:03, 1 December 2020 (UTC) Susan Wrote This (talk) 12:03, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse Susan Wrote This. You saved Draft:Danilo McGarry but did not submit it for review. You uploaded File:Danilo mcgarry-bio.jpg to Commons but did not add it to any page. Your statement that the photo is your "own work" is inconsistent with the credit to David Fernandes. —teb728 t c 12:15, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you so much! Indeed. I got stuck with the photo. How do I fix it? How do I submit Draft:Danilo McGarryfor review? Obviously, I wrongly thought I had submitted it. How do I add File:Danilo mcgarry-bio.jpg to Draft:Danilo McGarry? -- Susan Wrote This (talk) 13:02, 1 December 2020 (UTC)



Hello, Susan Wrote This. In answer to your first question, there is a big button near the top that says "Submit the draft for review!". But in my opinion it has very little chance of being accepted at present, because I cannot see a single source that is all three of Independent, Reliably published, and has Significant coverage of McGarry. Please understand that Wikipedia is basically not interested in anything that McGarry says or wants to say about himself, or that his associates or employees say about him: Wikipedia is only interested in what people who have no connection with him, and who have not been prompted or fed information on his behalf, have chosen to publish about him in reliable sources. Unless you can find at least three separate publications that meet this, he does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability, and all your work will be wasted. See also CSMN.
On the image, I'm afraid there is bad news there, too: the image you have uploaded has been nominated for deletion, on the grounds that it does not appear to have been licensed by the copyright owner. I suggest you leave this unless and until you can demonstrate notability, and then you need the copyright holder either to upload the picture themselves, or to send the mails specified in donating copyright materials. --ColinFine (talk) 15:08, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

AfC [ edit ]

How do I submit an article? I submitted my own article twice before that didn't get deleted, but I don't know if this one would get article status a gd fan (talk) 14:05, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

@GeometryDashFan12: you submit drafts by pasting {{subst:submit}} (as it appears when viewing this page) into them, and saving the page. I have fixed this instance for you. Victor Schmidt (talk) 14:25, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Untitled Question [ edit ]

 MMilanezi (talk) 14:10, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello, I'm doing a page biography for my teacher, I have all the text in the box, but I have a couple of questions: a) I misspelled his last name and it seems I can't change it in the title; b) it says my contribution is not submitted for review

@MMilanezi:Draft:Vidar Halldorsson is submitted for review. However, in it's state, it is unlikely to be accepted because it fails to show that the subject is notable enough to have an article (WP:NBIO). The article must have multiple secondary sources that are reliable and independent of the subject to demonstrate notability. Right now you only have links to Halldorsson's university, which is not independent. You're draft's sourcing is also not in the correct format; see Help:Referencing for beginners for how to do it correctly.  Ganbaruby! (Say hi!) 14:55, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Naming [ edit ]

Why do you call this place the Teahouse SuperSonicPlus (talk) 14:16, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

@SuperSonicPlus: From meta:Research:Teahouse: "The name Teahouse is meant to evoke the idea of a comfortable social space for meaningful personal interaction among peers. The name Teahouse is also a nod to the English Wikipedia essay a nice cup of tea and a sit down, which urges editors to acknowledge one another's good points, and is often used to nudge people towards being congenial when things get heated." It's a name that feels nice and cozy; I like it a lot.  Ganbaruby! (Say hi!) 14:50, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

David Ullman [ edit ]

I was declined on this very accomplished engineer because of 'tone.' I am not sure how I could have written this any more dry or non promotional and in compliance. I am wondering if it is because I wrote "internationally recognized expert" in the lead?

I have this issue often and have tried many times to comply with all the help articles referring to 'tone' but can never seem to satisfy. Guidance would be greatly appreciated as the subject is notable and deserves recognition.

Any advice would be greatly appreciated. Thank you! LassoLaneFolks (talk) 14:21, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

LassoLaneFolks Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I think the tone issue comes up because what you wrote reads like a resume or list of accomplishments, and not an encyclopedia article. I might suggest that you review other articles about people to get a sense of how they should be written; fewer lists and more prose would help
Also please understand that Wikipedia is not a place to provide recognition for people; we're only concerned with if they meet the Wikipedia definition of notability. 331dot (talk) 14:32, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
For Draft:David Ullman, delete the list of patents, and refs to those. Delete the list of journal articles, and refs to those. A Wikipedia article is ideally about the significance of a person, not a list of their accomplishments. With a few exceptions for simple factual information, delete all refs which cite Ullman as the source of the information. Only then, see if you have at least three strong refs that are about Ullman. David notMD (talk) 15:25, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Who are you [ edit ]

 73.128.212.50 (talk) 15:57, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

This is the Teahouse - a friendly help forum for people needing assistance in understanding how to contribute to, and edit, Wikipedia. Do you have an editing-related question for us? Nick Moyes (talk) 16:37, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Nick Moyes, No, I think they were just scared. Le PaniniTalk 03:07, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

More than one Account? [ edit ]

Hi All! Quick and easy question (I hope): I currently use Wikipedia to edit on behalf of my employer, and have disclosed on my talk page as well as the pages I have been paid to edit. However, I would ALSO like to contribute as myself and to not have my edits associated with my employer.

