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

Hello Everyone - I had worked for a few weeks, on and off, on an article about vocalist Machan Taylor. I know the draft was rejected but the opportunity for improving it is still open. I hope to improve, among other things, by adding what is a a rather hefty and reputable discography. That said, I really would appreciate instructive feedback on a few things. For context, here is the article:

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

And here is the reason it was rejected for publishing:

"This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of music-related topics)."

Here are my questions:

1) I noticed an article for a similar subject to Machan. While my draft was rejected on the basis of the references that are there, I am trying to understand how this similar and apparently related subject's article was published with know references (except some linked content): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_Bartlett_(musician). It seems both Machan Taylor and Kevin Bartlett have had similar trajectories - in some respects Machan Taylor has done more international work. I think both subjects have done notable work and should have articles. But I'm not sure I can tell how Taylor's is less publishable than Bartlett's.

2) The reason it was rejected states the articles cited must be reliable, secondary, independent, and they must not just 'mention the subject in passing'. None of the sources cited mention Machan Taylor in passing. All of them are focused on her as the subject of the interview or story. Some of the resources are smaller publications but they are reputable and widely read in the markets that they are published in and for - these are geographic regions; I guess I'm trying to understand how that would be a less credible source than a larger paper: as an academic, I have a hard time understanding how a regional paper that is the most important publication in that region, isn't reputable. That said, there are a couple of international sources that are devoted to music and Pink Floyd and interview notable people on a regular basis.

3) Subjects that have done very similar work throughout their careers and have performed on the exact same projects as Taylor have published articles, e.g., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Durga_McBroom, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rachel_Fury, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Brown_(singer). I think these musicians should have articles and are notable. I just think Taylor is of the same scale of notability.

I respect the decision to decline this draft and am working on improving it. But am trying to understand, on the three points above. My intent is not to imply the existence of one article should be the basis for another, I'm trying to understand how substantively the Taylor article comes up short in comparison to any of the other articles on comparable subjects mentioned in the three points above.

Any feedback is sincerely and truly appreciated. 1987atomheartbrother (talk) 06:19, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello, 1987atomheartbrother. The English language Wikipedia has almost six and a half million articles, and many of them have evaded serious scrutiny and may have serious problems. Arguing that "I found another article with serious problems so therefore I should be able to add my new article even thoogh it too has serious problems" is an exceptionally weak argument. Instead, thousands of Wikipedia editors work every single day to either improve articles with problems or to delete them. ​

You are correct that significant coverage in independent reliable sources is required to establish notability, and then you mention interviews. By definition, interviews are not independent sources since they are based on what the subject of the article/draft says about themself. We take the word "independent" very seriously. Now, I will take a look at your draft. Cullen328 (talk) 06:34, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

A couple of your sources are from minor publications and possibly OK but most of them are very weak. If she has had such a long and distinguished career working with such major acts, then surely you can provide higher quality references. Cullen328 (talk) 06:42, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, Cullen328, I appreciate the feedback: I just want to underscore: I mentioned why I was looking at those other articles in contrast to the Machan Taylor - definitely not being argumentative at all. In fact, I mentioned that to pre-emptively avoid that giving that impression. Please note: she has had a notable career, but I think it's notable on the same scale as the colleagues whose articles I was drawing a comparison too (I find drawing those comparisons educational as far as understanding when an article might be worth drafting or not - it's the similarities in careers and sources that made me curious about the decision to decline the draft). As with those other artists, she won't generate the type of press a Madonna, Michael Jackson, or someone in that vein would generate - or that Pink Floyd itself would. But as a consumer of knowledge here, I have in the past looked for information about this subject myself and I have seen the case made for an article about her in some of the discussions and talk pages here. I'll add more resources, and hope for a robust, objective evaluation.--1987atomheartbrother (talk) 07:49, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

1987atomheartbrother, on Wikipedia, it is all about the quality of the reliable independent sources, which are like 24 karat gold here. Poorly referenced or unreferenced articles like Kevin Bartlett (musician) should either be improved or deleted. Please do not try to emulate overtly bad articles. When you say that she has had a "notable career", you are expected to prove that by providing references to high quality sources describing her career in detail. Otherwise, it is just an empty personal opinion lacking credibility among Wikipedia editors. Cullen328 (talk) 08:00, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Take heart. An important distinction is that the draft was Declined, not Rejected, the former meaning that the reviewer saw potential to succeed. I see that there has been no action on the draft since October. The greatest weakness is that refs 5 and 6 are interviews. Also, draft mentions two solo albums. Information? Any published reviews? David notMD (talk) 08:21, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Bartlett now proposed for deletion, which will happen in a week if not improved. Durga McBroom at risk for lack of references. Fury at risk for poor refs (interviews, name-mentions with no extended content about her, etc.) 08:37, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, Cullen328, for the additional feedback: I plan to add a discography to the draft, including her two solo albums and reviews. I'll do my best to provide strong resources. I appreciate all the information. Since October, I've gathered some but not added anything to the article draft. I've saved the resources. Let's hope it turns out to be a good article!--1987atomheartbrother (talk) 09:03, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

1987atomheartbrother, if you want the article to survive as an article, you should concentrate on finding reliable independent published sources with extensive discussion of the subject. Adding a discography won't help it survive. Maproom (talk) 13:14, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

maproom, thanks. Context for that was the brief exchange on her two albums.--1987atomheartbrother (talk) 13:55, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi there, I just want to know what is undeleted edits and how can I check my undeleted edits  Onmyway22 talk 15:57, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

@Onmyway22: At the top of the page is a "contributions" link which shows your edits. See Special:Contributions/Onmyway22 RudolfRed (talk) 16:12, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

@RudolfRed: I did not get. clarify more ? I mean how to find the count ? Onmyway22 talk 16:15, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

@Onmyway22 — Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse. Undeleted edits are edits that are publicly visible, and show up as accessible permanent links on your user contributions page. However, deleted edits are edits that will not show up as permanent links, or are deleted from your contributions page altogether. There are multiple reasons as to why your edits might be deleted. For one, an administrator could have deleted the page you were editing, or deleted a single revision (WP:REVDEL). Or, it could be privacy-breaching, and, in that case, an oversighter will come and suppress your edits. Hopefully this helps. — 3PPYB6 — TALK — CONTRIBS — 16:20, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

And, to find your edit count, go to Special:Preferences and see your edit count (note that the counter will include both deleted and undeleted edits). To find a more detailed report, look here. — 3PPYB6 — TALK — CONTRIBS — 16:25, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@Onmyway22: Welcome to the Teahouse! To get the count of your undeleted edits, you can do the following:

1. At the top right of any Wikipedia page, click "Contributions" to go to Special:Contributions/Onmyway22.
2. Scroll all the way to the bottom and click on "Edit count" to go to https://xtools.wmflabs.org/ec/en.wikipedia.org/Onmyway22
3. Under "Basic Information" on the left, I see that you have 1,485 Live edits (undeleted edits) plus 286 Deleted edits for a total of 1,771 Total edits.

Hope this helps, and keep up the good work! GoingBatty (talk) 16:29, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Both you are awesome. Thank you Onmyway22 talk 16:35, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

@Onmyway22 — No problem. — 3PPYB6 — TALK — CONTRIBS — 16:36, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello

I Would Like To Like to know If There Is A way To solve a issue Where A Article (like mine: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Rugoconites_tenuirugosus) about An Animal has Little References. What I'm Trying To say Here Is that my page (the Rugoconites_Tenuirugosus one) Keeps On Getting Rejected Due to Low amounts of References, Even Though there Are only 3 Websites Which Are References ( The Three websites I used For the page are https://www.mindat.org/taxon-P153113.html , https://paleobiodb.org/classic/checkTaxonInfo?taxon_no=153113&is_real_user=1 And http://www.ediacaran.org/rugoconites.html), They Are The only Few Websites Which Reference this Animal In The Wikipedia page I've Made. If Someone Can Find me More References or Websites Mentioning Information About Rugoconites Tenuirugosus I Would Greatly Appreciate that And I Will be sure to add it To The Page.

Thank you, have a nice day! Rugoconites Tenuirugosus (talk) 19:22, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

See existing thread #Page Acceptance from yesterday. --David Biddulph (talk) 19:39, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Readers here are unlikely to have the specialist knowledge to help you. You may have more luck on the talk page of a relevant project; see those listed at Talk:Rugoconites. If there are insufficient sources to justify a new article, you may be able to use those which you have found to support additions to the existing article Rugoconites. --David Biddulph (talk) 19:46, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

@Rugoconites Tenuirugosus: Please do not delete AfC comments from a draft. Your draft refers to a phylum called "Trilobozoa" - where did you read that information? Provide a source for that and resubmit, and you may be successful. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 20:55, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

@Rugoconites Tenuirugosus Whilst you might use capital letters in your username, be aware that specific epithets are never capitalised unless they relate to a proper noun. They are also given in italics. I've reworded your draft a bit and recommend that you start to learn how to search Google books where you will always find better sources than a simple browser search. BTW: your home-made image seems to indicate that we know what colour these organisms were. I find that worrying. please find a better way to caption such images, and to cite sources to show upon which reconstructions they are based. Cheers, Nick Moyes (talk) 17:50, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

FYI

 – Created section header. GoingBatty (talk) 16:18, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Harrypot0122 (talk) 15:02, 17 January 2022 (UTC) I have been playing farming simulator for quite some time now but there are lots of things that I am still curious about. There is no satisfactory content anywhere on the internet nor on Wikipedia. Can anyone update it, it would be a great help.

@Harrypot0122: Welcome to the Teahouse! Since Wikipedia has an article about Farming Simulator, you could post specific questions on Talk:Farming Simulator if your goal is to encourage editors to improve the article. Hope this helps, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 16:22, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

@Harrypot0122: You can also add information about the game in Farming Simulator yourself if you want to! Just make sure to back your information with reliable sources. ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 17:53, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

In the talk page of the article Mohammed Shami, an editor told me "####LOOK HERE, I AM DISCUSSING IT YOU FOOL####". Now, is this a proper language of discussing a matter? After watching my reply to him, he cunningly removed his words. Now, I think proper strides should be taken against the concerned user. Any veteran user, kindly handle this issue. Thanks Michri michri (talk) 12:57, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello; I am a veteran user. Editors should avoid calling other editors fools. Aside from once calling you a fool, this editor seems to have been polite and amiable. Please discuss the article. -- Hoary (talk) 13:06, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

@Michri michri: - I've issued advice to the editor in question. Hopefully that is the end of the matter. Mjroots (talk) 19:05, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Mjroots, thank you for your aid. My intention was just to make the concerned user aware that the kind of language he used is intolerable in Wikipedia. ThanksMichri michri (talk) 09:08, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

• In addition to the above, that edit might be a "cunning removal of words" intended to make you look bad for overreacting, but if so it was not very cunning when everyone can see the page history. Another nicer (and, frankly, more plausible) explanation is that they fixed the mess that the previous angry edit created on the page and/or withdrew their unwise language. Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 14:00, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

The editor in question has accepted it was wrong. This is now closed. Mjroots (talk) 18:22, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Can we use Quora answers as a reliable source for citation? Religiousmyth (talk) 17:38, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

See the entry for Quora in WP:RSP. Quora is a self-published source containing user-generated content, so it is considered unreliable, although in certain specific cases described there, it can be used as a primary source. CodeTalker (talk) 17:49, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

everything is self-sourced including media, press. Quora have both false and real information based on the user knowledge and research. can't we use Quora highly up-voted answer as reliable source for wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Religiousmyth (talk • contribs) 17:46, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

@Religiousmyth: No, because what determines the highest-upvoted answer are users, and there's no screening criteria when registering. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:13, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

hi, i really need some help with my wikipedia entry. i am working for an artist and his estate and I want to create an article for him. for some strange reason the jpg got uploaded but not the wording and i just noticed that i got blocked. here is the link to the jpg. that should be changed to an text entry: https://it.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Carlo_Valsecchi.jpg can someone guide me through? I am clearly making some mistakes here. very best,  Colettedelamaison (talk) 15:05, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Collettedelamaison Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Since you say you work for the artist, you must make a required formal declaration of that, please read the paid editing policy. 331dot (talk) 15:09, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

@Collettedelamaison: I have reverted the addition on the Commons file page for that image commons:File:Carlo_Valsecchi.jpg where an IP user (you?) had added a biography. Files are held on Commons for use across all language versions of Wikipedia but only the individual projects may hold biographies. Also, I note that the file says the photograph was taken by Robert Matza, sourced from a webpage. That page says "all rights reserved", so there is no evidence the image is licensed in a way that would allow its use within Wikipedia. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:25, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

@Colettedelamaison I'd also recommend that you make sure to remain object and only source data from reliable and notable sources. Note the emphasis. If you attempt to make use of either original research or other information that you have got from the subject, the chances of your article being review successfully will be very slim. (If not impossible.) _Signed, Pichemist ^{( Contribs | Talk )} 19:27, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

thank you very much for your respond. robert matza is a friend of mine. but yes, I took the images from this homepage. should i just start all over again? and take a image which I can use? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Colettedelamaison (talk • contribs) 15:31, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

I have an other question. is there someone who could help me creating this page? is there such community i can adress? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Colettedelamaison (talk • contribs) 15:34, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

@Colettedelamaison — You can create a draft at Articles for creation. Just enter your page name, and it will load as “Draft:(page name here)”. However, you must have Mr. Matza’s permission before using his images, as this could potentially be a copyright violation (see WP:COPYVIO). As for the community, there are WikiProjects; the subject could potentially fall within the scope of one of them. — 3PPYB6 — TALK — CONTRIBS — 16:15, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Your draft is currently at User:Colettedelamaison/sandbox. You can copy/paste content from there into a draft. As Robert Matza is alive, he could create an account and add his own photos to Commons, for you to put in the draft. He needs to be aware that by doing so he would be renouncing all rights to the photos, including commercial usage. Also, your Sandbox draft has no references. You must find and add references ABOUT him. Listing his shows does not in any way whatsoever establish notability in the Wikipedia sense of the word. David notMD (talk) 16:54, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

The photograph you uploaded to Commons is a low-resolution image that Robert Matza may be willing to release under an appropriate license. See WP:Donating copyrighted materials for how he can do that if you were to ask him to do so. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:58, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

I have edited Genre of Amy Winehouse's Love is a losing game about 3 times and advised not to edit it again without approval. Sorry about that! I recently added https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mWHRrkxTZG4 quotes Tony Bennett "We've lost one of the Jazz greats" as the source but this was not accepted. The genre is shown as Soul. Do you agree that the genre should be jazz? I'm looking for consensus on this. I was unable to add this to the articles talk page as I saw no option for doing so. Many thanks. Signed, Lyricality. Lyricality (talk) 19:11, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Lyricality. Bennett's remark is not adequate because singers often perform several genres of music. You need to provide a reference to a published reliable source that says that this song's specific genre is jazz. Wikipedia editors cannot just listen to a song and say, "that sounds like jazz to me". That is original research which is not allowed on Wikipedia. Cullen328 (talk) 19:17, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Lyricality, please read Wikipedia:Genre warrior. Cullen328 (talk) 19:22, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Please also read Amy Winehouse#Critical appraisal where you will find quite a few reliable sources that verify that she was a soul singer as well as a jazz singer. Cullen328 (talk) 19:28, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

@Lyricality: Welcome to the Teahouse! Per the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, you may discuss this on the article talk page Talk:Love Is a Losing Game and provide a reliable source. Hope this helps, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 20:09, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

The article for E.O. Wilson says that him and Irene Wilson were married. However, he says that he married a woman named Renee in his book Naturalist. They were married up until his death last year. How is it possible that this is the case? Is Irene a version of Renee? Cerambycidfreak (talk) 20:17, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

@Cerambycidfreak: Welcome to the Teahouse! I suggest you post your question on Talk:E. O. Wilson with the details of the passage from Naturalist. It's possible that sources disagree on his wife's name. Hope this helps, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 20:26, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

It would be more correct to say that Renee is a version of Irene. See Irene (given name).--Shantavira|^{feed me} 20:31, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

@Cerambycidfreak: I went to https://archive.org/details/naturalist00wils_0/mode/2up?q=Irene and searched for "Irene", and it seems that E. O. Wilson wrote "My wife Irene (Renee)..." GoingBatty (talk) 20:31, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

So, Irene is interchangeable with Renee? Cerambycidfreak (talk) 20:33, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Cerambycidfreak. His New York Times obituary says that he married Irene Kelly when they were young, and that she died a few months before he did. This website hints that Renee was her nickname. Cullen328 (talk) 20:34, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! That clears things up. I was just confused... Cerambycidfreak (talk) 20:43, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Moved to Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) § Developing Project Around Wikipedia Ecosystem

 –  ― Qwerfjkltalk 21:04, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Just received a notice that "Page User:N013i has been reviewed."

What does this means? I am aware that new pages require a patrol but Its not like my user page was created yesterday. — Preceding unsigned comment added by N013i (talk • contribs) 16:26, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

@N013i: New page patrol is supposed to check all namespaces; however, patrollers usually spend the most time in the mainspace, where their efforts are most needed. Behind-the-scenes stuff like userpages are usually no problem, so less manpower (if any) is spent going through those. The patroller likely just stumbled upon your userpage and marked it as reviewed. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (talk) 17:35, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

@Ganbaruby: It was me. – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 01:59, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

@N013i: I apologise for the mobile misclick. A bit. – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 01:58, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

@AssumeGoodWraith: No problem, I'm sorry but I just can't help my paranoid tendencies. ~Nabeel~N013i 21:59, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello,

Hello people , It's been A Nice Time Editing And Asking Questions On The Teahouse about My First Wikipedia "page" And How To improove (Sorry For my bad Spelling and Grammar I am not english) The page itself, It ultimately Failed , though , It was Fun To make. Though , I am Now started A new Page About Eoporpita Medusa, And I Can't Seem To Get The Sandbox Which I Have To Work with, if Anyone knows How To make A new Page By Working In the sandbox, It Would be greatly Appreciated.

I Would also Like to Say What The Possible References For That topic might be, if their unreliable For The page / Are Suspicious, Please Let Me Know by responding to this message, Here Are The References I might include In that Page: http://www.ediacaran.org/eoporpita.html https://www.mindat.org/taxon-8686328.html https://paleobotany.ru/palynodata/species/77951?page=1&order=ageOld&dir=asc https://extinct-animals.fandom.com/ru/wiki/%D0%AD%D0%BE%D0%BF%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%BF%D0%B8%D1%82%D0%B0 (and yes that IS A unofficial Wiki , but I Had To use It To have More references To work Off of) https://bioone.org/journals/paleontological-research/volume-7/issue-1/prpsj.7.43/Ediacaran-biota--The-dawn-of-animal-life-in-the/10.2517/prpsj.7.43.full https://www.palass.org/sites/default/files/media/publications/palaeontology/volume_15/vol15_part2_pp197-225.pdf And https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=KsFFIrJ8IxEC&pg=PA270&lpg=PA270&dq=eoporpita+medusa&source=bl&ots=4qnz7Co_BS&sig=ACfU3U3YaHhltVFDXH_Jm2yOvpSy0hsTdw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj7_864wbn1AhXKasAKHVxRBf4Q6AF6BAgYEAM#v=onepage&q=eoporpita%20medusa&f=false.

Do Note That I Did use The same Websites (ediacaran.org and mindat.org) Which Were In My First File, If Those Two References Are Enough To Take Down The page I Would be making By using help From the teahouse, I Will be sure To Immedietly (sorry for my Bad spelling , as mentioned before , I am not an english person) so that the Article Could atleast have A Little Amount Of Possibly Reliable sources.

Happy editing everyone! Rugoconites Tenuirugosus (talk) 19:39, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Please stop capitalizing words. (My fear is that you will do the same in your draft.) In your first sentence, the only word that should have been capitalized was English. Use WP:YFA to create your draft. However, rather than attempt an article for Eoporpita medusa, I recommend you work on improving the article Eoporpita, as medusa is the only species. David notMD (talk) 20:03, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

@Rugoconites Tenuirugosus: Since English is not your native language, you may wish to post your suggestions on how to improve the article Eoporpita on the article's talk page: Talk:Eoporpita. GoingBatty (talk) 20:16, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

So setting aside the fact (as has been pointed out) that Eoporpita already exists and implicitly covers Eoporpita Medusa, I am concerned about the comment

... that IS A unofficial Wiki , but I Had To use It To have More references ...