Is it appropriate for me to simply create another account with my personal email address? I worry that my IP address will be flagged, since I access Wikipedia mainly from one location. Just want to make sure I'm doing it right. Thank you for any guidance! Jcollinsycc (talk) 16:04, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Jcollinsycc. The use you are describing is not specifically mentioned in VALIDALT, but in my view it would be acceptable, provided you were open about it - i.e., disclosed on both user pages the fact and the reasons for having two accounts. I'm not an expert on username policy though, so others may disagree. You would need to be careful that you never edited anything remotely connected with your employer using the other account. I'm not sure what you mean about your email address. If you're talking about the address you may optionally associate with an account, nobody ever sees that address (unless they email you and you choose to reply by email from that account). --ColinFine (talk) 16:44, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Thank you, ColinFine! That makes sense. I'll hold off for a bit in case someone else weighs in. I appreciate your feedback! Jcollinsycc (talk) 16:50, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
@Jcollinsycc: I would agree with ColinFine. I read the shortend version (WP:MULTIPLE) amd feel that declaring the link between the two accounts and you, their one user, plus the purposes of each account would be fine. The one no-no would be if you ever used both accounts to either edit one article, or to add two !votes to a discussion, as this would be seen as sockpuppetry, and both accounts would be liable to be blocked if that were detected. But for honest, open editing, I think your approach would be quite acceptable. Transparency is the key, and it seems like you already appreciate that. I run two accounts, and have declared the linkage between them and me on each of the userpages. Nick Moyes (talk) 17:45, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Thank you Nick Moyes, for the added detail - it helps to see an example of it as well!

Is there anyone over here username taggy [ edit ]

 SuperSonicPlus (talk) 16:57, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

@SuperSonicPlus: Are you thinking of the fictitious User:Taggy McTaggerstein from The Wikipedia Adventure? TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 17:12, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
There is actually someone with that name on the german Wikipedia. Victor Schmidt (talk) Thanks

Traslation [ edit ]

I am attempting to translate the page Zhang Jike into Tagalog. I modified the translation and attempted to publish the changes, but it said it contains a total of 100% unmodified text. Why is this? D4135t 16:58, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

@D4135t: Hmm, you might have more luck asking at the Tagalog Wikipedia help page, since that's the destination. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 19:25, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

To donate [ edit ]

To donate I do not have any money in my checking account so when I get some I can give a little then, if that is ok with you? I get paid on 12/ 3 / 2020 will that be ok? Debnan (talk) 18:18, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

@Debnan: I am pretty sure. You are by far not the only donator, I am pretty sure that Wikipedia won't run out of money to pay the server bills yust because you didn't donate. Victor Schmidt (talk) 18:27, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Donating not a requirement to being an editor. Welcome to Wikipedia. David notMD (talk) 19:05, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Debnan, as much as the Wikimedia Foundation would appreciate a donation from you, it is not required to edit or read Wikipedia or any of its sister projects. As far as I know the Foundation is doing fine from current donations so there is no rush to donate (or at all). —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:28, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Archiving a section on a talk page [ edit ]

Hey, I am not sure if my thinking is correct, but is there a way to archive a section on a talk page? I am wondering this for my user talk page. Thanks for the help. Mulstev (talk) 19:32, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello Mulstev. You can find the instructions at Help:Archiving a talk page. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 19:54, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Thank you. Mulstev (talk) 01:33, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Editing Developing Stories [ edit ]

Hello! I'm new to Wikipedia. Should I wait to edit pages on developing stories or should I edit them as new information comes out? Specifically I was trying to edit the Volga Maniac article because a man just confessed to being the killer. Thanks! PGaz05 (talk) 20:19, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, PGaz05. That's a very sensible question, so thank you for asking it. Wikipedia only reports on what Reliable Sources have written about a subject. Developing stories, rcent deaths, major incidents are all very changeable subjects, and require considerable care and experience. (We recently indefinitely blocked a young editor for linking an American journalist to that of a child murderer with zero justification - and they or their parents were lucky not to have been pursued in the courts) Reporting on criminal accusations needs extreme care, and I see your account is just two days old. So my advice is to do yourself a favour and find less challenging areas on which to learn how to edit. You might like to read some guidance on these topics. Here are some shortcuts to them: WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BLP and WP:RS and, of course, Help:Introduction. Does this help? Nick Moyes (talk) 20:53, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Yes thanks so much Nick Moyes! — Preceding unsigned comment added by PGaz05 (talkcontribs) 06:07, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Regarding Music Articles [ edit ]

Hello, Teahouse editors. I'm currently trying to create an article for a Juice Wrld song. While looking around the internet for an acceptable cover image, I found several of them that are the same (they're all for the same song, obviously). However, I'm not sure what sites are considered OK to use (I considered using the SoundCloud image, but I'm wary of doing so). Can someone help me out with this, and can anyone also give me any website recommendations? TheKingCartii (talk) 20:30, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello, TheKingCartii, and welcome to the Tewahouse. Album covers are one kind of image for which it is often acceptable to use non-free content: see NFCI. If your proposed use meets all the criteria in the non-free content criteria, then you don't need any kind of permission, but may upload an image (to Wikipedia, not Commons). Note that if you're creating the article as a draft (which I would strongly recommend) then you may not use a non-free image in it, but only in an article in article space; so you should hold off uploading it until that has happened. --ColinFine (talk) 22:22, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Question by Soundcloudlegends [ edit ]

Photographer uploading a picture Hello, I was trying to upload a picture for the artist, Kobenz, I have done a few of his shoots. It's blocking me from uploading, any recommendations? I have also noticed there is a city of Kobenz and an artist Kobenz. I feel these two should be differenciated. Soundcloudlegends (talk) 20:54, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

To upload to Wikipedia, you need to have 10 edits and 4+ days' tenure at minimum. That said, Wikipedia won't accept images of living people under fair use anyway. I would go thru the process at WP:Donating copyrighted materials. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Takes a strong man to deny... 21:31, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Hello, Soundcloudlegends, and welcome to the Teahouse. If you own the copyright to the pictures, and you are willing to license them under CC-BY-SA (which will irrevocably allow anybody to reuse and alter them, for any purpose, commercial or not, as long as they attribute the source), then you can upload them to Wikimedia Commons, which doesn't have a restriction on new editors uploading. If you want to do that, go to Commons:Commons:Upload Wizard.
As for the disambiguation: yes, this is a common occurrence which we have standard ways of dealing with. Unfortunately, what you did was to trash the existing article about the city. It looks as if Davidwr is sorting this out, and will put the material you tried to add into a new draft page where you can work on it, and submit it for review when it is ready. Have you read Your first article and WP:NMUSICIAN? --ColinFine (talk) 22:33, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
@ColinFine:, @Soundcloudlegends: I am working with an admin to sort it out. As of a few minutes ago, the edits have been removed from Kobenz but as far as I can tell, they have not been restored yet. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 23:04, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Question by Peterrivington [ edit ]

An article of mine was nominated for speedy deletion by Rodney Araujo and Seraphimblade. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Sankey_Photographs. I strongly deny any element of promotion and consider the subject to be extremely notable as it concerns photographs which are already used on Wikipedia. I have now moved the article to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:The_Sankey_Family_Photography_Collection in order to correct the title. Neither of the deletionists has replied to my comments. Is there any way out of draft space?Peterrivington (talk) 21:15, 1 December 2020 (UTC) Peterrivington (talk) 21:15, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello Peterrivington. Welcome to the Teahouse. Unlike Hotel California, it is quite possible to checkout and leave draftspace. I have added a button for you to submit your draft for review and feedback when you're ready. It looks to have potential, but if the collection itself is notable, it probably needs some good reliable sources that talk about it, rather than the two generations of photographers, who may well be notable themselves if they've been written about. These references really need to be inserted as inline citations- at least one per paragraph. See this guidance page for easily adding references. Nick Moyes (talk) 21:52, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Permission to publish a translated page/ issues with the Reference list/ Need of a mentor! :-) Many thanks [ edit ]

Hello to all! I have just translated this page from Portuguese and I am having some issues. Here is the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:International_Hub_for_Sustainable_Developmenttent%C3%A1vel The issues I am finding are in the talk page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft_talk:International_Hub_for_Sustainable_Development. Also, it seems I need permission to publish that from a more experienced translator. I appreciate all help! GisaPlima (talk) 21:16, 1 December 2020 (UTC)GiselaPlima GisaPlima (talk) 21:16, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Answered on the talk page Draft talk:International Hub for Sustainable Development. --ColinFine (talk) 22:40, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Question regarding a page I edited for someone I know [ edit ]

Hi, I edited the page- Alexi Lubomirski - and it has been reverted to the version before I edited. I am directly connected to him and curious why my page was reverted as everything is factual. Any chance someone can help? Azimmerman333 (talk) 21:44, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Azimmerman333. That can seem really annoying when you know something to be true, but another editor removes it. The problem I see with this edit you made is that there is absolutely no way for anyone else to VERIFY what you said by checking with publicly available RELIABLE SOURCES. Anything that can't be verified should not go onto Wikipedia - that's our mantra. So you will need to address this. There is guidance HERE on how our editing tool can help you easily add inline citations, but the work of finding those sources in the first place is up to you. You then ought to declare on your userpage that you have a bit of a 'conflict of interest' - we have guidance here on how to declare a CONFLICT OF INTEREST. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 21:58, 1 December 2020 (UTC).
Azimmerman333, Wikipedia depends on information from verifiable sources, not on things personally known to its contributors. Your edits not only added things based on your personal knowledge (which you might get away with in a small way), they removed statements based on cited sources, together with the references to those sources; that is not acceptable. Maproom (talk) 22:17, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Question [ edit ]