If the info is actually not available from a reliable source, and so insist that you need to rely on an article from some wiki, that would have you off to a bad start. It's difficult to avoid running into disputes on a variety of grounds, but the explanation you offer in this case would just not hold water. Fabrickator (talk) 20:57, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

@Rugoconites Tenuirugosus I need to make the following points:

• The articles about species in this encyclopaedia must be based on sound science. User-generated websites are not reliable and should be ignored.
• You only need one really good scientific paper to demonstrate that a taxon is validly published for us to accept an article about it. Our justification for this can be read at WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES.
• I have cleaned up Draft:Rugoconites tenuirugosus and am happy to accept it, and have moved it into the main encyclopaedia (which we refer to as 'Mainspace')
• This source suggests the taxonomy is very unclear, and could need to be assigned to a newly-erected genus (Wadea).
• If a genus only contains one species, then we only ever create an article about the genus. We do not need a second article about the species itself. Should scientists decide that R.tenuirugosus should be renamed Wadea tenuirugosus, then we would rename the article to just Wadea, and keep a WP:REDIRECT to help people find it from the earlier name.
• Always try to keep your fingers off the 'Shift' key on your keyboard unless it is the beginning of a sentence, or you encounter a proper name like China, Jesus, London or a genus name, like Homo, or a recognised geological period like the Carboniferous Period.

I hope this all makes sense. And well done on your first article, but please bear in mind the copyright issues I raised with you earlier. And avoid using amateur artist's impressions of species unless they can be shown to derive from a scientific source. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:26, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi, I've just drafted a new page on Wikipedia and I have 2 questions. In the first place, I've already published it and it appears as "Draft". How long does it take to be verified and published? Second, I don't know how to add a resume chart (the chart that appears on most of the Wikipedia pages). Many thanks! Noeliagarone (talk) 01:01, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi, Noeliagarone, and welcome to the Teahouse. I believe you're referring to Draft:Dawn After Dark. Drafts at this point generally take a a few months to review, as there's somewhere around 3,000 pending submissions. I'll note that the sources listed in the article don't seem to demonstrate notabillity, and I'll break them each down. I can't find any indication that The Midlands Rocks has any sort of editorial oversight (see: WP:RS), the Rough Trade one is just a blurb written by a record label, the Brave Words & Bloody Knuckles article is almost exclusively quotes from the band themselves (see: WP:INDY), the Classic Rock source is an interview (WP:INDY), and the TotalRock ones are quite short. This should be improved before the draft is reviewed, and inline links to external sites should be removed as well. Additionally, quite massive portions of the prose are uncited; please see our verifiability policy for why this is an issue. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 01:18, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

I'll also note that the draft hasn't been submitted yet. However, I would resolve these issues before submitting it, as – in my opinion as an AFC reviewer – it's likely to be declined in its current state. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 01:28, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

To clarify, "Publish changes" means save. Once submitted to Articles for Creation (AfC) for review, can be days, weeks, up to two months before a Reviewer makes a decision. "Declined" means the reviewer thinks the topic may be article-worthy, but not good enough yet ("Rejected" is more severe). David notMD (talk) 01:43, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Can I remove a or section from my talk page? If I need to refresh my memory, I can go back and view what I was warned about. Any feedback is helpful. Thank you! 73.167.238.120 (talk) 00:49, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes you can. Since you invite any feedback, mine is that in view of the array of idiocy that has been perpetrated by that IP number, you should create a user ID and be sure to be logged in with this ID whenever editing. -- Hoary (talk) 00:58, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse. Per WP:NOTWALLOFSHAME, you’re allowed to remove anything from your own talk page, but not other talk pages. Usually, we don’t like to grave-dance, and your talk page is not a wall of shame for you. Thanks. — 3PPYB6 — TALK — CONTRIBS — 01:34, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

I guess if I asked for any feedback, I should expect negative feedback as well, although I could do without the rudeness. 73.167.238.120 (talk) 02:13, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

 Self-trout — Oh dear! Did I give you the wrong impression that I was rude? Sorry about that. Basically, just remove anything from your talk page. It shouldn’t be a wall of shame. — 3PPYB6 — TALK — CONTRIBS — 03:10, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

How can I clean up my 'Alerts' page. I see no option for doing that. ++++++++++

Lemchastain (talk) 04:53, 18 January 2022 (UTC) Lemchastain (talk) 04:53, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

@Lemchastain: Welcome to the Teahouse! I removed the row of equals signs you posted because the wiki editor thinks you're trying to create a section header. If you're referring to the alerts on User talk:Lemchastain, you can click "Edit source", delete the alert text, and then click "Publish changes" - see WP:NOTWALLOFSHAME. It looks like you've done this several times. Hope this helps, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 05:16, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

For one of the articles I am working on, there is a source which is completely paywalled and the article which is cited is inaccesabile otherwise. What is the protocol around this Thank you in advance Siguida (talk) 22:46, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi, Siguida, and welcome to the Teahouse! WP:PAYWALL may give you some insight into this, but we may be able to give you a more comprehensive, tailored answer if you specify the article and the paywalled source. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 22:54, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

This is the article I was referencing, the other sources in the article can be used instead anyways as they state the same information this source is cited for, outside of something which needs to be updated anyways.

Regards,

Siguida (talk) 00:47, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

@Siguida Some paywalled sources such as journals may be available to users via the Wikipedia Library, but this won't apply to news media, I'm afraid. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:35, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

@Siguida:, It's not clear to me if it's a paywall, or just registration required. The page I get when I clicked the link requested registration, but I don't know if they'll follow that up with a fee request; did you try registering, to see if you can access the article for free? Otherwise, you can make a resource request at WP:RX, and possibly someone with access to the article will stop by and help you out with what you need. Mathglot (talk) 06:00, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

What is use dmy dates ? 2603:8000:F400:FCEA:E508:761C:2416:11B0 (talk) 20:27, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:DMY.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 20:32, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Welcome to the Teahouse! The template ((use dmy dates)) tells editors (and scripts/bots) that the given article uses dates in the form of day-month-year, as in 17 January 2022. Other articles use mdy dates, as in January 17, 2022. Hope this helps, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 20:33, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

This has to do with the English language variations about dates on Wikipedia. An article about an American might render their date of birth as July 4, 1901 because that is how dates are commonly displayed in the United States. A British person born the same day should have their date of birth displayed as 4 July 1901 since that is the most common way that British sources display dates. Cullen328 (talk) 06:27, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello. I have two questions. I am relatively new so while these are specific I am trying to apply answers to these more generally.

First of all, I want to apologize if I am linking articles in not the most efficient way. I'm not sure how to link them internally to Wikipedia other than just posting the full hyperlink.

I am having trouble understanding a sentence I would like to edit in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippine_Airlines#Destinations . The sentence begins, "Following the 1997 Asian financial crisis, " The source cited I cannot get to. I believe from at least one other reputable source I have found (Associated Press), that sentence is not accurate and I could rewrite it. Would it be best to ask on the talk page for someone to clarify this? And if nobody does for maybe a week I could just change it to reflect what I have found and I believe is correct? Then if reverted we would have to figure out why we have differing understandings of what really happened.

Secondly, this is about some jargon. I searched https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Aviation/Style_guide for guidance on referring to directions on an aircraft as forward and aft. I think it makes the context more clear than saying something points left when the aircraft is pointing right and vice versa. In absence of any applicable style guide, for something that minor, I guess it should be a judgment call for me as an editor to use those terms. MOS:JARGON seems to indicate adding a quick parenthetical definition would suffice. Does that seem accurate? Ardentmetaop (talk) 04:47, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

@Ardentmetaop: Welcome to the Teahouse! For your concern about Philippine Airlines#Destinations, it appears you can register at JOC.com for free to get a limited number of free articles, so you could view the article. Or, you could post at Talk:Philippine Airlines to see if other editors have access and could help (maybe even adding a |quote= parameter to the reference).

For your second point, I also suggest discussing it on the article's talk page. Hope this helps, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 05:11, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice!

Ardentmetaop (talk) 05:40, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

@Ardentmetaop: and finally, to cover linking to a wikipedia page, you do that by putting two square brackets around the page title (e.g. [[Wikipedia:Helpdesk]] becomes Wikipedia:Helpdesk). You can also link but use wording of your choice, (e.g. [[Wikipedia:Helpdesk|Helpdesk]] becomes Helpdesk) Nosebagbear (talk) 09:46, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi! I was editing the page Islamabad Football Association, and found that it does not have an official website. However, it does have a Facebook page [1] which it uses instead of a website. All official announcements, events, and even newspaper articles and media coverage are posted on this Facebook page (in the form of a post, image or a video). I was wondering if it was possible to use these posts and images as relevant references when editing the page. Regards. Toofllab (talk) 22:03, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

@Toofllab: Only in a limited way. See WP:ABOUTSELF RudolfRed (talk) 22:07, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

fixed the link. RudolfRed (talk) 22:08, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

@Toofllab Please do not attempt to copy and upload any images from any organisation's website or social media account. Unless they are very clearly licenced for commercial re-use (which is most unlikely) , these images will all be copyright. So you may not upload them and release them for commercial reuse as if you actually owned them. If you think they might be suitable licenced, please pop back and give us a hyperlink to the relevant page so we can check them for you. Thanks, Nick Moyes (talk) 23:34, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm referring to images like this news article found on the organisations's Facebook page. Only the newspaper name and publishing year of the article are mentioned, not the date. This means I cannot search it up online. More examples of such news articles can be found here [2] [3] [4]

I believe these articles come under independent secondary sources of information. However, since they are being shared by the concerned organization, does this make them questionable? Toofllab (talk) 14:09, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

An article in today's GlobalSecurity.org mentioned "The Saudi airplanes also targeted September 11 Park in northern Sana'a." Sana'a is a place in Yemen, but I haven't been able to find any reference to a "September 11 Park" online.

The article is here: https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/news/2022/01/mil-220118-presstv01.htm?_m=3n%2e002a%2e3230%2eps0ao43ss6%2e2zr7

I am just a shameless user of Wikipedia and have no idea how to begin, but if this is a real place it seems like an article might be interesting?

Thanks. SixtyRedDevil (talk) 13:41, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

SixtyRedDevil, this page is for questions about editing Wikipedia; you might ask about the park at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Miscellaneous. If OTOH you're thinking "I know next to nothing about this park; let's just start a tiny article saying that a park so named exists in Sana'a and hope that others will add to it", this isn't how Wikipedia works. Instead, one needs a bunch of reliably referenced facts; enough to generate a couple of paragraphs or so (and not just a single sentence). Good luck with your quest for information. -- Hoary (talk) 14:37, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello, i already asked, is there a place where new editors can be guided trough, like semi authomatic editing? I was now talking with friend of mine who knows to edit wikipedia, but i cannot ask everything i need to know. I would love to create new articles, but just need some help for start. Thank you Nox Lumen (talk) 15:15, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

@Nox Lumen: There are a lot of semi automatic tools for different purposes. One would be Twinkle, for reverting vandalism (among other features) – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 15:25, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Nox Lumen, and welcome to the Teahouse and to Wikipedia. I don't know what you mean by "semi-automatic editing" - perhsps the visual editor will give you what you want. The Wikipedia Adventure is designed to introduce you to basic concepts and practices of Wikipedia in a fun way. When you are ready to try creating an article (which I would advise you not to try too soon - say, a few months), your first article gives you all the information you need about how to go about it. Happy editing! --ColinFine (talk) 15:25, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

How i can turn on that Twinkle AssumeGoodWraith? --Nox Lumen (talk) 15:29, 18 January 2022 (UTC)Bold text

@Nox Lumen: For information on how to turn on Twinkle, see Wikipedia:Twinkle. Hope this helps and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 16:00, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello dear Wikipedians. I tried to improve precognition but all edits reverted. Talk page going round in circles. Specifically, under 'violation of natural law' a reference to a good paper on retrocausality is described in the following sentence as 'quantum weirdness' and asserts that it cannot give rise to macro phenomena. Sentence is unsourced. I'm not at all happy with what appears to be a false assertion. I'm not sure what should be done. Any input would be helpful. Thanks. Thelisteninghand (talk) 15:03, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

The article talk page is the place for discussion. Bringing it here is liable to be regarded as forum shopping. If consensus isn't achieved at the talk page, see WP:Dispute resolution. --David Biddulph (talk) 15:12, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

I see, I see... that in the future this will all be resolved, but not in your favor. David notMD (talk) 16:32, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Dear Wikipedia friends, it seems that I need advice. When offering the entry on the poet Jurgen Theobaldy, I based it on the entry in the German language Wikipedia which is inadequately supported by referenced sources. (Perhaps because the poet is so well-known in Germany, it was not deemed essential.) I agree that my entry had to be rejected because there were few sources added in the form of references. Now, the entry is rejected because there are too many references and too many sources and I quoted at great length (in the original with added translation to English.) I have deleted some links to sources that are online. My experience is that sources that are available in few libraries are often rejected. Is it because some reviewers accept only resources that can be checked online with ease? I need help. Is it still too much I add to the initial, badly referenced text on Theobaldy? Or have I deleted details that I should not have deleted? I am certain that experienced Wikipedia editors can give good advice. Thank you so much for your help, dear friends. My best/ Barbara BarbaraLassen (talk) 15:28, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Draft:Jürgen_Theobaldy

Hi, @BarbaraLassen:, I don't think the problem is the actual sources. I think it's how you've used them. You've included lengthy commentary about what the sources say, as part of each reference, which means the reference section is more like a continuation of the article; it's become a small-print notes section. What you should do is say what you think needs saying in the actual bulk of the article, the main paragraphs, and reference these with simple references that merely state what the source is. A book would include the authors, title, ISBN, publisher, page-numbers, dates, but not quotes from the book or summaries of what it says. If those are necessary, they should be in the text of the article, not in the references. There is nothing wrong with using obscure sources, and print-only sources, or sources only available in certain libraries, provided they are reliable secondary sources. Obviously it's nice if you can find easily-accessible equivalents, but we do not reject difficult-to-obtain sources. Good luck! Elemimele (talk) 16:59, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello! I am fairly experienced with editing however I have not made my own articles much so I am here to ask a question. My first article was World Tang Soo Do Association, but whenever I try to make an article, such as Rainbow Unicorns (song), it keeps telling me that it is the first article I am creating and is very quickly patrolled and cited for speedy deletion. I am not opposing such speedy deletion in that article here however, just wondering why Wikipedia does not register my first page as such and stops giving me the message in the visual editor of how to write my first article.

Thanks! AWESOMEDUDE0614 (talk) 16:55, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

@AWESOMEDUDE0614 Welcome to the Teahouse. I fear you misread the message on your talk page which begins: "If this is your first article..." You definitely created the other article, as your record shows.

The tagging for speedy deletion was not done automatically, but by another editor. The article you tried to create about the song's writer was itself deleted (I assume on lack of notability grounds). This one song they wrote also seems to fail our Notability criteria for music, and thus was tagged for deletion. If you read WP:NMUSIC and can find evidence from good sources that it is notable, then do add them in asap. If it's too late, and you still genuinely feel you can cite sources to show notability, then WP:REFUND might be the place to visit. Does that make sense? Nick Moyes (talk) 17:25, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @AWESOMEDUDE0614: Are you referring to the post at User_talk:AWESOMEDUDE0614#Speedy_deletion_nomination_of_Rainbow_Unicorns_(song)? If so, the template used to create the note does not check to see how many articles you have created. Instead, it simply includes a helpful suggestion stating "If this is the first article that you have created..." (emphasis added). If you would like to suggest a different wording or enhanced functionality in the deletion templates, you can start a discussion at Template talk:Db-notice. Hope this helps, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 17:27, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

@GoingBatty: @Nick Moyes: Thanks for the help. AWESOMEDUDE0614 (talk) 17:36, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

I have tried to look at the Translate us page but couldnt find anything about translate to english only from english Splyfof (talk) 17:52, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

@Splyfof See Help:Translation. Basically, start with asking yourself "For this translation, do I have sources that meets the demands at WP:GNG?" If the answer is no, pick something else. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:04, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi, I have been trying to create the Whale Research Group article. It was approved yesterday, but now I am getting an error message at the top of the article, which I think will cause the article to be moved to the draft space.

1. The message says the article is an orphan, however there is clearly a link to the article on the Jon Lien article. I believe it's on the first line.

2. The message says the article needs additional citations for verification. How do I know where it needs additional citations. I believe every piece of information in there is cited from a credible source.

Thanks very much for the help. Tyroneslothrop00000 (talk) 15:18, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Tyroneslothrop00000, and welcome to the Teahouse. The tags at the top do not immediately threaten the article. The question of being an orphan you can address by finding other articles which do, or might, refer to Whale Research Group, and adding links to those articles, pointing to the new one: if even one article links to your new one, it will not be an orphan, and you can remove that tag from the top.

For the "needs additional citations for verification", Robert McClenon has put a detailed analysis of the sources on the article's talk page Talk:Whale Research Group. If you need to ask him for more information, or discuss his findings, that talk page is the place to do it. --ColinFine (talk) 15:31, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

User:Tyroneslothrop00000 - First, I will tell you what you did that annoys the reviewers and is likely to get negative attention. You created two identical or almost identical copies of the article, in article space and in draft space. When you do that, other reviewers think that you are trying to game the system. So don't create multiple copies of an article. In particular, User:Onmyway22 had moved one copy of your article from article space to draft space. It would have been better to discuss with Onmyway22 rather than just creating another copy. You seem to be trying to run around a reviewer with whom you disagree. (I am not sure why they moved your article to draft space. It is sometimes a good idea to ask.) Second, tags are not error messages. Third, if Jon Lien already links to Whale Research Group, just remove the orphan tag. Fourth, most of the sources either are more about Jon Lien than about the Whale Research Group or are background information. Fifth, the article should not be moved to draft space a second time. An article should not be moved to draft space twice, although some reviewers do not know that. Sixth, any article can be nominated for deletion, and my analysis is that your article should be kept if it is nominated for deletion, but that at least one more high-quality source would help. Does that answer the questions that you have not yet asked? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:28, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, Robert McClenon. I didn't mean to annoy any reviewer, or to run away from anyone, and I also didn't mean to create two copies of the article, I just got confused where it went when it was taken down. I'm still trying to get the hang of things (talk pages etc.), so I'm sorry if I'm causing a headache with this stuff. Anyways, I just saw your analysis of my sources thanks to ColinFine, and it was very helpful. I will add more citations which will satisfy the requirements of the table you made. Thank you for the help. Tyroneslothrop00000

Robert McClenon pinging since the above user made a mistake and pings only work when using four tildes (~~~~) ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 18:05, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

User:BlazeWolf - about pings, I have seen that about pings. Can you please provide me with a link to where it tells about pings and signatures? In particular, I understand that if I try to ping someone, but misspell their username, and then go back in and change the spelling, the ping doesn't work unless I add a new signature. Is that correct? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:18, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: You can find a quick rundown at WP:MENTION, though it seems to mention that using ~~~ also works.

You'd have to start a new line with a new ping and signature if you want to try and correctly notify them again. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 18:25, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Ironically you misspelled my username here since you forgot the space in between Blaze and Wolf Yep! I've just been told that's how it works but have never read the page. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 18:27, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

User:Tyroneslothrop0000 - First, I understand that you had a good-faith misunderstanding of a complicated system. Second, I will point out to everyone that there are some misconceptions about sources in Wikipedia caused by understanding part but not all of what we require. You said that all of your sources were reliable, and I agreed in the analysis that they were reliable. However, having reliable sources is necessary but not sufficient. They must be reliable sources that provide significant coverage. In particular, in this case, the sources were reliable, and are marginally significant. The rules on sources are detailed, and some editors become confused because they understand part but not all of the rules. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:18, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

In-line references for an article I'm trying to create ... #1 does not appear in the text but only in the references section. Consequently, I cannot delete it and begin again.  George-Amherst (talk) 20:25, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

@George-Amherst, do you see it between the 2 "submission declined" templates? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:36, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

A useful trick is to click on the caret character ( ^ ) after the reference number in the references section. That is a link which takes you up to where the reference is defined and used. --David Biddulph (talk) 21:05, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Seems like there is a issue in this individual infobox where it shows him have two of the same office title. I could not figure out why it is doing it, but it’s showing up on both Computer and on Mobile devices if you could figure out the issue it would be much appreciated. The name of the page is Jeff Denham. BigRed606 (talk) 21:19, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

@BigRed606  Done Nick Moyes (talk) 21:29, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello editors and editors of Wiki, I have created an article and it is in the draft. I used to see it for various reasons, which was written by my friends, and it had a news aspect, but now I edited it, it was edited with different sources. Do managers check whether it is authorized to publish or not? Karestoonegoli (talk) 08:26, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Karestoonegoli Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I have added the appropriate information to Draft:Zahra Meygoli so you can submit it for review; once you do, another editor will eventually review it. I would not submit it yet, as there are still some issues. IMDB is not considered a reliable source. Please see Referencing for Beginners as well. 331dot (talk) 08:30, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

331dot Hello thank you very much for your trust and cooperation. Unfortunately, many Iranian actors can not interview various foreign sources because they will be in trouble and must be accountable for domestic policies. Thank you for your sense of cooperation and help, dear manager. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karestoonegoli (talk • contribs)

Karestoonegoli Interviews are not acceptable as a source either; Wikipedia wants to know what independent sources say about a person, not what they say about themselves. I understand concerns related to the current Iranian government, but that doesn't remove the requirements needed for an article. 331dot (talk) 08:58, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Karestoonegoli, Wikipedia doesn't have managers. 331dot is an editor, like you or me. An article about an Iranian (or other) person may cite sources that are in Farsi or another language, as long as the source is reliable. Unfortunately, as 331dot says, interviews (regardless of the language that they're in) are largely unusable. -- Hoary (talk) 09:01, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Hoary Yes, you are right, editors are respected and I think they are managers. Thank you for all your compassion and help in presenting flawless articles to the people.

I hope the article will be carefully examined and the problem will be solved. Thank You.

Karestoonegoli: it is unlikely that "the problem will be solved" except by you. Wikipedia editors are volunteers, and work on what they choose to work on. Unless you manage to get another editor's interest engaged in working on your draft, nobody but you is likely to work on it. You have had advice above, and if you ask for further help and guidance, editors are likely to provide that. But it is up to you to take the advice. Find reliable published sources, unconnected with Meygoli, that have significant coverage of her - they can be in Farsi if there aren't any in English - and base your article entirely on what those reliable sources say. If you cannot find those sources, you should give up, because you will not be able to establish that she meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability. Your ping to Hoary did not work, because you did not also sign your contribution. --ColinFine (talk) 13:29, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

ColinFine: How many resources are needed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karestoonegoli (talk • contribs)

"Although in the strictest sense the word "multiple" means "more than one", and in some cases it may indeed be possible to establish notability with only two references, based on existing Wikipedia community norms, it seems that challenges to notability are successfully rebuffed when there are three good in-depth references in reliable sources that are independent of each other." So, 3 can be enough if they're good, but your chance of success increases if you can do better than that. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:15, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

ColinFine: I am preparing and finding valid links. Do I have to confirm and announce the links here? Or apply for registration in the same draft?--Karestoonegoli (talk) 20:30, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

331dot Hello, I hope you are well

I changed some of the links, please check if it is approved by the editors. Thanks to all the friends and professional editors. --Karestoonegoli (talk) 22:25, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

I am the author of a book - STYLE OF INDIA, PUBLISHED BY HACHETTE INDIA, I WANT TO MAKE A PAGE ABOUT THE BOOK. 122.161.88.229 (talk) 07:17, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Most books don't satisfy Wikipedia's notability guideline for books. Does yours? (NB: Wikipedia's notions of notability may be very different from your own: they're certainly different from mine.) If it does satisfy the guideline, then read Help:YFA. Still interested? Then click this link and create a draft. When you think the draft is ready to become an article, submit it for review. Once it has been accepted (if this ever happens), you should not edit it. It certainly won't be "your" article: anyone without a conflict of interest will be able to edit it, adding summaries of unfavorable reviews as well as favorable ones. ¶ Incidentally, please don't use FULL CAPS: doing so comes off like shouting. -- Hoary (talk) 07:58, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Like Hoary said, read the guideline for notability of books carefully. Sources like [5][6] are pretty good. Do you have, say, 2-3 more such sources? I may be willing/able to help make such an article. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:11, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

In Wikipedia, you don't make a "page (oh, excuse me: a "PAGE") about the book. If your book is or becomes sufficiently notable that several sources independent of you and the book write about it, then someone (ideally, not the author) might undertake to write an encyclopedia article about it. It might or might not be an article you will like (especially after a few people have edited it). I'm loathe to say this (because I despise it and its founder), but maybe you want Facebook, instead. Uporządnicki (talk) 12:48, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

UPDATE: Draft:Style Of India created, submitted and Declined because no references. David notMD (talk) 13:56, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Apart from that, it wasn't that bad. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:05, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

GGS suggested some possible references. These and more are needed to establish that this 2016 book is notable in the Wikipedia sense of the word. David notMD (talk) 22:50, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

How come when I put the "citation needed" template, the edit is removed, but when others put it, the edit stays until someone finds a edit?!!? I am very confused. Sincerely, CertifiedAmazing2 (talk) 22:42, 18 January 2022 (UTC) 

@CertifiedAmazing2: I assume you're referring to this edit? [7] Sourcing standards for adding info to biographies of living people are a bit more stringent. Also, I'm not sure that info is notable enough to include in the lead. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:47, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@CertifiedAmazing2: Welcome to the Teahouse! Are you referring to this edit to the James Holzhauer? It's not common for someone to add a statement and a ((citation needed)) template. It's more common for one person to add an unsourced statement and then another editor to add ((citation needed)). Per the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, if you have an issue with your edit to James Holzhauer, you can discuss it on Talk:James Holzhauer. Maybe you could even encourage someone else to find the reliable source you're struggling to find. Hope this helps, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 22:50, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hello, CertifiedAmazing2, and welcome to the Teahouse. When an edit of yours is reverted (whether it is adding information, removing information, adding a tag, removing a tag, or anything else) that has been done not by a machine, or by "Wikipedia", but by a real live volunteer editor just like you and me. You might be right, they might be right, you might both be right, or both be wrong: editors often disagree about what an article should contain. If you think they were wrong to revert it, look at the history of the article to see who they were (and if they left an edit summary which explains their action); and if you wish to pursue the matter your next step is to open a discussion on the matter, usually on the article's talk page: see WP:BRD for how this works. --ColinFine (talk) 22:54, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Hi CertifiedAmazing2. If what you're referring to are edits like this, then basically you seem to be misunderstanding the purpose of the ((citation needed)) template. The WP:BURDEN for providing citations in support of article content falls upon the person adding the content; so, when you add content to an article, you're expected to provide a citation to a reliable source in support. What you're doing is adding unsourced content to articles and then adding a "citation needed" template as if you're expecting others to go around and find the citations in support. That's not really a constructive editing approach to follow. Templates like "citation needed" are usually added to unsupported content added by other editors, not the content you yourself have added. Such templates are a way of letting others know that the unsourced content might be encyclopedically relevant in some way, but it needs to be verifiable. So, as an alternative to simply removing the unsourced content, a template is added to give someone else a chance to find a source that verifies it. However, if you're unable to verify the content you add yourself, then it's odd for you to expect others to do so and you probably shouldn't be adding the content to begin with. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:00, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Look at this talk page. I put a COI template there because they said that they owned the article and their username is the article name. 🦁⋆JennilyW♡🦌 (talk) 22:49, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

@JennilyW: Welcome to the Teahouse, and thanks for reverting the incorrect edit to TNT Boys. It looks like the editor was trying to hijack the article by changing the subject from a Filipino boy band to "a Xbox (or mine craft) club", so adding ((subst:uw-hijacking)) to the user's talk page would have been better. The COI template would have appropriate if the editor was related to the Filipino boy band. Hope this helps, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 22:55, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

@GoingBatty: Okay, thank you! I've removed the COI template from their user page. 🦁⋆JennilyW♡🦌 (talk) 23:03, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

So, what came into your guys' mind on creating the Teahouse? I thought of this as a nice idea, but is there a backstory for this? Mod creator (talk) 00:44, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

@Mod creator: Check out this interview with the Teahouse creators: Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2012-05-14/WikiProject_report RudolfRed (talk) 01:21, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Saw an article about Izin Hash few months back. It's not visible now. How can I find it? 27.63.192.154 (talk) 03:22, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello IP. The article in question was deleted due to it being created by a sockpuppet. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 03:26, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your response HickoryOughtShirt?4, How can I bring it back to mainspace? 27.63.192.154 (talk) 03:33, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Question: How do I verify if a source is reliable or not? ValeAliz 04:39, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

@ValeAliz: Welcome to the Teahouse! Ask yourself if it is an independent, published source with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. There's more information at Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. Hope this helps, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 04:55, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the info! ValeAliz

How do I change the name I'm listed on in my Wikipedia page, which has me listed as Kenneth Penders Jr, a name which is not on my birth certificate, Honorable Discharge from the US Air Force (January 6, 1976 - December 14, 1979) or any other official document I need to present. For the record, my full legal name is Kenneth Walter Penders II, but I've signed my name professionally as Ken Penders since September 1986 when I turned in my first professional comic book illustration assignment to then-DC Comics editor Robert Greenberger when he assigned me 6 pages of work that was published in WHO'S WHO IN Star Trek issue 1. There are other changes / additions that could be made, but let's start with that first as you verify my identity. I also have a Twitter page under Ken Penders and in the process of relaunching my kenpenders.com website.

KenPenders (talk) 07:35, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Courtesy: The article is Ken Penders. The references use "Ken Penders," so not clear where the unreferenced "Kenneth Penders Jr." came from. David notMD (talk) 08:51, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

KenPenders I changed bolded first use of his name back to "Ken Penders", as the change to "Kenneth Penders Jr." was done in August 2021 with no reference to confirm. David notMD (talk) 09:01, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Please let me know the exact reason of my article getting rejected.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Waman_Balaji_Desai 103.199.176.64 (talk) 10:24, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Your draft Draft:Waman Balaji Desai has no sources, independent sources are what we base articles on. A Wikipedia article about a person must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about them, showing how they meet Wikipedia's special definition of a notable person. Theroadislong (talk) 11:09, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Please understand that Wikipedia is not interested in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is only interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. Also, the draft is not written in an encyclopaedic tone: sentences like When one hears the word prisoner, his forehead is covered with tears, people look at him with contempt, look at him, spit on him, despise him, no one stands near him, despise him near one another, beat him and do not give him good food. They get a lot of work done from them, they give him a lot of trouble would be appropriate in a personal memoir, but are completely out of place in an encyclopaedia article. Please see WP:NPOV. --ColinFine (talk) 11:49, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

One more point: the draft was not rejected, but declined, meaning that the reviewer thought that it was possible it could be made into an acceptable article. However, it needs a vast amount of work, and in my opinion it would be better to start from the beginning again, by finding the independent reliable sources that are required, and writing based only on what those sources say. See your first article. --ColinFine (talk) 11:51, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi, I need some userboxes for my user page. Can anyone give me some? Thanks. Troyol (talk) 12:13, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

For information about userboxes, see WP:Userboxes. --David Biddulph (talk) 12:18, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi, I've just created a draft Wikipedia page and a Wikidata entry (for a prize-winning Nigerian 'visual artist'). I've read the [page on linking Wikipedia pages with Wikidata] but the advice (underneath) doesn't seem to work:

From a Wikipedia page, you can go to the link "Wikidata item", using "Tools" in the side panel (in the left), to see and edit it. Also in Tools, there is another link to "page information", where is "Wikidata item ID", that contains the QID (for example: Q171 or "None").

1. I see no link "Wikidata item", and 2. I see no Wikidata item ID in the Wikipedia page information.

Could this be because the page is still Draft and not yet submitted for review? Or my editing permissions?

Thanks in advance for any help,

Mike Mikemorrell49 (talk) 12:18, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

@Mikemorrell49, Welcome to the Teahouse! You are unable to link the page to the Wikidata item because it is still in a draft. Until accepted and moved to the mainspace, you cannot link it to the Wikidata item. Lightbluerain❄ (Talk💬 Contribs✏️) 12:45, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

@Lightbluerain❄ Many thanks for your help and responding so quickly! §Mikemorrell49 — Preceding undated comment added 12:57, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

From time to time I work on articles about the band Pink Floyd (its members, studio musicians, touring musicians, production folks). From time to time I also see photographs removed from articles in these subject areas. I've usually found ways to reach out to the photographers and to sort out having these restored. This was the case recently with this file: that said, I'm not sure I'm going about this the most efficient way. If I know a photographer that is willing to donate files/photography of any of these subjects, and they are not familiar with Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons, what is the simplest, most efficient way for me to ask them to submit their work? Is there an email where they can just send a set of pictures they are willing to donate and a type of license they can specify that will cover that they are donating the picture for public use (I know there are variations, I mean whatever the simplest one might be for them to let the work be used publicly)?

Your feedback is appreciated. 1987atomheartbrother (talk) 05:45, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

See WP:Donating copyrighted materials. --David Biddulph (talk) 10:02, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

@1987atomheartbrother The page that David linked to is quite wordy. But please note the big blue 'Interactive release Generator' button. That links to this tool which guides an image owner, step-by-step, through releasing an image for re-use here, and for generating an email they can attach their image to. So you could give them that simple link separately.

The one thing it doesn't point out (which you can tell them) is that we really don't need to have the highest resolution images, so only upload a file of a size they're comfortable with making available. Oh, and please thank them for us! Nick Moyes (talk) 17:31, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

@David Biddulph and Nick Moyes, thank you very much for your help. It is appreciated.--1987atomheartbrother (talk) 14:14, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

why is my article submission got declined ?? .the source of the article is produced on that(it was in indian language malayalam-official language of state kerala.so official site,school wiki project held by education department was designed in malayalam.i only translated that government document.the link provided was a strong proof and related to government policy(but sadly not in english language).so if you cant recognize indian language please refer to multi language expert who know malayalam.is there any wikipedia policy says indian languages should not allowed?.kindly understant what iam trying to tell. thankyou Wikiking666 (talk) 15:06, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

COURTESY: Draft:National Higher Secondary School Vattoli. David notMD (talk) 15:18, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

@Wikiking666: It is sometimes more difficult to evaluate sources in an unfamiliar language, but sources in languages other than English are fine to use. However, the same requirements apply, whether the source is in English, Malayalam, or any other language: to be accepted, the draft needs to have reliable sources that are independent of the subject – and crowdsourced websites such as wikis are never considered reliable. schoolwiki.in can't be used as a source for this reason. (It looks like a really good resource for schools, per the information here, but that is not the same as being a good source for Wikipedia's purposes.) --bonadea contributions talk 15:42, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

@Wikiking666 the document proves that the school exists, but it doesn't prove that it should have an article. Not every person, business or school has the required Notability to warrant an article in the online encyclopedia known as Wikipedia. Reading Notability:schools may help you understand the requirements. Karenthewriter (talk) 15:52, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

A well known photographer took pictures of the subject I am working on in 1950. That fact that he had been hired to take these pictures was a point of interest that I believe legitimately deserves to be included in the article, along with the cite to the magazine where they were published. There is also a website that sells his photos or the right to use them, and the photos of interest can be found there. Would including that URL be reasonable as a reference or is that a workaround to the basic principle of how we share media. Fothergilla (talk) 13:54, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

@Fothergilla: It depends. A straightforward commercial site would probably be seen as spam, but if there is an archive of this person‘s work for information purposes, that could be a potential external link. You can always start a discussion on the relevant article’s talk page and see what others think. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:30, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi All, is there a Wikipedia training - like a Wikipedia University ... some online courses on editing here? 1987atomheartbrother (talk) 14:24, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

@1987atomheartbrother: Welcome atom! To answer your question, yes there is. Take a look at The Wikipedia Adventure which I just linked for you. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 14:26, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

1987atomheartbrother, the blanket answer is “no” there isn’t an “officially approved online training source/academy” that I am aware of, Whilst there are some websites and YouTube channels that attempt to do so, you best bet is to see WP:ADVENTURE and WP:TUTORIAL and keep asking us questions here as much as you like, & we would keep on answering and guiding you throughout your editing journey. Celestina007 (talk) 17:56, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

 2.95.189.69 (talk) 18:17, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Так как никого не писал ничего о нем, статьи нет. Мы краудсорсинг проект. Если возможно найти журналистское освещение в надежных источниках об этом писателе, кто-нибудь может написать статья. Но, вот английский проект и надо писать по-английский. Если вы не можете, проект по-русски там. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:28, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Please post your question in English, or ask at the Russian Wikipedia help desk [8] RudolfRed (talk) 18:57, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello to all professional editors of Wikipedia. According to the problems that existed in the resources and the studies performed and the collection of resources were re-edited. I hope it is acceptable. I am waiting for the opinion of the wiki professionals. Draft:Zahra_Meygoli Thanks. --Karestoonegoli (talk) 12:44, 19 January 2022 (UTC) Karestoonegoli (talk) 12:44, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Karestoonegoli! We may sound like a broken record at this point, but the article currently lacks enough reliable, high-quality sources to prove its notability. The sources currently there, such as IMDb, Twitter, and Radio Times, fall into one of these categories:

• The source is primary, and comes from Meygoli herself or others that are related or have worked with her (Twitter, SoundCloud)
• The source is a trivial or passing mention, which in itself doesn't declare a subject notable (Radio Times)
• The source is low quality or lack credibility, or have other reasons for not being a reliable source (IMDb)

Panini!^🥪 13:24, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Panini! Unfortunately, according to the statistics and conversations that took place from various sources, they said that according to the new policies, they could not talk to the newspapers, and it has become a bit difficult now, if I delete the sources you mentioned, they can not be published again? Please help me submit my first article. Thanks to the friends of the professional Wikipedia editor. --Karestoonegoli (talk) 13:35, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

The recommendation would be that you avoid professional Wikipedia editors. Paid editing needs to be declared, and paid editors often fail to deliver what they've been paid to do. --David Biddulph (talk) 13:58, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

My reading of your words "professional editors" is that you intended it as an honorific, as in "experienced editors" or "esteemed editors." In the context of Wikipedia, "professional editors" is interpreted as people who ask for payment to editor for others. This is not forbidden, but there is bad history and abuse. Basically, editors are volunteers. David notMD (talk) 15:09, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Start by removing all "references" that are not reliable sources. Then, remove all content that cannot be supported by reliable source references. Then, convert remaining references from URLs to valid format. Then, on your User page, explain your personal connection to Meygoli. David notMD (talk) 15:15, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

@Karestoonegoli, welcome to the Teahouse! While we cannot help you if there is this sort of lack of sources' problem in Iran, you can discuss the issue at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Perhaps they can guide you (or help in WP policies, if it's for all other notable people as well there) better on this. Regards. Lightbluerain❄ (Talk💬 Contribs✏️) 18:45, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Lightbluerain Hi, I deleted all the necessary changes and links that are not valid.

Please help if possible and let me edit it again. Thank you in advance for your help. I am really confused by all this complexity and I am very happy to help me in this way so that I can be the best in the future. Thank You--Karestoonegoli (talk) 19:01, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

I have concerns about the neutrality of a some recent edits here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxfam#Israeli%E2%80%93Palestinian_conflict

The edits all appear to lean towards criticism of Oxfam of their work from sources such as NGO Monitor and others that (and I'm not sure here) appear not neutral.

The edits were done from a IP address account and that is the only activity they have ever done on Wikipedia.