What is a "user sandbox"? I was reading The Signpost just now and in the section about paid editors it mentioned it. It also shows on my user page and when I click the thing in the top right corner of my screen when I put it into advanced mode. Ex-Borg Seven of Nine (talk) 23:23, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello Ex-Borg Seven of Nine. In brief, your user sandbox is a place for you to develop content and test code. Please read Wikipedia:About the sandbox for complete details. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 23:31, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Apparently my sandbox is not created yet? And I'm having the same problem I had with my user page. Ex-Borg Seven of Nine (talk) 23:51, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Ex-Borg Seven of Nine, if there has been no content on the page it doesn't exist. Once you decide to add content to it and save, it will exist. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:51, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
Your sandbox will be at User:Ex-Borg Seven of Nine/Sandbox. Just edit it and it will be created. Meters (talk) 01:02, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

That's the thing. I hit publish, and then it just loads and loads and loads and it doesn't publish. Never mind, is there a sandbox that's been created? Ex-Borg Seven of Nine (talk) 01:31, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Ex-Borg Seven of Nine, I wouldn't suggest going to other user sandboxes and adding stuff. I made your sandbox here. You should be able to click the link on the top left corner of your browser that says "Sandbox" to get there too. Le PaniniTalk 03:05, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Bo-Ying Lee does not show link to wikidata [ edit ]

Hi, I don't see Bo-Ying Lee linking to wikidata (Q102826015) on the left side of the Wikipedia page. Thanks, SWP13 (talk) 23:37, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello, SWP13. I purged the page, and now it shows. --ColinFine (talk) 23:49, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Reply>>ColinFine, How did you purge the page? Awsome, it shows a wikidata link now. Thanks.SWP13 (talk) 23:54, 1 December 2020 (UTC)



Hello, SWP13. I picked "Purge" from the "More" menu at the top of my page. I don't know whether everybody sees that or whether it's because I have enabled a gadget. See WP:Purge (which I linked to). To reply to a message here just indent with a colon (:) - one more colon than the message you are replying to. --ColinFine (talk) 12:03, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
@SWP13 and ColinFine: Purging has to be enabled by going to Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets, and then choosing "Add a "Purge" option to the top of the page, which purges the page's cache". Alternatively, you can purge using the commands at Wikipedia:Purge#Purge local browser cache (the commands depend on your web browser). Joseph2302 (talk) 12:09, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Disclosing COI [ edit ]

Disclosing COI RE: Peter Petros Wiki

I have not been able to get a Wiki article through as I have been dinged for COI and copyright issues on my images.

I am wondering how I may amend this and disclose my COI? I have tried following the instructions but I cannot understand them. My relationship to Petros is that I have interviewed him in the past for work. Although in this instance I was not asked to create an article by him or anyone else, nor have I been paid to do so.

I am was extremely impressed by his CV and my interview with him in the past. I believe this man needs more exposure as a researcher in womens health and prolific academic journal article creator as currently there is little to no information on his academic and research achievements -- only newspaper articles over a past controversy that was all over the Australian news at the time making any research on Petros impossible.

The images which were used were taken from his academic articles that are open to the public and I was also given further consent and images to use when I reached out to him to tell him that I wanted to create a Wiki on him.

Please help! I am very new to this all and am eager to create more articles but I need to understand where I am going wrong and how I may disclose my COI regarding this wiki so that it may be published. GW.Pub (talk) 00:04, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Regarding "I believe this man needs more exposure as a researcher in womens health and prolific academic journal article creator", that is exactly the wrong reason to write a Wikipedia article. Wikipedia is not concerned with spreading the word about someone; we're only concerned with summarizing what independent reliable sources say about a person, showing how they meet Wikipedia's special definition of a notable person.
There are formal ways to disclose a COI, but a simple statement on your user talk page will suffice. 331dot (talk) 00:23, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
Courtesy: Now at Draft:Peter Petros. As stated by 331dot, add a statement to your User page that you have met and interviewed Peter Petros and decided to create an article about him, an are not being paid or otherwise compensated for the effort. David notMD (talk) 02:29, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
In my opinion the draft is far too long, large amounts of content are not referenced, large amounts are not about Petros, cut, cut, cut. David notMD (talk) 02:36, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

20th Infantry Regiment [ edit ]

I dont know all the lineage but I know what is listed is wrong and/or incomplete for the 20th Infantry Regiment. My father was in this unit during WWII and Korea. I dont know how to fix it so I wanted to make you aware. 160.2.17.170 (talk) 00:44, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. We will need more information than "it is wrong" in order to be able to help you. Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources state, and is not based on personal knowledge, this is necessary for verification purposes. If you have independent reliable sources that say something different than the current article does, please offer them and what changes you want to make, on the article talk page. 331dot (talk) 01:04, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
Hi IP editor. If you are at least able to suggest key elements which you suspect might be incorrect or need some attention, you could post a list of concerns on the article's talk page in the hope it might spur other editors to investigate. But, as 330dot says, we can't change article content without having sources we can reference (cite). Your prompting on the talk page might get others to do some checking, but we can't incorporate hearsay, no matter how correct that might actually be. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 01:40, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Donald Trump [ edit ]

Would it be possible for someone else to write the bio for Donald Trump, it was obviously written by someone who is either a Democrat or someone who just Hates him !!! Could someone who is knowledgeable about how to do this and will not put in judgement like calling him a racist, a liar, accusing him of not replacing aca when pelosi stopped 3 plans and worst of all accusing him of not handling c19 properly when he did FAR more to battle this crisis than ANY president ever in american history, I mean come on the ships, the hospitals, the ppe, the ventilators, Warp speed vaccines and on and on and on. COME on the description of him doesn't give him CREDIT for anything but on the contrary does nothing but try to make him look as bad as possible. Will someone who feels neutral and will just write his bio WITHOUT injecting personal opinion please write this, if I knew how I would. If Wikipedia is going to be like the media and only allow favorable pieces to be written about Democrats then they don't deserve donations except from democrats. This should be a neutral site and only print the TRUTH not personal opinion. PLEASE someone give this the attention it deserves. Thanks; Mitchel 2601:940:4200:38F0:F414:C029:DA8:DAAD (talk) 00:57, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

If you have reliable, independent sources that say otherwise about his life, please provide them. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:59, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources state; if you don't agree with what they say, you will need to take that up with them. See WP:TRUTH. Wikipedia does not deal in truth, but in what can be verified, because truth is in the eye of the beholder. If you just want to stay in your bubble and be told what you want to hear, this isn't the place for you. 331dot (talk) 01:01, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
Hello IP. How're you doing out there in Alabama? I'm sitting here in the UK, listening to CNN live on the internet (ever since Fox News stopped letting me watch it here a couple of weeks ago for some reason). I haven't looked at the Trump article, but right now CNN is literally calling Trump a 'liar' and a 'con man' (over his $170m appeal for donations from gullible people to fight 'election fraud' with something called a PAC, whatever that is), so I imagine there are many other good and well-respected sources saying the same thing, which Wikipedia will, in due course, report. It doesn't report unsubstantiated nonsense. But you are totally and utterly correct in one thing: You said about Covid19 "he did FAR more to battle this crisis than ANY president ever in american history" Spot on. Damn right he did. That's one statement that nobody in their right mind would argue with at this time. As you know, the virus appeared during the final 12 months of Trump's presidency, so no prior president could ever have done anything about it, as it didn't exist then. So, of course he's done more than any past president in american history! From what I'm hearing on this side of the pond, I suspect the next incoming president will be able to easily and quickly match all Trump's efforts and commitment thus far to tackle Covid-19, and I know that Wikipedia will report what other reliable sources say when those things occur. What we don't (or shouldn't) inject, is personal opinion; we base Wikipedia content on factual, verifiable, reliable sources. Thus far, a total of 6,104 different editors have contributed to the article on Donald Trump. It isn't just one person collating this information, you know! Nick Moyes (talk) 01:36, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
Care to mulligan on the topic area you want to get involved in?A little blue Bori v^_^v Takes a strong man to deny... 01:51, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Two comments: 1) As Nick Moyes pointed out, every article is the accrual of content added by multiple editors, so there was no "someone" who wrote the article, nor "someone else" who can place it; and 2) the Foundation accepts donations to keep the Wiki-universe operating, but that is entirely separate from the volunteer editors who create and delete and edit articles. David notMD (talk) 03:52, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Wow. Just wow. This is how the holocaust happened you know? The bigger the lie... Gobsmacking.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 05:56, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Question from Borbe64 [ edit ]

can you please contribute to the article called borbe64 it is a motivational thing so people can feel better about their selves Borbe64 (talk) 02:05, 2 December 2020 (UTC) Borbe64 (talk) 02:05, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

No. We are not a substitute for therapy. Try somewhere else.A little blue Bori v^_^v Takes a strong man to deny... 02:31, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
Borbe64: You have not created an article. Your User page, where you have written "hi this is a page that you can type encouraging messages below because we all need that extra light in our day in this pandemic you all are amazing" is supposed to be a place where you create content explaining your intentions as a Wikipedia editor. Other editors are not supposed to write anything on other editors' User pages. Your Talk page is for communicating, but only about Wikipedia-related stuff, like edits on articles. David notMD (talk) 03:00, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Lifting Extended confirm protection of an article [ edit ]

Hello,there is a certain article which's unneccessarily extended confirm protected and it's mismanaged due to lack of editors. Is there any way to lift it off?Falcon with appendix (talk) 03:52, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

BTW,it's current season of ISL. And I'm asking to lift it off as it's underedited due to lack of more editors and even current seasons of Premier League,La Liga,Bundesliga,Serie A and Ligue 1 don't have such unfair limitations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Falcon with appendix (talkcontribs) 04:09, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

@Falcon with appendix: Welcome to the Teahouse. From what I can see on the page's protection log, extended confirmed protection is set to expire on December 3, which isn't that far off. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 04:14, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Are legit News sources are no longer reliable sources? [ edit ]

I'm not sure why this draft (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Len_Tepper) was cited for not having reliable sources. CBS News and AdWeek are used as sources in many wiki articles.