What would more experienced editors recommend in this situation? CT55555 (talk) 19:29, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Report them to WP:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement and stay away from the Israel/Palestine topic area unless you thoroughly enjoy yelling at sturdy brick walls to try and talk them into collapsing. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 19:34, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

I am the author of the book, Satanic Panic (1993). I would like to add a sentence saying that I was the person who coined the term "satanic panic" to the article titled Satanic Panic. (URL https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satanic_panic#As_a_moral_panic)I coined the term with my editor for the title of my book. The term was not used before my book was published. I would like to get credit for that, when reporters seek someone with expertise on the topic. I am a Ph.D. specialized in Sociology and I have written many social science articles on the topic. Unfortunately, I am not technically adept with my computer. Can someone help me to learn a simple way of adding that sentence and citation to my book. (My book is cited in the article, but not that I originated the term.) Thank you. Jeff Victor (talk) 21:18, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Jeff Victor. I think that for this to be added, we'd need a secondary source. That's to say, the claim that your book coined the term can't be supported by the book itself, but can be supported by an independent source noting that the book coined the term. Do you know of such a source? Cordless Larry (talk) 21:21, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

@Jeff Victor: If you had such a source, you could post on Talk:Satanic panic with the ((edit request)) template and information about the source. Or, you could use the Wikipedia:Edit Request Wizard. Hope this helps, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 21:25, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi there! I put in an edit request for ACORD sometime before the new year. Just wanted to ensure that the suggested edits are acceptable for addition. Thank you! Morrissey35 (talk) 19:32, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

@Morrissey35: Looking at the history of Talk:ACORD, I see that when Spencer responded to your request in this edit, Spencer marked your request as declined by changing ((request edit)) to ((request edit|D)). Even though you responded, your request remained declined. I suggest you remove the "|D", so your request will be enabled again. You could also try notifying Spencer of your reply by using ((ping|Spencer)) when you edit the page. Hope this helps, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 20:54, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

@GoingBatty: Thanks so much! I'll remove the "|D" and ping. :) Morrissey35 (talk) 21:36, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Dear Sir, I have a startup for which I was thinking Wikipedia the best platform for a page to make and be on. Please guide me on how could I be able to publish content so that it gets approved. 103.208.70.180 (talk) 21:12, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

"Startup" generally means "No sources available at this time". We are not social media, and we are worthless for SEO. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 21:16, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Like many people, you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is. If there is ever an article about your company, the article will not belong to you, will not be controlled by you, and will not be for the benefit of your company, except incidentally. Furthermore, it should be almost entirely based on what people unconnected with the company have chosen to publish about it, not on what you or your associates say or want to say. It follows that until several such independent people have published significant coverage of your company, no article about it is possible. --ColinFine (talk) 22:03, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

am working on a new article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Dawn_After_Dark?action=edit. I have 2 questions. First, I want to insert an infobox. How should I do it? I read this article but I can't find how to do it. Secondly, I had done another question and I got this response: "To clarify, "Publish changes" means save. Once submitted to Articles for Creation (AfC) for review, can be days, weeks, up to two months before a Reviewer makes a decision. "Declined" means the reviewer thinks the topic may be article-worthy, but not good enough yet ("Rejected" is more severe)". How should I submit a new article for review? Many thanks! Noeliagarone (talk) 20:25, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

For information on infoboxes, see WP:Infoboxes. One of the things which you need to do before you submit the draft for review is to remove the misplaced external links from the body text; you may wish to convert some of them to references. You should also look at the unsourced paragraphs and provide reliable sources. For details of the AFC process, including how to submit for review, see WP:AFC. --David Biddulph (talk) 21:00, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

@Noeliagarone: Welcome to the Teahouse!

1. You could add ((Infobox musical artist)) to Draft:Dawn After Dark, and move the image inside the infobox. See Template:Infobox musical artist for more information.
2. When you're ready to submit your draft for review, you can add ((subst:submit)) to the top of your draft.

Hope this helps, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 21:21, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

@GoingBatty: I thought that ((subst:submit)) would provide a button that allows the article to be submitted. What you are saying here is that adding ((subst:submit)) will submit the article for review. I could be wrong though... 73.127.147.187 (talk) 00:20, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

That is indeed what ((subst:submit)) does: it immediately submits the draft for review. If you just want the message box with the button to submit, you want to add ((AfC submission|t)) instead. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:34, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

I started an AfD discussion and it's quite evenly balanced at the moment. The principle behind the discussion has potentially quite wide implications for many Wikipedia articles so I wonder if an experienced admin might take a look and give a view? Essentially, Wikipedia has many articles on uk aristocratic titles. The Earl of Caledon is one. Articles typically list each historical title holder and provides plenty of biographical information. Many of the title holders mentioned are entirely un-notable as individuals, yet typically (as with Denis Alexander and other Earls of Caldon) there is separate Wikipedia article on each individual too. My view is that where an individual is not notable for any reason other than holding a title, their biographical material should be merged at the article which describes the title and the extra article should be deleted. Any thoughts either way from more experienced Wikipedian's very welcome! Emmentalist (talk) 19:38, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

@Emmentalist: Your deletion discussion is getting good feedback, and you should get your consensus eventually. I like the way it is now with Earl of Caledon#Line of Succession. If they are otherwise notable, they have an article, if not, they don't, unless someone can identify a policy that this title is automatically notable. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 02:21, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

I am looking for relevant WP:RfC's (or proof that they do not exist) and all GA reviews (According to the Article milestones there is more than one but don't know how to find the earlier reviews) to help me understand the history of the Elon Musk article so I can make better contributions to it. I would also appreciate pointers to any tools or techniques that would allow me to find them on my own without burdening the community.

I have already posted this request on the Talk page but I get the sense that I am being stonewalled and intimidated into leaving a WP:BLP violation on the most viewed BLP Wikipedia article of 2021.

If it is appropriate, I would appreciate a response on the Article talk page Annette Maon (talk) 19:41, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Discussion is ongoing at that link, FYI. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 02:23, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

I think that mermaids, mermen and merfolk should be merged because of overlap. Is this possible? Linux rules, Windows drools (talk) 16:20, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

The process for proposing a merger is at WP:Merging. --David Biddulph (talk) 16:52, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi Linux rules, Windows drools, welcome to the Teahouse! All you have to do is start a discussion at the article you'd like to merge the articles to (so in this case, likely Talk:Mermaid) and then tag the other pages involved with the ((merge)), ((merge to)) and ((merge from)) templates. Regards, --Ferien (talk) 17:29, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi Linux rules, Windows drools Why not first try to add info to distinguish the difference between the three terms? I skimmed the articles yet don't get the difference between a female merfolk and mermaid. Once that is clarified, it will be easier to see how (if at all ) they might be merged. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 02:28, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

What should i do to get this page published? I posted the following article about my band 2 weeks ago but it won't go live - how should i change it to improve?

Courtesy: User:One23Dress/sandbox/Wondrous Fair

Wondrous Fair’s new album ‘Spirals’ will be available from May 2022

. One23Dress (talk) 03:17, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

@One23Dress: Welcome to the Teahouse! Creating a new article is one of the hardest things to do on Wikipedia, especially when you have a conflict of interest (COI). Language such as "this unique, amazing music has returned for your listening pleasure" is not how we write encyclopedic articles. To learn how to edit, you could view Help:Introduction and The Wikipedia Adventure. I suggest spending a significant amount of time editing existing articles to hone your skills. When you're ready to create an article, you would gather independent reliable sources that have provided significant coverage of you, and determine whether you meet Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, called "notability". If so, you could create an account and declare your COI on your user page. Then follow the instructions at Help:Your first article, and be prepared for a process that may include months of waiting, rejections, and rewrites, before an article is created. If you are successful, then you could never edit the article directly due to your COI, but could submit edit requests on the article talk page. Hope this helps. GoingBatty (talk) 03:24, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

One23Dress, your overtly self-promotional draft, written in the style of an advertisement instead of in the style of an encyclopedia article, has been deleted. Any future effort must be written neutrally and be based on summarizing what independent, reliable sources say about this band, not what the band says about itself. Start by reading Wikipedia:Notability (music). Then read Your first article, and take that advice to heart. Cullen328 (talk) 03:39, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

No references = never accepted. David notMD (talk) 04:21, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

According to Help:Creating a bot, I want to know how to create bots and how to handle them. Neel.arunabh (talk) 04:25, 20 January 2022 (UTC) Neel.arunabh (talk) 04:25, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

It seems well covered on that page. What specific question do you have about it? And what would your proposed bot do? RudolfRed (talk) 04:32, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Neel.arunabh: Help:Creating a bot is the best resource for creating bots. But given the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Neel.arunabh's_competence_issues, this might not be the right time to be asking permission to run bot tasks. GoingBatty (talk) 04:34, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

I second that. Also, creating a bot without approval at Wp:BRFA would result in an immediate and indefinite block. Mako001 (C)  (T)  05:16, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Shayar (poet) article talks about a form of poetry art that has been produced in languages such as Urdu, Hindi and Persian.

The article has category for "Urdu-language poetry" but when I added the same for Persian and Hindi, it showed that such categories don't exist.[9]

I need someone to create Category:Hindi-language poetry so that I can expand this category.

I would be asking for a Persian category too but I need to research on it first.

Thanks all 27.57.163.214 (talk) 07:06, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

If you look at Category:Urdu-language poetry it shows that it is a member of Category:Indian poetry by language which shows that Category:Hindi poetry already exists, along with various sub-categories. Similarly Category:Poetry by nation or language shows that Category:Persian poetry exists, along with various subcategories. --David Biddulph (talk) 07:23, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. Won't need category creation at this stage. 27.57.163.214 (talk) 07:28, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

I would like to change the name and logo from Arnhem Business School to International School of Business, since we are no longer the Arnhem Business School and this false image is dramatically harming our business. Arnhem Business School  JessicaKistenmacher (talk) 09:05, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

JessicaKistenmacher Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Please read about paid editing and conflict of interest as you have a formal disclosure that you must make, required by the Wikipedia Terms of Use. This information is also on your user talk page. You may request that the title of the article be changed at Requested Moves. If you have a new logo, you may see WP:UPIMAGE for more information about how you can place it on Wikipedia. In most cases, you should avoid directly editing the article about your school, but instead please make edit requests(click for instructions) on the article talk page. 331dot (talk) 09:19, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Are there any fixed guidelines for rating an article? Like a certain size of article with certain number of citations is such class article. Excellenc1 (talk) 09:46, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi Excellenc1. You can find out more about this at WP:Assessment, but article seem to be “rated” more in terms of quality than in terms of quantity. — Marchjuly (talk) 10:08, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

I would like to change the logo of the following website, as that logo is outdated. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HAN_International_School_of_Business JessicaKistenmacher (talk) 12:31, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Looking at this page, do you want the one in the upper left corner or the bottom left corner? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:43, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Please help me in this article so that I can add more articles in the future. Wiki's good help to me and I'm proud that all this has been noticed and I'm glad to be in such a family. Please check my article. I added new editions and new Iranian and foreign sources and now I need help to fix any problems. Draft:Zahra_Meygoli--Karestoonegoli (talk) 10:13, 20 January 2022 (UTC) Karestoonegoli (talk) 10:13, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Karestoonegoli. I'm sorry, but you appear to be trying to make up for the lack of good sources by adding lots of low-quality or irrelevant ones. I have only looked at a few of the sources, but of the ones I have looked at:

• The first one (Jackson News Reporter) is mostly an interview. It is possible that the introductory biography is the work of a journalist who has researched her independently, but much more likely that it comes from her. It is therefore not indepedent.
• An entry in a university directory is of no value whatever as a source
• A biographical note about her husband is of no value whatever in an article about her. (It doesn't even confirm that he is her husband, as it says he is married to "Goli", but that name doesn't appear in the draft)
• Three of them (think world plus, themagazinenews, and automotivespeak} have exactly the same picture and text; and they are obviously rewritten from the Jackson article - even including the erroneous use of both "her" and "his" to refer to her. Referencing three identical sources that are obviously based on a fourth one makes your draft less likely to be accepted, not more.
• The Kannoonnews article as far as I can tell (from Google Translate) is indeed about one of the plays named, but does not mention Meygoli.

It is posssible that some of the other references that I haven't looked at meet the triple criterion of being reliably published, independent of Meygoli, and containing significant coverage of her; but if so, you should remove all the sources which don't, and any content which is not sourced to one of those high-quality references.

There is another issue, not about the draft, but about your account name: according to the biography referenced in your draft, "Karestoonegoli" is the online handle of Zahra Meygoli. If you are not Meygoli (and you say on your talk page that you are not), you should change your username immediately. See WP:Impersonation. --ColinFine (talk) 12:14, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

ColinFine Hello, yes, I understand your opinion. And if Google gives you the right translation, it can help me.

Plays, especially Kurzgrove, are a political play, and this can be troublesome for actors in the context of Iranian politics, which is why journalists only usually write the name of that play.

You who have more experience in editing than me, help me to make the article more professional. If possible, delete the links you see that are not good for me. Because I really have a big ambiguity in the wiki called policy recognition. I hope you can help me in this way so that I can present bigger and more professional articles to the world of foreign languages ​​in the future. And please tell me how can I change my name?--Karestoonegoli (talk) 12:23, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

On the name thing, see WP:CHU/SIMPLE. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:31, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

I deleted "During her childhood and adolescence, she worked in many physical and low-income jobs, including online insurance and sales." and its eleven references because that had nothing to do with her possible acting or directing notability. David notMD (talk) 12:53, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

I have gone through 10 edits about a Japanese cultural word that has become popular since 2017, but I am unsure how to correct some of the references in this draft:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:TNewfields/sandbox2

Invalid URL access date messages appear, but I am unsure what specifically is wrong. There are also "script title: missing prefix" messages, but I do not understand precisely what is missing.

Coding apart, does this article seem ready to publish? A Japanese version is already online at https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/忖度

TNewfields (talk) 12:35, 20 January 2022 (UTC)TNewfields

If you look at ((cite web)) it tells you more about the various parameters. The parameter url-access needs a value as shown at Template:Cite web#Access indicators for url-holding parameters; perhaps you intended to use the parameter access-date? Template:Cite web#Title tells you that the value for script-title needs to be prefixed by a language code from the list at script-<param>=_language codes. --David Biddulph (talk) 12:59, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

 Lemchastain (talk) 22:57, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

@Lemchastain: Welcome to the Teahouse. As far as I'm aware you cannot "delete" alerts that show up through the notification system (though you are able to edit your own user talk page); most you can do is mark them as read. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 23:01, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Dear Tenryuu, I notice that here at least Wiki- puts the most recent stuff on top (i.e. 'wrong' end of the thread). Thanks for saving me from wasting more time trying to get rid of them, but are they benign? Tenryuu Lemchastain (talk) 23:19, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

@Lemchastain: I am assuming you're referring to the drop-down menus you see when you click on or at the top of the page. There's more information at Wikipedia:Notification. It's pretty standard to display the most recent items first, as they're not as conversational. I'm not sure what you mean by benign, but only you can see them. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:02, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Was it ARoseWolf who helped you? Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 00:12, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

&Lem Dear Tenryuu, "benign" was a vague reference to 'Alerts' growing downward without limit, and no control over their eventually filling the universe. tenryuu Dear Pyrrho, If I could remember.... "Anyways', I guess "Rose's" note is still up in the Teahouse, but it might take a long time to find it. I didn't think of making a written note to myself about it. Pyrrho the SkipperLemchastain (talk) 03:53, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't recall helping this editor but I concur with @Tenryuu that you cannot "delete" alerts or notifications. I just always mark them as read myself. --ARoseWolf 13:24, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

If RYD, (a chrome extension) cannot be allowed on this site, then why does https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adblock_Plus Adblock PLUS, Exist? BTW i am not affiated with RYD. TzarN64 (talk) 14:07, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

TzarN64, Adblock Plus has coverage in independent reliable sources. The draft in your sandbox does not use any independent, reliable sources and includes the completely unusable source called reddit.Slywriter (talk) 14:10, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

I've noticed that when an IP address belongs to an institution, it has a header at the top of its talk page stating this, with some guidance or whatnot about editing. Well I have a couple questions:

1. If I wanted to check to see if an institution had one of those header things so that I might add one if it doesn't, how would I be able to find the IP address to an institution? How limited is such a search, if one exists? And how would I add a header to an IP talk page if I decide to do so?

2. Should this be placed at the top of IP address talk pages of K–12 schools? And aside from schools, what are the requirements to include such a header?

3. It appears that when I use a university's internet, going into Incognito mode makes you use a different IP address from the school's IP. Should anything be done with these IP addresses? TheGEICOgecko (talk) 08:16, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

@TheGEICOgecko: Answer for #2: Yes, ((Shared IP edu)) "can be transcluded onto the user talk page of any IP address belonging to an educational institution such as a school or college." GoingBatty (talk) 14:26, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

 2601:282:1900:BAC0:ACC7:48D:8BEC:9E5F (talk) 14:09, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Boooooo! Panini!^🥪 14:49, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

How does one fix an error at the top section of a bio page? They have my client listed as DEAD when she is very much alive, but I can't seem to edit that section. JaneAitken (talk) 14:53, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

JaneAitken, I've removed it as unsourced. Now please review WP:PAID and WP:COI. Given your relationship, you must disclose your paid status and you can not edit the article directly. You can use the talk page to suggest edits and provide possible sources to other editors.Slywriter (talk) 15:00, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

JaneAitken- Typo ruined ping :( Slywriter (talk) 15:03, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @JaneAitken: To answer your question, you can click the "Edit" or "Edit source" tab at the top of the article. You can also go to Preferences > Gadgets, scroll down to the Appearance section, check the box that says "Add an [edit] link for the lead section of a page", and then click the Save button.

You may remove obvious vandalism from your client's article, but should use the article's talk page to make any other suggestions, and use the ((edit request)) template. Or, you may use the Wikipedia:Edit Request Wizard. GoingBatty (talk) 15:03, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

I notice on some of my citations on my draft pending approval, it will have a lowercase "a b" next to them or even a lower case "a b c d" before it starts. What does this mean? I'm trying to check all boxes because I'm worried about approval and it's a long wait!MediaExpert1979 (talk) 14:34, 20 January 2022 (UTC) MediaExpert1979 (talk) 14:34, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

MediaExpert1979, don't worry, this just means you've used the same citation for multiple claims, and each letter corresponds to one of its inline citations. Panini!^🥪 14:49, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello MediaExpert1979! The "abcd..." just means that Reference is being referred to by several different sentences. The number of the reference will remain the same wherever it appears in the text. If you left click on the those "abcd..." buttons they will jump to the part in the main text citing it, so you can keep track. Nothing wrong with this method, indeed it's a little more advanced. The only concern would be if one source was all you had & you kept using it for everything, which could be seen as stretching. :) Hope this is of help! LooksGreatInATurtleNeck (talk) 14:55, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you very much for all of your help! I made sure I have at least 16 sources, I just quoted several of them 2,3, even 4 times! I really appreciate it...fingers crossed 1 of my 3 entries gets approved! Trying to nail this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MediaExpert1979 (talk • contribs) 16:05, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

 105.112.208.158 (talk) 04:53, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi there! Do you have a question about Mathematica or Mathematics? GoingBatty (talk) 04:57, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Merging sections ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 15:41, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Sure! I had an article published in 1989 in Engineering Design Graphics Journal, and a Correction by them on the Internet last year. Maybe I should have tried for a mathematical journal instead (but it was not very difficult math). Now, I'm trying to get some feedback on it, and possibly someone else on Wiki- to write up a summary. [They don't like me doing it: a) original work objection, b) lack of knowledge of Wiki-'style' c) impatience with ... some others. Njd-de Quantliing

Whoops! I forgot to ask a question. If anyone at Wolfram would read the article, I'd like to know if the results were published before 1989. [I'm trying to remember the guy Wolfram that handled the late Rev. Wenninger's SIG many years ago, but you may be in a different location.] TEST: LemchastainLemchastain (talk) 23:11, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

&LemI19 -- Dear GoingBatty, It is hoped that you didn't get to the above Whoops! yet; because it seems to have been a double: I also neglected to tell you where to look. Here: http://edgj.org/index.php/EDGJ/issue/view/237 The click on Spring issue box in lower left. GoingBatty Lemchastain Lemchastain (talk) 04:10, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

@Lemchastain: Welcome to the Teahouse! Wikipedia's encyclopedia articles are written about topics that significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the subject. It seems the correct URL is http://edgj.org/index.php/EDGJ/issue/view/237 If you have more sources on the topic, you might find someone interested at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics. Hope this helps! GoingBatty (talk) 04:23, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Dear GoingBatty, Thank you. You are so right. I copied the address from one in which I had left out ".org". I'm going to correct the above error; although that is redundant, given your correcting comment. Now if it will just be left alone in the 'further reading' for "Axonometric Projection" Goingbatty Lemchastain (talk) 04:48, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

@Lemchastain: Oh, you're trying to add this source to the Axonometric projection article. On Wikipedia, we sign our posts on talk pages, but NOT when we're editing articles. Since you've added the source twice to the article and been reverted twice, please do not readd it. Continue your discussion on Talk:Axonometric projection to build consensus.

Also, please note that Wikipedia usernames are case sensitive, so "Goingbatty" is not "GoingBatty". Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 14:23, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Dear GoingBatty, I don't know what was wrong with the last attempt; unless it was me trying to change an'l' to an 'L'. I don't know where removal reasons are given, and can't get to that double-sided page when I want to. The last time when there were supposed to be reasons for a removal, I could not find them on that scree -- however, I managed to get there. At this point, the only hope is that someone else sees the above link, and decides to add it correctly. GoingBatty DVdm Lemchastain (talk) 15:39, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

@Lemchastain: Go to the Axonometric projection article and click the "View history" tab, and you can see each edit along with the edit summary, which contains the removal reasons. In this edit, your edits were removed with the summary "rv -- improper signed refspam". "rv" means "reverted", "signed" refers to the fact that you incorrectly added your signature to the article, and "refspam" refers to WP:REFSPAM, adding citations to your own work. Per the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, Talk:Axonometric projection is the place to discuss the merits of adding those citations to the article. I don't know what a "double-sided page" is. GoingBatty (talk) 16:27, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

I want this page to become my author page. How to substitute the title by Arnaldo Gonçalves https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Arnaldogonc/Sample_page&action=edit Arnaldogonc (talk) 17:11, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Arnaldogonc. This is the English Wikipedia. You need to submit your draft at the Portuguese Wikipedia, not here. Cullen328 (talk) 17:16, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi. I sought guidance from this page earlier and the people here were very helpful. I am new to Wikipedia. I drafted a piece on my father, Peter D. Welch, as the author of the "Welch Method" and as an academic (in a field different than his) I had a sense of how to find source material. I also declared my conflict of interest as his daughter (after learning of that part of this process). I would love to try to get that piece resubmitted or have others revise and re-submit it for review. But it's my sense that it should not be me who does this. As my father is in his 90s; it would be a great gift for him to see an article on Wikipedia about him. Though I am biased, I believe he merits a small note in history for the "Welch Method." I'm just wondering how best to take the entry to the next level. Please advise.RebeccahWelch (talk) 16:38, 20 January 2022 (UTC) RebeccahWelch (talk) 16:38, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi Rebeccah, I responded on your Talk Page. I think its ready to be resubmitted. As I recall, the issues were addressed, but it was never resubmitted. But it couldn't hurt to have others look it over. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 16:41, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

I've accepted the article. Better than 50% chance of surviving an AfD based on google scholar and that Wikipedia already has an article on "Welch Method". And despite the COI, no overly promotional material. Slywriter (talk) 16:45, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

@RebeccahWelch: I just want to let you know I went ahead and added an infobox to the article. ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 17:08, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Voila! Peter D. Welch exists. David notMD (talk) 17:46, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

 38.140.244.18 (talk) 18:02, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

It is not hard at all, as long as you provide a reference to a reliable source. Cullen328 (talk) 18:09, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Welcome to the Teahouse! Maybe because Wikipedia cares deeply about verifiability and copyright, and it's hard to get consensus to make major changes to the editing software. To learn how to edit, you could view Help:Introduction and The Wikipedia Adventure. Hope this helps, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 18:10, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello, I have multiple sources for a citation in an article I would like to create (currently using sandbox as I'm new). Is there a way to add a string of sources to a particular citation? I would like to prove to Wikipedia that I've done ample research. Orangecosmos (talk) 20:08, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

@Orangecosmos: Here are two says to list multiple sources within a citation:

• This is my statement.^[1][2][3]
• This is my statement.^[4]

Hope this helps, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 20:15, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

But note, Orangecosmos, that multiple sources are not necessarily a good idea. If the statement contains information from several sources, that's fine; but adding another source to an adequately sourced claim "to prove you've done ample research" is likely to put a reviewer off. Nobody cares how much research you've done, as long as you have done enough to produce a well-written and sourced article. See WP:Citation overkill. --ColinFine (talk) 21:28, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

@GoingBatty: :@ColinFine:

Thank you so much!!! EXTREMELY HELPFUL!!! Orangecosmos (talk)

Hello is someone able to help me? My page was submitted for review almost 4 months ago now? i was told i would have an answer in roughly 2 months but it's almost 4. Can snyone help speed this process up? LaylaDakota (talk) 21:07, 20 January 2022 (UTC) LaylaDakota (talk) 21:07, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Draft:Ben Jones (boxer)

LaylaDakota, you submitted it on 21 October, three months ago tomorrow: the message on it says "may take three months or more". I'm afraid that there is no reliable way to speed things up: reviewers are volunteers, like all other editors, and work on what they choose when they choose. It's possible that posting here will cause somebody to have a look, but not necessarily.

You can continue to improve it while it's awaiting review. What I notice is that several statements are supported by multiple weak sources: this is a red flag to reviewers, suggesting that you haven't many solid sources so you're trying to make it look better sourced than it is (see Citation overkill). I would, for example, lose all the BoxingRec sources except for no 1 (the uncontroversial statistics can reasonably come from such a source). As I said to another questioner just above, if a statement is fully substantiated by one independent, reliable source, there is no point in adding a second or third citation to it. --ColinFine (talk) 21:42, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

I have accepted it for you. Theroadislong (talk) 21:47, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

How do I know if I have an autoconfirmed account? One user told me it is if I have made 10 edits or more, which I have but I don't know if I have gotten any designation which would make my account "autoconfirmed" or what this actually meansMediaExpert1979 (talk) 16:19, 20 January 2022 (UTC) MediaExpert1979 (talk) 16:19, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

@MediaExpert1979: Hello MediaExpert! You can take a look at WP:AUTOCONFIRM to see what the requirements for becoming autoconfirmed are and what it means. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 16:22, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Also, the box on the side will tell you if your account in autoconfirmed or not. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 16:23, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

@MediaExpert1979: Put your account name in at Special:UserRights and it will show you. If your account is more than 4 days old and you have more than 10 edits, that is usually enough. RudolfRed (talk) 16:25, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello MediaExpert1979. An autoconfirmed account is one that is at least 4 days old and has more than 10 edits. Your account is autoconfirmed. See this for more information. Thank you, and happy editing!! Kpddg ^(talk) 16:26, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

@MediaExpert1979: Autoconfirmed means that you are permitted to create articles without being required to go through the Draft, Articles for Creation submission and Review process. However, such articles are evluated by the New Pages Patrol, and may be Speedy deleted if completely imappropriate for Wikipedia, draftified (turned into a draft) or accepted. David notMD (talk) 17:43, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you all! This makes sense and I was an autoconfirmed user without even knowing! My new goal is to become a confirmed user!:)MediaExpert1979 (talk) 22:15, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

@MediaExpert1979: No need. Autoconfirmed and confirmed are the exact same. One is just given out automatically and the other is given out manually by request (usually not needed). Your next goal would be to become extended-confirmed. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 22:17, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

 74.77.48.250 (talk) 03:44, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Do you have a question? David notMD (talk) 04:20, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

A simple one I hope: how do I add names to the block E-mail section of preferences? I tried a name given, but the box turned red. after that the 'save' button was not on for a retry. (talk) Ljc 22:53, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Are you serious? Have you research the old page? It literally have NO resources on reddit. https://imgur.com/a/0oLg3L0 + I'm Updating the page to include reliable sites now. TzarN64 (talk) 14:28, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, Discord. Still not a reliable source.Slywriter (talk) 14:33, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

To be clear, not a single source listed contributes to Notability.Slywriter (talk) 14:34, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Ok to be fair i am to to wikipedia and idk really about it BUT STILL. That was the offical discord server you can get from there site. Please do your research "admin" TzarN64 (talk) 14:37, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

TzarN64, please press the edit button here and reply here. Do not keep opening new topics.

Also have a look at guide to your first article for a better understanding of proper sourcing.Slywriter (talk) 14:56, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

ill look at it TzarN64 (talk) 14:37, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

@TzarN64: I also recommend looking at WP:RS so you know what is and isn't a reliable source (Which Discord is not). ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 15:00, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

STATUS: TzarN64 created a draft in own Sandbox, then moved it to mainspace as Return YouTube Dislike without going through Articles for Creation. Same day, an editor (not Slywriter) tagged it with Speedy deletion, which TzarN64 opposed. Article exists, is not at PROD or AFD, but in my opinion, some references are fatally flawed. David notMD (talk) 15:35, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

I think it would be best to draftify it, however I'm refraining from doing so since i don't want to be breaking any rules. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 15:36, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Believe AfD is only policy compliant option at this point. Not sure any of the assistance here has been useful as primary sources still being added and no secondary.Slywriter (talk) 15:40, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

I certainly don't mind AfD. They contested the speedy deletion with the reasoning of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 15:43, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Actually I think the article has a shot. A quick WP:BEFORE search shows there are reliable sources to use. It's not cut and dry that the extension is non-notableSlywriter (talk) 15:50, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Alright. So maybe draftifying it would be a good option? (also this conversation might be best to continue elsewhere) ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 15:52, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Simple - merge and redirect to YouTube#User features. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:48, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure to what extent there's even anything to be merged. I've nominated the article at AfD with the intent to make the page a redirect. I think it would be reasonable to add one sentence about it under the Consolidation and controversy (2019–present) section using this article from PCMag as a source, but that's about it. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 23:06, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

I am not confident in identifying reliability. Could someone take a look at these, I belive they are unreliable. They look like blogs and fan sites but I am not sure. [[10]], [[11]], [[12]], [[13]] and [[14]]. Thanks in advance. Gandalf the Groovy (talk) 23:23, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

First 3 look to be interviews ans can likely be used in accordance with WP:ABOUTSELF. Last two look like blogs/editable by anyone/Wikipedia clones.Slywriter (talk) 23:31, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello readers,

"Te Kauwhata" - the town in North Island New Zealand, it spelt incorrectly on the map on the Wikipedia page, it is displayed as Kauwhata. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Te_Kauwhata is anyone able to edit and correct this please? I don't know how to.

thank you. Shani 180.150.37.197 (talk) 23:04, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Well, I've tried to fix it. The Wikidata item d:Q1526617 had two links to the NZ Gazeteer both apparently to the same place, but one having the name "Kauwhata". I removed that property from the Wikidata item, thinking that this would fix it; but it hasn't, even when I purged the article, and tried a null edit. Somebody who understands how the map works will have to fix it. --ColinFine (talk) 23:33, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

If you click on the map in the article and then zoom in a couple of steps, the name appears as "Te Kauwhata". I don't know why the zoomed-out map has just "Kauwhata". Deor (talk) 23:58, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello, I need some help. I am doing a major rewrite on an article and have some questions. First off, what are the rules on subject interviews, Are they considered primary sources? Are they considered reliable? Secondly, if no reliable websites specify the subjects birth date do you just leave it out? What if the mention their birth date in an interview? Thanks in advance. Gandalf the Groovy (talk) 23:12, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Gandalf the Groovy Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Yes, interviews are primary sources, as by definition it is the person speaking about themselves. See WP:ABOUTSELF for how such information is treated; in short, the person themselves can usually be used as a source for their birthdate, if no independent source is available. There may be exceptions to that, as celebrities in some fields are not always honest about their ages, for career reasons. 331dot (talk) 23:47, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Gandalf the Groovy, also worth reading is WP:INTERVIEWS. Cullen328 (talk) 00:02, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

I linked to Seba Technology Disruption Framework, expecting to see an article (I believe I visited this page before), but it is red-linked. I believe that this is a notable topic and was tempted to create an article, but before doing that I would like to confirm that this article existed before and, if it did, I would like to see the prior content and also understand why the page was deleted. Can anyone confirm the prior existance of this article and, if it did, help me to understand why it was deleted. Assuming that it previously existed, it would also be helpful to see what was there before, rather than being obliged to start from scratch. Feedback and suggestions welcome.
Enquire (talk) 00:59, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

If it had existed before, you would see the deletion log when you click on the redlink, but you don't so it didn't. --David Biddulph (talk) 01:13, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi Enquire. Sometimes when you click on a red link like Seba Technology Disruption Framework, you may see something at the top of the page that explains whether the page has been previously deleted. If not, the checking the page's history or the page's talk page sometimes helps clarify things. Since none of those things seem to work in this case, you can try checking the WP:LOG for the page at Special:Log. If there's no log record for a page, then mostly likely it never existed (at least under that particular name) which means you'll be basically creating the page from scratch. Sometimes a page might have previously existed but under a different name; so, searching different combinations of the page title occassionally will help clarify things as well. FWIW, as far as I can tell, no page to titled "Seba Technology Disruption Framework" has ever existed. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:15, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

While scouring through barely used templates, I want to know if there is any way to see what pages use these templates. Is there any special page that does that? Afaik, Whatlinkshere shows which articles links to the page, and not which article trancsludes what template. 139.192.111.232 (talk) 01:06, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Whatlinks here has options for "Hide transclusions | Hide links | Hide redirects". If you hide the last two, then it will leave you with just the transclusions. --David Biddulph (talk) 01:17, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

There's usually a "What links here" link in the left sidebar for most Wikipedia pages. If you click on this link, you should be able to see all of the pages where the template is being transcluded (i.e. being used) or where a link to the template's page has been added. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:19, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

I see, thanks! 139.192.111.232 (talk) 01:43, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

If I'm citing a source from vidanuevadigital.com and would like to wikilink to the website, but there is no English Wikipedia page for the website is it appropriate to include a link like this: Vida Nueva? TipsyElephant (talk) 02:50, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

HiTipsyElephant, I don't think it is necessary for an article about the site to be included. If you want, you can do it like this: ^[1]

Sincerely, #bodyContent a[title="CertifiedAmazing2"] { background-color: #ffa500; color: #ffffff; font-weight: bold; } (talk) 02:57, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi TipsyElephant. The suggestion made by CertifiedAmazing2 would work for an external link, but you shouldn't really be adding external links to the bodies of articles. If you want to link to an article on another language Wikipedia using a WP:WIKILINK, then there is information on how to do so in Wikipedia:Interlanguage links. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:05, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

I have mistakenly added a number of templates to the article in caption. Anyone please fix it.Michri michri (talk) 01:38, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

If you made a mistake, you can go back and fix it yourself if you want. If the entire edit was a mistake, you can WP:SELFREVERT it yourself to restore the article to its prior version. In either case, you should leave an edit summary briefly explaining what you're fixing or why you're self-reverting. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:45, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Marchjuly, please help me, as I am editing now in mobile and not in the desktop, where I am familiar, I'm facing serious problems while editing. So, please fix it instead of me. Cheers — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michri michri (talk • contribs) 02:32, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

You can fix it later on when you have access to a desk top. If you can't wait, trying scrolling all the way down to the bottom of the article in mobile mode and clicking on "switch to desk top mode". If you can do that, you can edit from your mobile device in the same way as you would be able to do from your desk top. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:42, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Marchjuly, Thanks a lot but please fix it now if possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michri michri (talk • contribs) 02:57, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

@Michri michri: I deleted a bunch of tables that look like the infobox - hope that's what you wanted. In the future, I suggest you please don't edit from a device where you can't revert your edits. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 04:13, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

article declined for lack of reliable sources. following is the Original References list but recommended to list only a few applicable references. Could use help in completing this article. when asked about inadequate references for reliability purposes seemed adequate when compared to similar wikipedia articles e.g. lucian niemeyer

Could use help when asked about inadequate references for reliability purposes.

1. ↑ "Charles Williams, United States Navy, Biography". America's Navy. 1. Southeast Missouri State University graduate college newspaper article (https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/s/?view=att&th=17c98d4384f2083c&attid=0.1&disp=attd&safe=1&zw(https://www.slu/edu) 2. Charles Williams presidential nomination(https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/presidential-actions/eight-nominations-one-withdrawal-sent-senate-2/) 3. Charles Williams (http://www.congress.gov/nomination/116th-congress/1310) 4. Charles Williams (http://www.executivegov.com/2019/12/retired-rear..) 6. Trump announces pick for top Navy energy, environment post.pdf (http://www.eenews.net/stories/1061653601) https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/s/?view=att&th=17c94cebe9e622b1&attid=0.1&disp=attd&safe=1&zw 7. Charles Williams (http://www.insidedefense.com/document/mcpherson-williams-confirmation-hearing) 8. Charles Williams (http://www.msccn.org/uploads/2/5/8/2/25822220/chuck_williams.pdf) 9. Liberty University (http://www.coursehero.com/file/75130637/Generations)-Assesment-3docx 10. Charles Williams (http://capitalinnovators.com/charles-williams) 11. Charles Williams Hall of Fame 1968 (http://www.ritenour.k12.mo.us/page/452) 12. Charles Williams USS St. Louis Commissioning speaker (https://news.usni.org/2020/08/11/video-littoral-combat-ship-uss-st-louis-comissioning-ceremony 13. Interview for PBS special https://www.ninepbs.org/blogs/program-highlights/uss-st-louis-centuries-of-service/ 14. Defense minister, embassy and Omani Admiral in Chief RNO commander receives US official - Oman Observer https://www.omanobserver.om/article/7116/Local/rno... RNO Commander meets with US Navy official - Oman Observer https://www.omanobserver.om/article/7091/Local/rno... 15. Assistant Secretary Williams visits U.S. installations in the U.S., Central Command, Europe and Africa. https://www.navy.mil/Press-Office/News-Stories/Article/2366261/assistant-secretary-of-the-navy-for-energy-installations-environment-visits-sou/ https://www.navy.mil/Press-Office/News-Stories/Article/2329431/asn-for-energy-installations-environment-visits https://www.navy.mil/Press-Office/News-Stories/Article/2438028/asst-secnav-for-energy-installations-environment-visits-overseas-installations/ 16. Charles Williams Installation Annual Report (https://www.secnav.navy.mil/eie/Documents/2020_Navy_Financial_Report_PRINT_FILE-BLEED.pdf) 17.Trump Taps Missouri Vet to Lead Navy ... - Defense Communities (https://defensecommunities.org/2019/12/trump-taps...) 18. Charles Williams livid over housing https://www.militarytimes.com/pay-benefits/2020/01/16/navy-housing-nominee-livid-about-housing-problems/ 19. Charles Williams (http://www.independentsentinel.com/88-former) 20. Charles Williams https://www.defensenews.com/congress/2020/03/06/as-pentagon-vacancies-peak-time-runs-out-to-fill-jobs/ 21. Charles Williams Senate Confirmation hearing (https://www.13newsnow.com/article/news/national/military-news/pentagon-nominees-questioned-on-housing-suicides-shipyards-climate-change/291-36f29958-4530-42d6-b878-afe73155e9dd) 22. Charles Williams Senate hearing congressional record (pdf) https://www.congress.gov/congressional-record/volume-166/daily-digest/page/D59 https://www.armed-services.senate.gov/press-releases/sasc-advances-civilian-military-nominations-021320 23. Charles Williams Armed Services hearing January 16,2020 (https://www.c-span.org/search/?sdate=01%2F16%2F2020&edate=01%2F16%2F2020&congressSelect=&yearSelect=&searchtype=Videos&sort=Most+Recent+Event&text=0) 24. Charles Williams Senate Event Schedule https://www.congress.gov/event/116th-congress/senate-event/326925?s=2&r=10 Flagship1 (talk) 19:00, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Draft:Charles Arthur Williams @Flagship1: I helped out with this in October, but guess it stalled. There need to be more sources written about him rather than primary sources. See Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary,_secondary_and_tertiary_sources. Navy documents and press releases are primary sources.TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:21, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

follow up to Templeton

FYI

 – Combined sections. GoingBatty (talk) 20:23, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

3rd party references were suggested to be added. Flagship1 (talk) 20:20, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

references include 2 college articles on the subject (liberty and southeast missouri) and 1 high school article ritenour). 3 television reports local and national (cspan, pbs). 4 newspaper articles.

believe these to be 3rd party. are more needed than this?