Thank you, Teahouse, for any information you could provide. Nynewsguy (talk) 04:02, 2 December 2020 (UTC) Nynewsguy (talk) 04:03, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi Nynewsguy. Often reliability depends upon WP:RSCONTEXT and the type of information the source is being used to cite. Some of the sources your citing in the article mention Tepper only by name as part of some other story; so, they are not something which is going to be considered WP:SIGCOV of Tepper himself. Some of the other sources you've cited don't seem to mention Tepper at all, which means they have pretty much zero value in establishing his Wikipedia notability. Try to focus on content and sources that clearly establish Tepper's Wikipedia notability. Perhaps also try asking at WP:JOURNALISM for some feedback as well. It kind of seem that Tepper might meets some of the criteria given in WP:NJOURNALIST; so, perhaps focus on those things and finding sources for those things will help better clarify his Wikipedia notability. You can also try asking for clarification on the user talk page of the AfC reviewer who declined the page or WP:AFDHELP. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:58, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Rick O'Connel [ edit ]

I am an editor part of WP:FCHAR, as I am very interested in movies, books and fictional characters. I spotted that Rick O'Connell redirects to Mummy Franchise characters. But, he is the lead protagonist in all 3 movies of the series. So shouldn't there be an additional article. I myself have created such articles like Dr Smolder Bravestone, which was reviewed and accepted. But the Jack Dawson article was deleted. Also, Imhotep (The Mummy) is an article on the lead antagonist of the series. While Imhotep is in 3 movies and 1 Tv show, Rick is in 3 movies. As I have presented my view, please comment as you are all experienced editors. I have also put the question in Wikiproject:Fictional Characters Thank you. --Atlantis77177 (talk) 06:02, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Film characters are no different from other topics – they need to meet WP:GNG and there should be significant coverage in reliable and independent sources about the character, not the actor or the movie in general. If there is such sourcing, by all means draft an article about O'Connell and submit it for review! As for Dr Smolder Bravestone, I don't see where it was reviewed. Didn't you create that in mainspace? I don't really think there is any indication of that character being independently notable, to be honest, but that's a different issue. The character of Imhotep has appeared in one film from 1932 and a very different film from 2000, as well as the sequel to the latter film and two separate TV series. These different incarnations have different backstories, different developments, and are represented in very different ways indeed. That indicates that it is more likely to be a notable character compared to a character appearing within a single story arc, portrayed by one actor, but again, if you find the sources, go ahead and draft the article! Imhotep (The Mummy) is abysmally badly sourced, to be honest. It would surprise me if there are no sources available, but they are not in the article – so that's something that might be worth working on, as well. [edited to add: A very quick search found sources about Karloff's Imhotep: a couple of pages in Mummies around the World: An Encyclopedia of Mummies in History, Religion, and Popular Culture, an article from Journal of Evolutionary Psychology called "Tracking the sands of time: origin stories in the mummy films", and it looks like there are also several pages about it in Horror Film Directors, 1931-1990 by Dennis Fisher, though that's not a book I have access to.] --bonadea contributionstalk 10:20, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Succession box vs infobox [ edit ]

I'm editing the page for John Yellow Bird Steele, who was president of the Oglala Sioux Tribe 6 different times.

Right now I have the list of dates when he was president as term_start / term_ends 1-6 in an {{Infobox officeholder}}. There's also a succession box ({{S-start}}). If I put all six terms in both, and include successor / predecessor for all 6 in the infobox, the infobox + succession box will be huge.

Should I just have one or the other?

Also, how do I find more info about {{S-start}}? I know I've seen a page with info about it but I can never figure out how to get back to it. What's the standard way of getting info about all those {{}} things I see when editing? GeorgeSonOfJohn (talk) 07:44, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

GeorgeSonOfJohn, while I'll leave someone else to talk about {{Infobox officeholder}} and {{S-start}}, I'll tell you that you can look for template help by searching for Template:Example in the search bar, where "Example" is the name of the template you want more information on. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 07:54, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Usage of preferred pronouns? [ edit ]