Might add the position held was previously held by Teddy Roosevelt (pres mckinley appointment) and Franklin Rooselvelt (pres Wilson appointment)

thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flagship1 (talk • contribs) 20:20, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Flagship1. We can't tell from that brief description whether or not those sources qualify. For each source, you need to answer the following three questions:

1. Is it a reliable source? i.e., was it published by somebody with a reputation for fact-checking and editorial control. The televaision and newspaper articles, probably (but not necessarily); official publications by college, but probably not student newspapers or the like; probably not high school publications (I've no idea what "ritenour" means)
2. Is it independent of him? Almost nothing published or written by any colleagues, employers, or institutions he was affiliated to (includi8ng his colleges, and the navy) would qualify. Newspaper and TV articles may, if they were written by journalists from their own research, but not if they were interviews with him or his colleagues, or based on press releases.
3. Does it contain significant coverage of him? More than just a mention, a single sentence, or an entry in a directory.

If you can find several sources that meet those criteria, then you can establish notability, and write the article, based almost entirely on those sources. Note that who else held his position is completely irrelevant: notability for Wikipedia's purposes isn't about what a person has been or done, but about what has been written about them in appropriate contexts. --ColinFine (talk) 21:24, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

I also advised in October. Posting a 'wall' of posible refs here (and on the Talk page of the editor who declined the submission) is not helpful. Better to decide which of all those possible refs represent significant coverage about him, add those, and resubmit. David notMD (talk) 07:29, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello,

I am curious to know why Plivo's Wikipedia page was deleted https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plivo? Would you be able to provide some help? Thank you, Erik EW 21:18, 20 January 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erikgwagner (talk • contribs)

Hello Erikgwagner and welcome to the Teahouse. It appears that article was deleted as the result of a decision based on this AfD discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Plivo (2nd nomination). --ARoseWolf 21:25, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

There were not a lot of comments at either AfD, but for both, an Administrator made a judgement call to delete. You could query the Admin who did the second AfD. David notMD (talk) 07:35, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello. I came across a user sandbox page for a banned [blocked] user. I wanted to nominate it for speedy deletion, but did not find it in CSD. I tried searching policy and guidelines, but came up empty. Surely, it doesn't have to go through a full WP:MFD, does it? For specifics, it is this page: User:Ugochukwu75/sandbox. The user was officially banned [blocked] for sockpuppetry but has also admitted to undeclared paid editing. Cheers, SVTCobra 23:40, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Correction: This editor was indefinitely blocked, but was not banned. Individual administrators can block editors. Banning is a community process, or can be imposed by the Arbitration Committee. Blocking and banning are not exactly the same thing. Cullen328 (talk) 00:10, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

I apologize for the inappropriate terminology. I have struck and replaced the words above. Thanks for pointing it out. Cheers, --SVTCobra 01:07, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

As User:Ugochukwu75/sandbox was not created until after the sockmaster User:Ugochukwu75 had been blocked, you can't use WP:CSD#G5. --David Biddulph (talk) 01:33, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

I know there are no WP:CSD that seem to fit, but that is my question: Should User:Ugochukwu75/sandbox sit there forever or is a WP:MFD necessary? Cheers, --SVTCobra 01:56, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Would it be improper to move to a draft page? Someone may find it, otherwise 6 months from now it would be procedurally deleted.Slywriter (talk) 01:59, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't know. Hence the question. And are you saying it will be PROD'ed in six months if left in the sandbox or only if it is moved to draftspace? --SVTCobra 04:52, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Drafts are deleted after 6 months of no activity. Or more precisely are queued for Admin attention, which usually results in deletion.Slywriter (talk) 05:01, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Drafts that remain unedited for six months are eligible for speedy deletion per WP:G13. There's no point in moving the page to the draft namespace if you have no intention in trying to improve it yourself. There's also no point in moving the page to the draft namespace if you just are hoping that someone may find it and adopt it. If the sandbox doesn't have any major issues (e.g. WP:COPYVIO or WP:BLP), then there seems to be no harm in simply leaving it alone; perhaps someday the creator will be unblocked and decide to resume work on it. If you really feel it needs to be deleted, then you'll probably need to bring it to WP:MFD. However, before doing that you might want to ask about it at some relevant WikiProjects (e.g. WP:ITALY, WP:WPBIOA&E, WP:FASHION) to see if anybody there feels the subject is notable and wants to work on the draft. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:12, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you @Marchjuly:. Cheers, --SVTCobra 10:17, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm a novice Wikepedia contributor and need some help and feedback on creating a new page for a non-profit organization. The draft is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:The_Society_to_Improve_Diagnosis_in_Medicine

I had tried to create a page for this group last year but it was rejected (too much 'advertising', no references). The current version hopefully addresses the problems that were identified with the first version. I no longer have any official ties to this organization but I have a big COI as its founder, which I have clearly stated on my user page. Not sure how to indicate the COI on the draft? Also not sure if drafts like this automatically get reviewed or how one designates them for review. Thanks for any advice !

Mark Graber MLGraber (talk) 23:39, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello, MLGraber. Your draft is nowhere near ready to be submitted. Convert your references to the inline format, which you can learn by reading Referencing for beginners. You should also read Your first article. Then, submit the draft to Articles for creation. Cullen328 (talk) 23:45, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Admittedly not having looked at the "page for the organization," may I suggest another possible issue. Wikipedia does not have "pages for organizations"; it might have an article about an organization. Such an article would be written independently of that organization (and preferably by people who have not connection to the organization), based on other things that have been reliably published, independently of that organization, and the article might or might not be to the organization's liking. The place for a "page for an organization" might be the organization's own website, or (maybe) LinkedIn or (I'm loathe to say it because I despise it and its founder) Facebook. Uporządnicki (talk) 14:18, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Mikemorrell49 (talk)Hi MLGraber, as a relative newbie here (who initiated a Wiki page for an organization that I was associated with), I just want to add my perspective to MLGraber's comment. He's absolutely right! But I also accept that the initiative to create a Wiki page about an organization is sometimes taken by someone who is associated with the organization. In the sense that they believe that the organization is 'notable' to the wider community in some way. The first step is to research the actual 'notability' by finding out which reliable and independent sources demonstrate that the organization is sufficiently 'notable' in the wider community. The actual 'notability' (the attention paid by independent media and other sources) might be far less than the organization imagines! A second point is to include references to these reliable and independent sources in any Wikipedia article. A third point is to describe the organization in neutral terms, based soley on the content of the referenced reliable, independent sources. A fourth point is (on the article's 'talk page') to openly declare any 'conflict of interest' you might have through an association with this organization and any steps you have taken to mitigate the effects of this possible conflict. In my case, I deliberately invited 3 independent Wikipedians (and my Wikipedia coach) to review my 'Draft Page' before submitting it for publication. The submitted version was very different from my 'Draft' version

One of the main concerns for new Wikipedia pages about organizations is that they may be 'promotional'. I suggest spending some time learning about the purpose of Wikipedia and how this translates into criteria for Wikipedia pages. As a complete newbie, it took me a while to learn about Wikipedia and how to add valuable pages (for the community) while respecting the purpose of and guidelines for Wikipedia pages. Mikemorrell49 (talk) 12:45, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

How, and where can I suggest a change to the Wikipedia interface? Itcouldbepossible^Talk 13:13, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello Itcouldbepossible. Suggestions for improvement can be made in the appropriate section at Wikipedia:Village pump. Thank you. Kpddg ^(talk) 14:12, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

@Kpddg Thanks for the reply. Itcouldbepossible^Talk 14:29, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Welcome :) Kpddg ^(talk) 14:44, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

I created a new account yesterday, and I want to create a new page article. Unfortunately, I am unable to find out how to create one. please I need your help in that regard. My username is Hadeel Market, and I want to create a page named Market Equity. Hadeel Market (talk) 08:03, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Creating a new article is one of the more difficult tasks in Wikipedia, so you ought to gain experience in editing existing articles first. When you have done so, you can then find advice at WP:Your first article, but the most important point is to satisfy yourself that the subject meets Wikipedia's definition of notability. --David Biddulph (talk) 08:18, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

@Hadeel Market: Welcome to the Teahouse! To learn how to edit, you could view Help:Introduction and The Wikipedia Adventure. Hope this helps, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 14:40, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

UPDATE: Hadeel Market blocked until making name change, and Sandbox Speedy deleted for promotional intent. David notMD (talk) 15:10, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi, I am interested not only on earthquakes, but also on articles about places or cities. Any tips for making or improving articles of those topics? Filipinohere (talk) 15:24, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Separating sections ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 15:28, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

@Filipinohere Welcome to Teahouse! Check out this WikiProject dedicated to cities! Join the Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities and ask for suggestions or see whatever interests you there! Happy editing! ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 15:39, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

(I reposted this from a misplaced quest for help [15] at MediaWiki talk:Signature. I didn't know where else this person might find the help they are looking for.)

I did not request any developer tools or apps or any other functions on my phone laptop or any of my accounts I have been trying to get this resolved for the longest time and still I keep getting these errors and redirects. Some of y'all don't seem to understand that this person is a very violent man that has harmed me in the past and all I am trying to do is retrieve my account so I can get back to my normal life 2600:1700:9D90:FF0:DC68:388F:EE35:B3B3 (talk) 16:31, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Reposted by Willondon (talk) 16:41, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

To the IP user, if your personal safety is in danger, you should contact your local authorities. I'm not sure what tools or apps have to do with this, are you being impersonated? 331dot (talk) 16:46, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm sorry for your predicament, but (speaking for myself), I haven't the faintest idea who you are, or what you are asking for. My guess is that this is absolutely nothing to do with Wikipedia or MediaWiki, and you came to MediaWiki by mistake; but I may be wrong. --ColinFine (talk) 17:06, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Can someone tell me what is going on? See diff 1 and diff 2. It always adds these weird blocks of code (<templatestyles src="Module:Infobox/styles.css"> and so on). But I didn't add it. It adds them automatically. Is this a visual editor bug or what? Renat 16:50, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

RenatUK, it looks to me as if it's expanded the template in the article, but I've no idea why. WP:VPT is the place to ask about problems with the Wikipedia user interface. --ColinFine (talk) 17:09, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. I see it now: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Templatestyles_edits. Renat 17:19, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

After thinking for a bit, i think this should just be a redirect to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/YouTube#Consolidation_and_controversy_(2019%E2%80%93present). It sucks for having my first artictle deleting after hours of research but i dont really care. TzarN64 (talk) 16:28, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

@TzarN64: Hi there! It appears your thought matches those at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Return YouTube Dislike. You might want to share your thought there as well. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 19:21, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Experiencing an issue where my edits, while using the visual editor, are quasi-duplicating the infobox (see my contributions). I first noticed this type of edit to Chris Sununu, where it appeared to be some weird edit. Well, it happened to me a few times to me, didn't know if this was something that other folks were experiencing. PerpetuityGrat (talk) 18:58, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

@PerpetuityGrat: Welcome to the Teahouse! It looks like the same issue as described in the #Mohammed Shami section above, and the #Bug? section above has the link to the Village Pump discussion. Hope it's resolved soon! GoingBatty (talk) 19:31, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

FYI

 – Templates not showing (and being invoked) in original post, resulting in confusing display.173.49.228.131 (talk) 22:44, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

I was going to add two external sources to an article, Turner Classic Movies and the American Film Institute. I looked at another article to get the formats, and they were ((AFI film|xxxx)) and ((TCMDb title|xxxxx)) where the x's were numbers. In a different format for the same sources there were called id numbers. What are they and were do I get them for my film? I didn't see anything on those sites pages. Pete Best Beatles (talk) 20:21, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello and welcome. You say "my film", so please remember to disclose any conflict of interest you have before editing articles related to your film(s). As for your request, it's a bit confusing, but are you simply trying to add a source for something in an article? If so, check out this page for help on how to do that generally. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 20:50, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Pete Best Beatles, hello and welcome to the Teahouse, please could you be more specific as to what you really want? Can you be be a little more precise and concise? Celestina007 (talk) 21:34, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Please see the documentation for the templates ((AFI film)) and ((TCMDb title)). 173.49.228.131 (talk) 22:24, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

I was just reading letters from my great uncle, Roy M Evans, who was an aide, a cartographer, for General Pershing in WWI. He has information on this battle from a personal experience that I would like to add to the article already in place, but not sure how to do it, or where in the article. I was thinking the short portion near the bottom, 'Aftermath', might be a good fit. I could copy and paste this here and let someone more experienced do it, if you'd like.Suzisuzanne (talk) 07:42, 21 January 2022 (UTC) Suzisuzanne (talk) 07:42, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Sadly, personal experience is not acceptable as a source in Wikipedia, and such an edit would be regarded as original research. Wikipedia edits need to be verifiable by references to published independent reliable sources. --David Biddulph (talk) 08:14, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi Suzisuzanne. Unfortunately, it sounds like you're referring to something that Wikipedia refers to as "original research" and such types of information is generally not deemed appropriate for Wikipedia articles. Please understand that this is meant as no disrespect to your great uncle and the things experienced. Now, this is only just a first assessment of things based upon the description you've given so far. You might want to ask about this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history because that's where you're going to find editors who might more familiar with the Battle of Saint-Mihiel and be better able to assess the information you've found in your uncle's letters. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:17, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, but original research (i.e. personal experiences) is not allowed on Wikipedia articles. However, you could possibly add it if there's an online source that's able to be cited, rather than your great uncle that's giving the information. My apologies if that was confusing. Sincerely, CertifiedAmazing2 wanna chat? 22:56, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi folks. I just submitted my first DYK nomination, so I'm a bit fuzzy on the nuts and bolts. The issue is that after I submitted the nomination, another editor moved the article. I AGREE with the move (they added a hyphen), but now the DYK nomination is wrong, and I can't figure out how to update it in a way that doesn't just break stuff. The article is here: Courant–Snyder parameters. (note the en dash) Thanks! PianoDan (talk) 21:04, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

"[T]hey added a hyphen [...] note the en dash." Um, PianoDan, I need another coffee. Anyway, yes, it's currently "Courant–Snyder parameters", with an en dash. You can of course edit the article in any way that you wish. As for editing the nomination stuff, I too am mystified by DYK. (I've occasionally participated, but with such long intervals separating these short bouts of interest that I forget everything and have to relearn it.) Why not add to Template talk:Did you know#Courant Snyder parameters a comment such as "I see that LaundryPizza03 has moved the article from 'Courant Snyder parameters' to 'Courant–Snyder parameters'. I agree with the move, but is any change needed to this nomination?" (Change "No ping" to "U".) Then people familiar with DYK are likely to notice and respond. -- Hoary (talk) 22:42, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes well - colloquial typography vs. explicit. My wife still makes fun of me for putting two spaces after a period. In all seriousness, it seems that editing Template talk:Did you know directly isn't right. Rather, it looks like I needed to edit the template itself, and then the comments get transcluded back to that page. The template edit page is just so complicated that I was second and third guessing myself as to where I was supposed to edit. I've at least figured out where to ASK the question, even if I've still no idea what the answer is. Thanks for your help! PianoDan (talk) 22:58, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

This page has been marked as a draft, but it isn't a draft, and it was published over a month ago. How do I revert it from draft status? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:%22NOT_A_BOOK%22 PetSematary182 (talk) 16:29, 21 January 2022 (UTC)PetSematary182

PetSematary182 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. It must be submitted for a review, I've added the information required to do so. Most of the sources do not seem appropriate; they must be reliable sources with significant coverage. 331dot (talk) 16:38, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

The article was moved to draft status this morning, the sources are "Goodreads" which is a primary source for this topic so confers zero notability on the subject, sources need to be independent. Theroadislong (talk) 16:52, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hello, PetSematary182, and welcome to the Teahouse. SVTCobra moved the article to draft space, with the comment "This does not appear ready"; they might have nominated it for deletion, but this indicates that they though it could be rescued as an article, but needed work. On a quick look, only two of your sources are regarded as reliable: The Verge and Vox; but neither of those two meantions Goodreads or "NOT A BOOK". In other words, your draft has not one single reliable source that covers the topic, and does nothing whatever to establish that it meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability. --ColinFine (talk) 17:01, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

PetSematary182 You might be better off paring the content down and adding it with a redirect to Goodreads#Features. I doubt anyone is going to look up NOT A BOOK without going to the Goodreads article first. It's all about user friendliness. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 23:03, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

I found this company called AXIS BATS, and there isn't a wiki article about it. I want to create a article, but I have little writing knowledge about writing a article on the Wikipedia. If I simply write a article with low writing criteria stating it's a stub, will people try and volunteer and add more better described information? Torrent1703 (talk) 00:45, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Does the company satisfy Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)? (Note that such notability is independent of the integrity of the company or the quality of its products.) When you say that you "found" the company, do you mean that you came across some mention of it, or that you founded the company? -- Hoary (talk) 01:08, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Courtesy ping: Torrent1703 —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 01:26, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

For a stub article to be approved requires valid, reliable source references. If no references exist, do not waste your time or that of a Reviewer, who will decline the draft. David notMD (talk) 01:38, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

I met the guy who owned it, it was a family owned Business. I noticed it didn't have a wiki and only had it's own website. I found the place when I was sent to community service. If you want more proof that the place exist, (Redacted). Torrent1703 — Preceding undated comment added 01:41, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Existence is not our notability criteria, significant coverage in news outlets unconnected to the subject is. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 01:45, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Do you have a Discord or a gmail to chat somewhere else? This Wikipedia chatting system is very uncomfortable Torrent1703 — Preceding undated comment added 01:47, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

@Torrent1703: Unless there's something that shouldn't be made public on Wikipedia (such as sensitive information), most conversations stay on Wikipedia pages for transparency. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 01:50, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Dude, I am not using this stupid chatting system, it's retarded and cheap how you have to edit a article just to chat to someone. Torrent1703

There is IRC. Wikipedia:IRC/wikipedia-en-help RudolfRed (talk) 01:51, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

@Torrent1703: Patience and an ability to work well with others is a good skill for editing articles. Axis Bats appears to be somewhat well known - I did a quick search and found this [16], but it'll need more sources to pass the notability threshold. You could start by adding them to List of baseball bat manufacturers, with a single reference. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 02:13, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Okay, heres the edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_baseball_bat_manufacturers&oldid=1066775145Torrent1703 — Preceding undated comment added 02:26, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

@Timtempleton: I strongly disagree with your suggestion that Axis Bats be added to that listicle, and moreover, I believe most if not all of the ones that are redlinked should be removed. It's actually been substantially trimmed down from what it once was. As an example, one of the edit summaries pre-cleanup literally reads: "Added my Company to the list. Brew City Wood Bat Company. Jay Vernon, Owner". You can see what the cleaned-up article looked like here. However, immediately afterward, people clearly connected to baseball bat manufacturers started adding redlinks again; as an example, the edit immediately proceeding this cleanup added: "* [[Birdman Bats]]<ref>((Cite web|url=https://www.birdmanbats.com/|title=Birdman Bats young but growing fast in reputation one swing at a time. Hear the pop. ref>< ((Cite web|url=https://www.youtube.com/watchBirdman Bats MLB|title=Birbman Bats|via=www.youtube.com))</ref> #PutSomeWingsOnIt</ref>". I'll be agreeing with Sphilbrick's argument on the article's talk page and cleaning it up again. There's no reason we should be listing clearly non-notable bat manufacturers in "a list of notable baseball bat manufacturers", as it's solely a form of advertisement for their companies and has no encyclopedic merit. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 03:07, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

@Torrent1703: There's also Wikipedia:Discord. GoingBatty (talk) 03:19, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

@Timtempleton: I agree that providing a company's web site at List of baseball bat manufacturers doesn't seem to demonstrate that it's a notable company. GoingBatty (talk) 03:19, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

TheTechnician27, thank you for making that list article very much less terrible. (But it's still terrible.) -- Hoary (talk) 12:56, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

The link I posted above was to an article about the company. They provided bats to Red Sox slugger David Ortiz, among others, and the coverage says they are well-known. That was worth a red link in my mind. It’s not a DAB page. If the consensus is to only include companies with articles as being notable, rather than those that are potential article subjects, that’s fine, but it should be in the hidden text to alert future editors. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:02, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