People who use pronouns such as ‘he/they’, she/they’, or are pronoun flexible only have the binary pronouns used on their page when these pronouns are supposed to be used simultaneously. Are we allowed to edit them as long as they are their preferred pronouns? Sock06 (talk) 08:33, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi, User:Sock06. Welcome to the Teahouse. Are there any specific pages you are referring to? This might be an issue worth raising on the talk pages of the articles in question. The relevant guidance for pronoun use is at MOS:GENDERID.
As your account is relatively new, it might be worth considering creating a new account with a different username. A 'sock' is a term used on Wikipedia for illegimate alternative accounts and having such a name might create possibly undue impressions about your account. Kind regards, Zindor (talk) 12:44, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

AloPeyk [ edit ]

It's about 3 months that I was working on the draft and trying to fix the issues which were mentioned by reviewers (here and here). I provided lots of reliable sources in English, Persian, and even french to confirm the notability of the subject (AloPeyk). In comparison with Snapp!, the subject has been mentioned by more English sources such as financial tribune,bloomberglaw and daily star, meanwhile snapp! is available in Wikipedia but AloPeyk does not get the permission to published. If the submission would be accepted, other users such as copyeditors could develop the body of the article based on policies. Hispring (talk) 08:52, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Over-referenced. Should not take nine references to confirm it exists, or six more references to confirm it delivers stuff. Also has content about plans for future action. David notMD (talk) 09:18, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

How to give titles [ edit ]

I am creating a page and i want to give titles like every page has for example- early life, career etc but i am unknown to the fact how to create those headings. Ibaadat (talk) 09:19, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

@Ibaadat: You can surrround a text with two or more equal signs to create headings. See also Help:Wikitext. Victor Schmidt mobil (talk) 09:54, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
Like this: ==Early life==. Enjoyer of World(bother me...) 11:38, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
@Ibaadat: The more equal signs you add on each side, the smaller the

titles [ edit ]

will [ edit ]

get [ edit ]

tips on how to improve a rejected draft [ edit ]

Hi! I wrote the article below and sent it to be reviewed but it got rejected: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:UPDIVISION

So I wanted to ask, how can I improve it exactly? I tried to keep it as objective as possible. I'm aware several sources cited are not secondary, but what else could I do in the case of products, for instance, where the most info comes from the company's own pages? Also, are there any sections where the phrasing is too commercial-y? Thank you. Mevpeche (talk) 09:21, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Mevpeche Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. The draft you have written about your company just tells about the company and what it does. Wikipedia articles must do more, they must almost exclusively summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the company, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. Wikipedia is not interested in what a company wants to say about itself, only in what others completely unconnected with the company have chosen to say about it. This does not include press releases, the company website, staff interviews, announcements of routine business activities, brief mentions, product descriptions, or other primary sources. Most of the sources you have offered seem to be those sorts of things.
The "mission" and "vision" section would need to go completely, as it is impossible to independently verify what a business considers to be its mission and vision.
As a company employee, in order to succeed in writing a draft about your company, you in essence need to forget everything you know about it, and only write based on the content of independent sources. Most people in your position have a difficult time doing that. 331dot (talk) 09:44, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

What is Endflatlist? [ edit ]

When editing (for example, the article on Friedrich Nietzsche: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Friedrich_Nietzsche&action=edit) I see the word “Endflatlist” between brackets, but the list doesn’t appear as a list in the article itself. Thanks. GümsGrammatiçus (talk) 10:48, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

@GümsGrammatiçus: its a template. See Template:endflatlist. Victor Schmidt mobil (talk) 11:05, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Last question, I hope (I am way overusing the Teahouse) [ edit ]

I'm in my sandbox, trying to make an Infobox. But when I go to publish it, it has a weird message in the preview. Something about an unknown parameter. How do I fix this? Ex-Borg Seven of Nine (talk) 12:26, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Templates can be super picky, and usually they don't like capital letters. Try changing "Name" to "name", "Species" to "species", and so on, and see if that helps? (I don't think "first appearance" and "last appearance" are parameters that are supported by that template, either – double-check in Template:Infobox person to see which parameters it recognises.) --bonadea contributionstalk 12:39, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
Ex-Borg Seven of Nine, I was just looking there. All the hard work has been done for you, luckily, and you can just fill out a form from pre-existing templates.
I don't know much about Marvel, but it seems you're making an article about a character from the franchise.
Either you're gonna want to use the Template:Infobox character template, or the Template:Infobox comics character template. You might want to use either one of these two. (and don't worry about using the Teahouse too much. Helping newcomers is our purpose.) Le Panini Talk 12:43, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

font too small [ edit ]

How enlarge font in which articles and edits appear? Eye strain. Thanks.TBR-qed (talk) 12:28, 2 December 2020 (UTC) TBR-qed (talk) 12:28, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

TBR-qed, Whatever you type will be set at the default font size. There is a smaller and bigger font, though.
<small>Small text</small> :
<big>Big text</big>
Which looks like this and this.
However, I wouldn't suggest using them, as Wikipedia uses the same font for every article.
Additionally, you can use a ctrl + key bind to zoom in. Le Panini Talk 12:37, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

faulty encyclopedia reference [ edit ]