While everything remains questionable if the company can be notable, ill will talk a lot more about it on Discord. However, I do have a working idea for the information of the company on my Sandbox page. Torrent1703 — Preceding undated comment added 23:35, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello, all the pictures that I had added to my draft were deleted and I do not have any notification. I have the copyright. Noeliagarone (talk) 11:26, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi Noeliagarone. It looks like the files you added to Draft:Dawn After Dark were ones that you uploaded to Commons. Commons and Wikipedia are members of the same family so to speak, but they are different projects with their own policies and guidelines. A notification about one of the files the problems it had was posted at c:User talk:Noeliagarone and it and the other files were deleted by a Commons administrator named EugeneZelenko. If you want more information as to what the problems with the other files were, you can ask EugeneZelenko about them at c:User talk:EugeneZelenko. Before you do that though, you might want to take a look at c:Commons:Licensing, c:Commons:Own work and c: Commons:But it's my own work! for reference because copyright rules can be tricky and its easy to make a mistake. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:58, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse @Noeliagarone it seems the pictures were deleted (as given in the edit summery) because they were promo pictures. ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 15:12, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

@Noeliagarone Files aren't typically deleted from Commons simply because they are promotional photos; however, promotional photos that appear to be professionally taken are often uploaded under questionable or unverifiable licensing, or claims of "own work" and such photos may be deleted for those reasons. Commons administrators are given quite a bit of discretion when it comes to such files and can delete them without warning or discussion; so, if you feel a mistake was made, the best thing to do would be to first ask for clarification from EugeneZelenko. Explain why you feel a mistake was made and he will advise you on what to do next. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:45, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi, I just was asking about a blocked user that I found out about, and I wanted to ask: should their sandbox be deleted? I just nominated it for deletion, so please let me know if this is the right thing. Here is their page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:WaterflameIsAwesome/sandbox  Sincerely,CertifiedAmazing2 wanna chat? 23:09, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

It doesn't qualify for WP:G5 if it was created before the block. And it looks like the page was basically blank before you added the CSD, so what's the point? RudolfRed (talk) 23:13, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Its deleted now, so I guess I misread G5. RudolfRed (talk) 00:33, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Is it possible to attempt to rename a draft article you did not make or do you have to to wait until it potentially gets published? Is it possible to start a discussion on name changes for drafts? Gandalf the Groovy (talk) 00:15, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Draft titles are at best provisional. If a page is accepted it'll be moved to an appropriate title. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 00:37, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Can always leave a note on the talk page of your suggestion.Slywriter (talk) 01:01, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

In Nadeo the logo in the infobox is outdated. Am I allowed to change it to the current logo? (The image is already on commons) ZaiIsZai (talk) 02:49, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello, ZaiIsZai. Both versions are simple text logos and therefore are not protected by copyright. Go to the old logo's file information page at Commons and upload the new version. It will change automatically wherever it appears on Wikipedia. Cullen328 (talk) 02:56, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

@Cullen328 But the new logo already exists on commons, so it would be a duplicate ZaiIsZai ^{talk | contribs} 01:28, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

(sorry for the different signature) ZaiIsZai ^{talk | contribs} 01:33, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello Wikipedians! I am a newbie and have drafted my first entry. I don't know if this is the proper way to get started, but could I ask if someone could take a look at my sandbox draft and tell me what I need to do to take it live? It is at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Wormpicker62/sandbox

Many thanks! Wormpicker62 (talk) 23:09, 18 January 2022 (UTC)Wormpicker62

Hi, Wormpicker62, and welcome to the Teahouse. I'd like to start with the positives but then address one thing that may keep this from being accepted at Articles for Creation (AfC) in its current state. The quality of the prose is quite fantastic. There are a couple trivial formatting issues insofar as the section 'L. Andrew Staehelin' should just be the lead section without any header and inline references should come after puncutation, but the formatting is otherwise excellent both in the main prose and in the references. Wikilinks are very well-utilized. In my opinion, it does not go into extraneous detail, and it is not written in a promotional tone – I would consider it to be of the perfect length. That said, the underlying issue with the article in its current state is that it relies almost exclusively on primary sources. Inclusion of a biography like this would be determined based on three standards: the general notability guideline, the biography notability criteria, and the academic notability criteria. I'll ping David notMD, who would have a better grasp on the last one, but the first two require substantial information published about the subject in reliable, independent sources, which this draft does not demonstrate exist. Were it to pass on academic criteria, it would still be highly preferable to have more reliable, independent citations, as per our policy on primary sources, we're not supposed to "base an entire article on primary sources", and we should "be cautious about basing large passages on them." Hope this helped! I'm sure DnMD will be able to give you a more comprehensive answer about academic notability. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 00:45, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your kind and encouraging words and thoughtful advice, ! TheTechnician27! I hope I'm formatting this reply correctly. I will work on getting more secondary independent sources for citations. I'd be grateful if you would continue to follow my progress. Thanks again. Wormpicker62 (talk) 01:04, 19 January 2022 (UTC)Wormpicker62

Simply put, referencing a few of his journal articles will give sense of his research focus, but contributes nothing toward establishing is notability. Essential to add references to content that is about him but has no connection to him, as in other than from the university he worked for. David notMD (talk) 02:24, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

If you can find someone else writing about the contributions his work made to the general field, it would definitely help. This can be hard, even for subjects who have changed the course of scientific history, because their colleagues tend to look forwards, rather than write about the past. That's why the notability criteria for academics are a bit flexible. Some of his awards, fellowships and memberships will help. Was he by any chance chief editor of a major journal at any time? If so, put this in; it's another thing that counts towards notability of academics. Elemimele (talk) 11:04, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Wormpicker62 I've looked at your article, and it looks great. Another thing you could do is add an infobox template about the person, maybe something like this:

((Infobox person
| name               = Lucas Staehelin
| birth_date         = February 10, 1939 (81 years old)
| citizenship        = Switzerland-America
| years_active       = 1970-unknown
| known_for          = Cell Biology
))

Sincerely, CertifiedAmazing2 wanna chat? 02:37, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

@Wormpicker62 and CertifiedAmazing2: I took the liberty of adding ((Infobox academic)) (instead of ((Infobox person))) to the draft, since infoboxes do not display well in this section due to the Teahouse table of contents. Note that I used ((birth date and age)) so his age will be calculated automatically and you don't have to manually change it after every birthday. I added a few extra fields too. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 02:57, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

How can I get an internal link for a different language of wikipedia? For example, how can I get a internal link to may be Russian language Wikibooks, or maybe Italian language Wikivoyage. Itcouldbepossible^Talk 09:19, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Itcouldbepossible. I always use the template ((ill)) for this; but see WP:ILL for all the possibilities. --ColinFine (talk)

Thanks for you help Colin Itcouldbepossible^Talk 14:30, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

@Itcouldbepossible ColinFine The ((ill)) template only links to other language Wikipedias. For instructions on intra-wiki projects (and languages) see this non Wikipedia link (Wikimedia Meta-Wiki) at meta:Help:Interwiki linking (which was also linked on WP:ILL). If you have further questions, happy to help ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 14:48, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

@Shushugah Can I link russian language wikibooks also? Itcouldbepossible^Talk 14:50, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, please read the link I sent you and inspect in editor mode what I did, so you can do something similar. See the following example b:ru:Сборка кубика Рубика 3x3x3 which you can visually change with a | separator like on English Wikipedia which results in Сборка кубика Рубика 3x3x3| ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 15:34, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

@Shushugah Thanks, thanks a lot for such a comprehensive answer. I really like it. Itcouldbepossible^Talk 07:43, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

In Xtools it is showing that I have created 5 pages, but I have only created one page and developed an existing draft. But, I did not create the rest of the pages. Why is it showing like that? Itcouldbepossible^Talk 14:43, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

My guess is it's because you moved those pages from mainspace to draftspace. Although I'm not sure why it would count this as a page creation. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 14:49, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Itcouldbepossible it looks like you moved them to draftspace as not ready, but then someone else has then written the article in article space later on (when they really should have just moved the draft back to article space when ready). So in the page history, your move (article --> draftspace) is the first edit that Wiki sees in the history, so it counts you as the "creator". Which is the case for [17] and [18]. Which seems wrong, but probably difficult to fix. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joseph2302 (talk • contribs) 14:53, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

@Joseph2302@Joseph2302 Thanks for the help. Itcouldbepossible^Talk 15:06, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

@Blaze Wolf@Joseph2302 But, now it is showing that I have created only 2, and the rest 3 are gone. I don't understand what is going on. Itcouldbepossible^Talk 08:06, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

I did search this before asking, but could not find the answer.

Are we allowed to assess articles that we created ourselves with regards to the quality scales? To date, I have not done so, I tag the relevant WikiProjects and wait for someone to assess them. By now I feel confident that I can assess articles. I'm talking about stub/start/C, I would not feel confident assessing anything as B and obvioulsy grading A and FA is a whole different process. Is that encouraged/discouraged/helpful/bad? What's the normal thing to do? CT55555 (talk) 23:06, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

@CT55555 I asked a similar question earlier, and someone told me that I could assess my own articles up to C quality. However, I wait until I'm informed my new article has been reviewed, and then check the status. If someone else has graded it a stub and I'm sure it qualifies for start class I change it up to that. But you would need to use your own judgement as to what seems correct for your new articles. Karenthewriter (talk) 00:26, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

@CT5555: Karenthewriter is correct: it's best to either wait for somebody else to make a first assessment or to be somewhat conservative with how you assess your own article. Note that the written criteria for these classes have remained unchanged or basically unchanged since mid-2008 when C-class was introduced. However, because these were written at the very tail end of what I would call the "wild west era" of Wikipedia and a couple years past the start of what I would call the "reform era", implicit standards for article assessment, I would argue, have changed and gotten somewhat more strict. I was going to write a lengthy, tangential ramble here explaining myself, but I actually think I'm going to create an essay about it instead. The bottom line is that it's totally normal to review it yourself or to wait for a new page patroller to do that, but I think it's best to always err toward conservatism when choosing how to assess one's own articles. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 01:39, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

This is all very helpful, thanks. Karenthewriter User:TheTechnician27 I'll wait for others to review, let them go first, and be conservative and humble. I only forsee doing this for some old stubs that are clearly start or C class. CT55555 (talk) 02:18, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Many articles are unassessed or have out-of-date assessments. It's fine to assess articles you create (up to C class). ― Qwerfjkltalk 10:02, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi again, I've seen a lot of users with pretty cool signatures, but I want to learn how I can do it myself. I mean, I already know some stuff about this, but it's too confusing. Thank you for your time. Sincerely, CertifiedAmazing2 (talk) 02:21, 21 January 2022 (UTC) CertifiedAmazing2

Hi CertifiedAmazing2. You can find out more about this kind of thing at WP:CUSTOMSIG; however, please understand that people are going to assess you as an editor based on the quality of your edits and not based on how cool your signature is. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:27, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Okay. Just know I was just trying to give a compliment to those with custom signatures, rather than trying to say that's the only thing that matters. Either way, thanks for your help. Sincerely, CertifiedAmazing2 (talk) 02:31, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

My aplogies if my reply seemed harsh. I wasn't trying to imply that you were criticizing editors with customized signatures; I think customized signatures can be cool sometimes. However, you seem to be a new editor and many times new editors focus are things (e.g. user boxes, custom signatures) which are nice, but aren't really related to Wikipedia editing. If you do decide to customize your signature, just make such to follow the guidelines given in WP:CUSTOMSIG/P. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:40, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Update: I changed my previous response just in case you were confused by it. I never thought your reply was harsh. Also, I tried adding one but it didn't work, and now I'm stuck with this...signature (if you can even call it that). What do I do? Sincerely, #bodyContent a[title="CertifiedAmazing2"] { background-color: #ffa500; color: #ffffff; font-weight: bold; } (talk) 02:45, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Try reverting back to your original signature and then experimenting in your user sandbox. It looks like did WP:SIG#Customizing how you see your signature, when you seem to want to do WP:SIG#Customizing how everyone sees your signature. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:11, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

If you'd like, Levi_OP could help you make a signature. They were actually the one who created my current signature. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 14:54, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Levi_OP repinging since I don't think my previous ping worked. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 14:55, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

@Blaze Wolf: I've left a message on their talk page and will try to help them if they want it. Also, the first ping did work. Where it is in the message doesn't matter, if that's why you thought it might not have worked. ― Levi_OP^Talk 15:54, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Ah ok. Wasn't sure if it worked after I fixed it and resigned since it didn't give me the notification of a successful. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 15:55, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

@Blaze Wolf: Yeah, sometimes it just doesn't send a notification, and I don't know why. You can be assured that if there is a link to someone's userpage added in a edit, a notification will be sent to that person. ― Levi_OP^Talk 16:25, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Never mind, I got my own. What do you think? Sincerely, CertifiedAmazing2 wanna chat? 22:45, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

P.S. Why does a signature have a limit of 255 characters? It's kind of annoying to work around and takes away the endless possibilities part of signature creating. Also, my signature is too big to add the "Sincerely" I put in my messages, which is yet another setback and now I have to manually add it each time I send a message.

@CertifiedAmazing2: This so as not to give undue weight to comments - 255 characters is plenty. (I think my signature is just over 255 currently, with the dash.) ― Qwerfjkltalk 10:06, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

So I just copyedited an article, including its lede which I re-wrote in another document and copy-pasted back into the article. After publishing that and the rest of my edits I realized that deleting and copy-pasting my new lede into the article caused the contents bar to move up before the lede starts. Ive tried everything on the internet on how to get it to its original spot, and I really dont want to redo everything else I wrote, so can anybody help me here? NSNW (talk) 02:03, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Looks like someone fixed it. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 02:08, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

I just noticed that, its good that I don't have to worry about that anymore. Thank you anyway. NSNW (talk) 02:11, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

The TOC automatically appears after the lede. It can be moved with __TOC__, and hidden with __NOTOC__. ― Qwerfjkltalk 10:11, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Please see original request at User talk:CJDOS/Archive 2#Template:Committed identity topicon, where I was redirected here by Primefac after I used the ((Help me)) tag. In brief, a discussion is taking place at Template talk:Committed identity topicon#RfC 8 January 2022. I've come to the Teahouse:

• To request an univolved editor to conduct the discussion, and revert non-consensual changes to the template's image.
• To ask for assistance in getting more opinions at the discussion.
• To inquire if template protection of some kind be considered in order to promote edit discussions.

This is not a closure request. I'm asking for more involvement, and someone not involved to take over the task of officiating the discussion.  — CJDOS, Sheridan, OR (talk) 21:01, 21 January 2022 (UTC) (revised 10:50, 22 January 2022 (UTC))

I'm going to upload a number of screenshots from the following link. I want to confirm whether it allows reuse in reality. I have already asked it and now asking again just for reassurance. Please cooperate.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ANiXrucmC6U

Thank you. Michri michri (talk) 10:47, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1138#Image. Can you point to evidence that this video either is in the public domain (according to the legal definition of this term) or is copyright according to a copyleft license acceptable for Wikimedia. If you can, please say which of the two it is, and exactly where you find the evidence. If you cannot, then no, you may not upload anything from the video. -- Hoary (talk) 11:54, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Hoary, the video states 'reuse allowed' through CC licenseMichri michri (talk) 12:03, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

@Michri michri: May you describe which exact scenes or photos are you seeking to capture? Looking at the following video, I noticed that it was published under a Creative Commons licence (CC-BY), so that means you're allowed to reuse the author's original content provided that you give attribution to the creator. Though per this prior discussion, you may wanna recall that you have to ask permission from the copyright holders of any images used in that video whose authorship cannot be attributed to the group behind the YouTube channel. If your screenshots include the types of images I just described, best to err with caution and proceed not to upload them in Commons, as they are likely not published under a free licence. Thanks! 〜 ‍ ‍ ‍ elias. 🧣 ‍ ‍ ^{💬reach out to me!・📝see my work!} 12:26, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

‍ ‍ elias. 🧣 ‍ , I want to take screenshots of Mohammed Shami from the video.Michri michri (talk) 12:29, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

@Michri michri: Are you collecting these screenshots to supplement the information in his article? If so, I am a little confused because I think that article, as it is, has enough pictures of the man. 〜 ‍ ‍ ‍ elias. 🧣 ‍ ‍ ^{💬reach out to me!・📝see my work!} 13:24, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

@Michri michri: You've asked about this before and people answered your question. Whether you can use screenshots from a YouTube video depends on how the video is licensed on YouTube and whether the content is 100% original content created by the YouTube channel holder. If someone uploads their own 100% original video to YouTube and decides to release them under a free that Wikipedia accepts, then a screenshot from that video can most likely be uploaded to Wikipedia or Commons as explained in c:Commons:Screenshots. However, if someone uploads a video to YouTube that contains copyrighted content created by others (e.g. video footage or photos from a televised sporting event), then you probably can't upload a screenshot of that particular part of the video even if it's released under a free license for the reasons given in Wikipedia:FAQ/Copyright#Derivative works, c:Commons:Derivative works and c:Commons:Video#Videos and copyright. The YouTube video you asked about here seems to be for some kind of sports talk program about cricket. If you want to use a screenshot of the four people discussing cricket on the left side of the screen, the CricketNext logo at the end of the video or any original content created by CricketNext throughout the video, then you probably can. If, however, you want to create screenshots of the photos of cricket players on the right side of the screen, then you probably can't unless you can clearly show that those images were created by CricketNext and that CricketNext didn't get them from somewhere else. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:48, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

All are thanked from my heart for looking into the matter. Gracias Michri michri (talk) 17:06, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

I need help with adding sources to articles, expanding articles and creating infoboxes for articles as I have my hands full with editing. Can anyone please help me with this? I would be very thankful to get any help. Davidgoodheart (talk) 23:20, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm happy to offer help. One thing at a time, though. Could you provide a more specific request for help? Do you want instructions on how to do these things, or are you hoping for extra editors to help on certain articles because you don't have time? Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 00:29, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Davidgoodheart has over a 100k edits, so I am curious what specific assistance he needs and if it something new editors looking for a task can be directed to. Slywriter (talk) 00:54, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

I read it as DGH wants an intern. David notMD (talk) 17:37, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

I would like to know who has the power to accept drafts and make them articles? Is there a special role needed? Thanks in advance. Gandalf the Groovy (talk) 00:46, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Gandalf the Groovy. Please read Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Participants for the requirements to be a reviewer of drafts formally submitted to the Articles for creation process. Please be aware that Articles for creation is voluntary and optional for most editors. If a draft has not been submitted to AFC, any autoconfirmed editor acting in good faith can move a draft to the encyclopedia main space. Cullen328 (talk) 00:55, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi, further to Cullen328's point, Gandalf the Groovy, I think if you create an article in main space, or move one there, unless you are "autopatrolled" it remains hidden from Google and other search engines for 6 months, unless a new article patroller finds it and deems it okay. There is no reason why you shouldn't move an article into main space if it's ready, but if it's not, it might get draftified again, and if you move a lot of articles into main space when they're not ready, people will get grumpy about it. Elemimele (talk) 15:04, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Small correction, Elemimele, as per WP:INDEXING, new articles remain hidden form search engines for at most 90 days (a bit less than three months). Victor Schmidt (talk) 18:31, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

sorry, All! I don't know where I got that 6 from. Thanks, Victor Schmidt Elemimele (talk) 18:35, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

#REDIRECT [[Target page name]] I.was.logged.in.to.my.account.from.this.laptop.for.over.a.decade.Now.my.keyboard.is.having.problems.and.I.need.my.email.and.password.to.lo------------g.in.on.another.device. FkpCascais (talk) 18:46, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

@FkpCascais: Hi there! If you go to Special:Preferences, the "User Profile" tab has a section called "Email options" which has your email address. Your password may be stored in your browser's settings. Hope this helps, and good luck! GoingBatty (talk) 19:36, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

it adds a load of nonsense to the url in order to highlight a random part of the page eg: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capelin#:~:text=The%20capelin%20or%20caplin%20(Mallotus,of%20krill%20and%20other%20crustaceans. rather than: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capelin why? its annoying. its done it for atleast a year now. i dont like it. briefly, it would go away when you clicked the page. that was better i enjoy collecting many many wikipedia pages in my bookmarks and it has significantly decreased productivity. change it pls or ill cry :'¬( big love x 86.177.57.39 (talk) 15:17, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