My sandbox is flummoxed by a failed effort to refer to a section of an encyclopedia article, as distinct from reference to page or chapter. My section on Duhem; Stanford encyclopedia section 1.2 in article by Psillos. Thanks.TBR-qed (talk) 12:43, 2 December 2020 (UTC) TBR-qed (talk) 12:43, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello, TBR-qed, and welcxome to the Teahouse. Your question was a bit hard to comprehend, but I did find two duff references at User:TBR-qed/sandbox which I fixed with this edit. (You had some spurious characters present in two of the references, and some curly brackets used in the wrong places.) Hope that helps? I am a bit concerned that you appear to be writing an incredibly long-winded essay on a topic about which we appear to already have an article (Problem of induction). Is there a reason for this? Striking final question as I've just found this. It also looks like you're beginning to appreciate that we don't write opinion pages about topics in this encyclopaedia, but report what other reliable sources have written about them, and in in a neutral, non-interpretative manner, which is very different from the style encouraged in academia. Regards,  Nick Moyes (talk) 13:34, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Article Declined - Why? [ edit ]

Why was my article declined? CreepyManMaker (talk) 12:44, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, CreepyManMaker. I'm afraid it was totally uncited and deemed as a blatant hoax so was speedily deleted once it was reviewed at Articles for Creation. In future, try to remember that this is an encyclopaedia of notable things, based upon verifiable, reliable sources. Made up stuff and non-notable nonsense simply gets deleted if it's deemed to have no merit whatsoever. I'm afraid that was the case with 'Carrot Kid', and this isn't a playground for pranksters. Regards. Nick Moyes (talk) 13:22, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Follow-up to Help to install an edit of an English entry of Wikipedia [ edit ]

Creating References I have revised the draft of my article as advised. Now: please can someone help me create the link of each of the eight references in the text of that revised article to the references list at the end of that article? Merchav1 (talk) 13:35, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Welcome back to the Teahouse, Merchav1. You will find guidance on how you use either of your preferred editing tools to add incline citations yourself. Please either follow the instructions at WP:REFBEGIN or some notes I prepared on the same topic at WP:ERB. You can use one reference to a book at multiple places if you use the {{rp}} template immediately after the inline citation to show which page in the book or journal that cited statement refers to. (More details on that in this section. I would expect at the very least that each paragraph about a person would have at least one reference at the end of every paragraph, or multiple citations within it to support multiple assertions of fact. I hope this helps. If after carefully reading through the guidance pages, and giving it a try, you find you're still stuck, just pop back here and identify one precise statement and one source document that you would like to use as a citation, and someone here will possibly add it for you by way of a demonstration, and then leave you to do the rest. You might find it worth looking at the 'edit source' code of a similar article to see how inline citations appear within them. Nick Moyes (talk) 14:04, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Please review and move these articles to main space [ edit ]

I am a new user who created two articles. Please review them and give me feedback.

First article for review and move to main space: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Kabul_Model_United_Nations Second article for review and move to main space:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Yahya_Qanie Popalzai.diana (talk) 13:55, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Popalzai.diana. We don't review new articles here, but I have added a 'submission' template to both drafts so that, when you're ready, you can submit them to the review panel at Articles for Creation. Be aware there is a huge backlog (c.3,500) and it can take some months for our reviewers to get around to checking any given article. I would add that it is not at all clear to me what a Model United Nations is. Perhaps you are a little too close to the subject? So, could you try to imagine yourself knowing nothing about the topic and start the article in a simple explanatory way which assumes no prior knowledge? Many thanks. Nick Moyes (talk) 14:12, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
As they stand, neither article is likely to be accepted. Youtube, Twitter and the organisation's own website are not considered reliable sources, which you need to provide to establish that the subject is notable enough to merit an article here. It is not the number of sources that matters so much as the fact that they should be independent of the subject. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:39, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Can a good article have a tag about references, etc.? [ edit ]

Joe Kennedy III is nominated as a good article, yet it has a tag regarding TMPS. Does that give the article an eligibility to have GA revoked? a gd fan (talk) 15:05, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

@GeometryDashFan12: Simply having a template wouldn't be grounds for removing GA status from a current GA (which that article is – it is listed as a GA, not nominated). A template might flag more or less serious issues; the template here indicates that the article relies too much on primary sources, it doesn't say anything about a general lack of sources. The Good Article criteria don't say anything about primary sources. Secondary sources are preferred (otherwise the template wouldn't exist), but that template on its own is not a sign that it would be delisted if it went through a reassessment discussion. --bonadea contributionstalk 15:36, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Getting article reviewed [ edit ]

Help please! Getting article reviewed. Hi, I'm new to editing on Wikipedia and trying to get this article published: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Linda_Merrick

Could someone please confirm it's in the line for review. If not, could someone please submit it for review by Wikipedia editors? Thank you very much! Hal.mccollum (talk) 15:22, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

What is this?