I've never seen this, probably because I hardly ever use Google. I think you need to complain to Google: there is nothing that Wikipedia can do about how Google treats its links to Wikipedia. --ColinFine (talk) 16:02, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

It's not nonsense, IP editor, but the link to the exact part of the article which says The capelin or caplin (Mallotus villosus) is a small forage fish of the smelt family...., which it highlights in purple when you click on the link. If you use instead Google's knowledge panel on the right of the search page, you'll get the simpler URL instead. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:30, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

This is a new (as of last year) Chrome feature. Aside from switching to another browser, you could try installing this extension. I'm on Firefox so I can't vouch for it, but it looks like it has a number of good reviews. Rusalkii (talk) 20:03, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

I am writing a Wikipedia bot that will write articles at 3000 - 4000 per day. Are there any rate limits that will get triggered? Can I pay to get outside of these limits? 24.55.14.189 (talk) 13:07, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

In my opinion, that sounds like a really bad idea that will most likely end up with most if not all of the articles the bot creates being tagged or nominated for deletion, perhaps quite quickly. I also don't see how such a bot would ever be approved for use on Wikipedia per Wikipedia:Bots. If you're truly serious about this, then I would suggest you discuss your plan over at Wikipedia:Bots/Noticeboard first to see what others may think before you try to do anything like this. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:19, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Maybe it'll be a bad idea, maybe good. IP editor, can you show us a couple of alpha-test versions of its output? Maproom (talk) 13:38, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

I'll personally think this is most likely wasted effort, as the bar for new articles is quite high, and any bot creating articles should not cause unnesesary work for others by posting substandard articles into mainspace (see also WP:MASSCREATE). With regards to ratelimits, there are multiple ones that might apply. Amongst others, Wikipedia:Bot policy $ Performance, the API Etiquette and the User agent policy as well as the API ratelimits(note: these might be different for bots). Victor Schmidt (talk) 14:46, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

If you think about this logically, we don't even permit machine translations from other Wikipedias; machine translation is something that has been developed by very large numbers of people backed with enormous amounts of cash, and machines still translate so badly that we don't trust them to meet the quality of a WP article - and a machine translation of another WP is starting with something that's already quite likely to be in the correct writing-style and format for a WP article, so the task is about as small as it can get. Meanwhile, copyright laws severely limit the lifting of chunks of text from other sites, so if a bot is going to write an article based on sources, it can't just cut and paste, it has to understand and paraphrase/re-write, as well as assess sources, which ironically often means making sense of poor machine translations! And look how far behind our new article reviewers are! They're a good and hard-working bunch and nevertheless, writers of new articles can wait weeks, even months, before their article gets patrolled. Just imagine the backlog if you add 3000 - 4000 articles per day. The articles would have to be so, so good that the bot could be given autopatrol rights, or the whole system would collapse. 24.55.14.189 you're going to have an up-hill task persuading people of this, and you definitely need to talk to the Bot experts and demonstrate that your system produces top-notch articles. Elemimele (talk) 14:59, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

User contributions for this IP show this Teahouse query, and three article edits back in 2020. That's all. Do you have a hidden, vast store of article creation that gives you confidence that you can create an article writing bot of any caliber, let alone such a massive output? David notMD (talk) 16:39, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

I don’t get the pay comment. Wikipedia is always free to edit. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:26, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Query was about posible to pay Wikipedia for the permission to create more articles per day than (an imagined) limit. David notMD (talk) 17:29, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

• Please note that the operation of an unauthorized bot is prohibited on the English Wikipedia. If you want to do something like this, you will, at minimum, have to receive approval from the Bot Approvals Group, and they will likely require a wider discussion than that to authorize any kind of automated content creation. Please don't do this unless you have received approval from the community. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:31, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

There's a history of bot-created articles here on Wikipedia, and it's not a good one. There once was a bot that created articles on villages and towns, but pretty much all content it wrote had to be deleted because the lot of it was terrible. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 20:42, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

CAn you help him plz. Greenpickles987 (talk) 17:05, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

@Greenpickles987: No such user account. Please be more specific. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:24, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

It seems as though there is a global account with that name according to Wikimedia. ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 17:31, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

@Greenpickles987 That account was globally blocked back in 2019, and there was evident sockpuppetry associated from those interacting with that account. As you appear to only have made 8 edits from your account here, plus some categorisations on commons, why are you asking that question? (Please also remove the YouTube link from your sandbox - it is not appropriate for you to use Wikipedia to promote personal video channels without good reason.) Thank you. Nick Moyes (talk) 21:33, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

How can I correct Wikipedia incorrect death date for my husband? It is Nov. 12, 2017, not Nov. 13. 66.108.97.128 (talk) 20:40, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse, Please go the talk page of the article and suggest there, the edits you want to see added to the article. Do not do do yourself due to a conflict of interest, furthermore see WP:V. Celestina007 (talk) 20:54, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

At Eric Salzman, I changed the date to Nov 12, and changed the ref to the NY Times obituary, that had the correct date. David notMD (talk) 20:59, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse! Since you have a conflict of interest (COI), you should not be editing the Eric Salzman directly. As Celestina007 mentioned, you may post your suggestions at Talk:Eric Salzman with the ((edit request)) template to ask another editor to help you, or you may use the Wikipedia:Edit Request Wizard. Your edits to other articles where you don't have a COI are appreciated. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 22:02, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi all! This community is so helpful--I really appreciate it. I have submitted 3 entries with no COI on three very different topics and am waiting to see about approval. A helpful user let me know he believes one of the entries will be denied. Can someone take a look for me and let me know how to eradicate the problem? I have already deleted it once and fixed errors. The user believes it won't be approved because too many of the references are directly connected to him (i.e. his personal website and two of his company's pages). If that's the case, as I was using these as secondary forms of information, I can easily delete them and leave the 8 other sources of information. Isn't it allowed at certain times to use company websites as secondary forms of information however? I asked this question last week before submitting this page. Please let me know if it's better to just delete them and any related information. There is enough international and national coverage of the subject that I am able to delete. Draft here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Christopher_N._Harding

Again, thank you all so much for your help. I really appreciate how nice this community has been while helping me move from a regular editor to a creator the past few weeks. It is hard!MediaExpert1979 (talk) 18:23, 22 January 2022 (UTC) MediaExpert1979 (talk) 18:23, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

@MediaExpert1979: On Draft:Christopher N. Harding, which references are independent reliable sources that provide significant coverage about Harding (not just a passing mention)? GoingBatty (talk) 19:39, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Vocabulary: Wikipedia defines content connected to the topic (websites, press releases, interviews) as "primary" and references completely independent of the subject at hand as "secondary." The former does not contribute to confirming notability. Examples include albums released by a musician and science journal articles authored by a scientist. Including information of this nature is useful, but not as far as notability. It is even possible for a person to own a business that is Wikipedia-notable without the person being notable. David notMD (talk) 20:57, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

STATUS: Draft:Christopher N Harding declined. Draft:Organic by John Patrick waiting for a reviewer. No evidence in ME's Contributions of a third article. David notMD (talk) 22:49, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

The 'should there be an art gallery section on Wikipedia?' Question which I have come up with while drawing some Ediacaran art on a paper towel is referring to how there should be a section featuring art, drawings, animations,3D models and uploads that have been uploaded by users on Wikimedia or Wikipedia.

This idea seems like a pretty good idea to me , as people might look at the images uploaded to the gallery tab and get some inspiration without having to go on Wikimedia and try to find images by searching for the name of the image because the image their looking for has a name similar to other files uploaded on Wikimedia and would result in that person getting confused and having to scroll down more and more if there are WAY too many images with the same file name that they're looking for.

And yes, I do know that it would basically work like the "featured image" edit on certain images, but trying to find a featured image is often frustrating as there can be multiple uploads of that feature image , as well as people copying the "featured image" script onto their newly uploaded , NOT featured image, to Wikimedia. When a image gets into the gallery tab (the one I'm talking about) it shows the image that WAS actually featured and not re-uploads of the same image with the same "featured image" script. For example , lets imagine a scenario where a person gets their image turned into a featured image on Wikipedia, then , malicious people see that image being featured so they steal it , upload it to Wikimedia and put the "featured image" edit onto the stolen image. Rugoconites Tenuirugosus (talk) 20:50, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse, a space where editors ask questions pertaining to editing here and how to edit better, I’m afraid your question comes off as a statement as opposed to a question. To help be of aid to you, could you expressly ask a precise question? Celestina007 (talk) 20:57, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

@Rugoconites Tenuirugosus If I understand you correctly, you are asking if there is somewhere that people who have done drawings of notable topics can display their work. If that's what you meant, the answer is 'Definitely not'. This is an encyclopaedia, and not only the text, but also the images used in articles must be based upon reliable sources and not personal inspiration or guesswork. Anything else would be out-of-scope for this project and thus liable to be removed. Try Flickr for that.

I sort of understand what you might be getting at regarding difficulty of searching for images. That's why utilising Categories - both when searching for images and adding the best ones after uploading them - is really quite important.

I'm afraid I don't understand your last comment about 'Featured images'. Uploaded content is licenced and can be freely used or reused by others, provided it is credited to the original source in accordance with the Creative commons licence. Uploading a copy of an original file and claiming it as one's own is against policy. Both these and pure duplicates would be deleted. Almost all image licencing issues and image management are dealt with over at Wikimedia Commons, not here. We can simply advise. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:23, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Can someone please help me remove the "invalid year" error in the infobox. Ficaia (talk) 00:00, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

@Ficaia: Welcome to the Teahouse! I removed the ((marriage)) parameter to remove the error. You can also start a discussion on Template talk:Marriage to request a change to the template syntax. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 00:31, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello! I was wondering if I could get more clarity on when to remove tags/tags in general. Based on what I’ve read, it seems that for some tags if the problem is addressed then the tag can be removed with an edit summary while other tags may require a talk page discussion. For an article that has the tag “needs additional citations for verification,” is there a general rule of thumb as to how many citations need to be added before the tag can be removed? Thank you! Eucalyptusmint (talk) 19:50, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Eucalyptusmint, hello and welcome to the Teahouse, your question is a little nebulous, but no worries I would explain to you in the best manner I can, some tags can be removed by the article creator and sometimes, the article creator is not allowed to remove the tag. Take this analogy, if I tag an article you created with the ((unreferenced)) tag, it means the article in question has absolutely no sources, if you add a source you are within your rights to remove the tag, however if I tag the article with a ((COI)), it wouldn’t be a good move for the article creator to remove the tag. There are other things I haven’t discussed, but you can see WP:MTR for a detailed explanation. Celestina007 (talk) 20:15, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Eucalyptusmint, Furthermore as noted below, Ruslik0 is very much correct. if you encounter the tag ((citation needed)) or ((cn)) the full meaning is “Citation Needed” This references or points to a particular part of a given article, that indicates a source/citation for verifiability purposes is needed. Now, what you want to do is address this by injecting a reliable source, see WP:RS then proceed to remove the tag. Feel free to ask more questions. Celestina007 (talk) 20:52, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

At least you should address all "citation needed" tags. Ruslik_Zero 20:25, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

That's very helpful, thank you so much. Eucalyptusmint (talk) 21:25, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

@Eucalyptusmint: Before removing the ((More citations needed)) template from Rajaji National Park, I suggest each paragraph should have some references. I disagree with Ruslik0, as the ((citation needed)) tags don't also need the ((More citations needed)) template. GoingBatty (talk) 21:56, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Got it! Thank you for the clarification.Eucalyptusmint (talk) 00:49, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Does Wikipedia generally use the Oxford comma? Aythya affinis (talk) 00:38, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse! No, Wikipedia does not frown upon the serial comma, seeing as it prevents words and hard to read sentences. -Gretchen RemusSandersRegretsEverything (talk) 00:44, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

@Aythya affinis: Our guideline is here. Generally, editors are free to use the Oxford comma or not use it, at their preference, as long as the usage is consistent within each article, and the usage does not result in ambiguity. CodeTalker (talk) 00:48, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you both! Aythya affinis (talk) 00:50, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Copied from the Dell Talkpage

Oi... okay. So this is becoming an albatross around my neck. I'm going to put all the events as I see it here and ask for someone who is not myself, anyone involved in the original AFD, or the ultimate merge to make a decision on this.

1. The page History of Dell was woefully out-of-date, and I PRODed it.

2. Another user dePRODed as they saw value in the page.

3. Correspondingly, I opened an AFD. This AFD was improperly closed.

4. I began work on following consensus, and posted a notice (see above section).

5. The deletion review recognized this, but the Admin closed it with what appears to be another wrong reason, stating consensus as Merge to Dell. I believe the discussion pretty clearly shows consensus was to split the History section from this article into the History of Dell article to make it up to date.

6. Another user, unaware of the rather tumultuous happenings, came by and understandably merged it.

To lay out the reasons I saw from others and understand as consensus:

• We agreed that the page had relevant information that should not be removed from Wikipedia here
• We agreed that merging into Dell was problematic as well, because that makes this article WP:TOOBIG here, see comment chain starting with Peterkingiron.
• Keeping the separate article matches other articles like History of IBM and History of Microsoft

As a result, it seemed to me like we had settled on updating the original history article and keeping it in place. I really don't know what to do at this point. Help? SpuriousCorrelation 17:00, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

For your own sanity, and from a human perspective, I'd suggest just walking away and letting someone else sort out the mess. You shouldn't have to carry the albatross. If the merged Dell article is too long, someone will notice, sooner or later, and suggest splitting it. They may even end up acknowledging your attempts. If you're worried that useful information will go missing during the merge process, you could put the article on your watch-list to make sure the merge is done properly, and to make sure no one deals with the excessive size by complaining it's unbalanced and deleting great chunks - basically provided the information isn't lost, the merge/split question can be dealt with another day, and the damage caused by this fiasco isn't actually all that serious (I'm fundamentally lazy!). Elemimele (talk) 19:34, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

An offline wikifriend sent me the essay Wikipedia:There_is_no_deadline, which tracks with your advice. Thanks :) SpuriousCorrelation 03:12, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi all, I'm still new to editing and have so far fixed simple things like broken redirects or number errors, but I've come across a particularly bizarre wall. Using Citation Hunt this uncited line from Discord's page was brought to my attention

• "Discord allows users to connect various external platforms to their account, including Steam, Reddit, Twitch, Twitter, and more. These accounts can optionally be shown on the user's profile."

Having used Discord, I know this is certainly a feature that exists within the software. but original research is a no go so I went hunting for some documentation to prove that the feature existed and found only two support articles: This one, mentioning Spotify intergration and This one, targeting Xbox Live integration, I don't exactly know how to proceed, as these two articles demonstrate the existence of components of the system described, but not of the system itself. The way I'm thinking about it in my head is "Am I allowed to say cheese exists if I only have sources for cheddar and mozzarella?"

I appreciate any insight, AGuyNamedSquid (talk) 02:15, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

@AGuyNamedSquid Welcome to the Teahouse. Regarding Cheese, you are certainly able to say that cheese exists if you only have sources to say that cheddar and mozzarella exist. But probably not that cheddar and mozarrella are types of cheeses if you cannot demonstrate that as a fact! Now, I'm not a very technical person, but if statement about the feature you refer to in Discord is not contentious, then I feel it would be OK to leave it there uncited, even if the tag remains. Obviously, another editor could feel it was contentious and might expect a citation sometime soon, or they would feel able to remove it. But if this was a very obvious feature that we'd be expected to know, then maybe it remaining there unsupported without a citation would be acceptable to most editor (rather like uncited 'Plot' descriptions in film and TV articles). Either way, I would delete "...and more" which is quite unnecessary and somewhat tautological. This issue is perhaps something to raise at Talk:Discord. I hope this short reply is of some help. Nick Moyes (talk) 02:51, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

AGuyNamedSquid, see if this helps [19] from CNN.Slywriter (talk) 04:37, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi all! During the 2020 COVID-19 lockdown a did a lot of reading about Scottish History and decided to do a wiki article about some of what I became interested in. My first attempt was moved from drafts to prime time, fairly quickly, but then got moved out because an editor thought I needed to do better with my references. I have done that and submitted it for review again. I am hoping that when it gets moved again, it will stay out as a wiki article and can be developed as a wiki article. Can someone review my article to see if my references look like they should. Am I missing anything else?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Scottish_Feudal_Barony_of_MacDuff Grnhrnt35 (talk) 17:55, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Grnhrnt35: Welcome! It might be helpful to include the specific web page where the info can be found in a source. Your first links to a general homepage. Is there a link available that goes to the actual charter document? Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 18:04, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

@Pyrrho the Skipper: Thank you so much for taking the time to look and to provide me feedback and help. The issue is that the record is not digitised, so I linked to the source. There is a section that talks about where the records could be seen in person. Also, I was able to copy them and have images, as they are public records. Should I remove the hot link, link to the description of how to search them in person, leave it as is, or upload the pictures and link to them? There are 8 pages and therefore 8 pictures. If that is your advice, where would you upload public documents to that I could hot link to? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grnhrnt35 (talk • contribs)

@Grnhrnt35: Welcome to the Teahouse! Unless you're planning to write a paragraph about each baron, you could reduce all those sections to a single table and move the pictures into a gallery. Sometimes you use "MacDuff" and other times you use "Macduff", so please check the capitalization. Image captions should not be bolded. Please fix the |last=/|first= parameters in reference #6. Should it be something like |last1=Duff|first1=James|first2=Henrietta|last2=Tayler|first3=Alistair Norwich|last3=Tayler instead? Keep up the good work! GoingBatty (talk) 19:31, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

@GoingBatty: thank you so much for your time. I appreciate your taking the time to go thorough my article so thoroughly. I’m not sure my plan was to expand on each Baron. I wanted to create the page so that it could be edited and added onto once in the main space. Is that an ok strategy, or should I format it differently if it’s not my plan to elaborate on each of the Barons? Regarding “MacDuff” capitalisation, the Barony is spelled “MacDuff” and the town is called “Macduff”. I think you will find it is consistent through that lens. I have removed the bold print on images. I didn’t know that wasn’t just a preference. I THINK the number 6 reference is actually correct. The author of the letters is an author, and lived in the date range I placed there. The book was written in the early 1900’s buy the other two authors. I looked up the format to do that before I put it out there. I admittedly looked it up though. I’m no expert. Am I wrong? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grnhrnt35 (talk • contribs) 03:43, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

@Grnhrnt35: I'll leave most of your questions to the editor who will review your article. Reference #6 isn't correct, as the date range does not belong in the |last= field. Without seeing the book, I'm not sure how to properly credit both the author of the letters and the authors of the book. GoingBatty (talk) 04:55, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_men%27s_national_soccer_team I edited the team and took them off, but some stupid person keeps adding them back! 03:45, 23 January 2022 (UTC)Msantiking0309 (talk) Msantiking0309 (talk) 03:45, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

It seems Keskkonnakaitse, who is an experienced editor, reverted your edits saying in the edit summary that your wrong, but part of what you said was true. If the information you know is true than back it up with a reliable source. And please refrain from calling other Wikipedians stupid. ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 03:56, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

And please read WP:MINOR. Restoring a contest4ed edit is certainly not a minor edit. Meters (talk) 04:01, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

@Msantiking0309: Welcome to the Teahouse! Per the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, I suggest you start a new section at Talk:United States men's national soccer team where you discuss the change you would like to make to the article and provide the reliable source, and work with Keskkonnakaitse and others to build consensus. Thanks for your efforts to make Wikipedia better, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 05:00, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Can someone please show me how to make a note (labelled "a") from the end of the first paragraph in this article, after footnote "2". I want to include a short quotation in the note. Ficaia (talk) 09:28, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

To make a note, you must use this template ((efn|put what you want here)). Then you must make a section called notes right above the references section and put the template ((notes)) in there so it will list out all the notes. Hope this helps! ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 09:35, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Cheers :) Ficaia (talk) 09:36, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

There is an un-logged IP user who makes clear vandal edits after every few days with different IPs. I have got about 10 different IPs and all have the same kind of vandal edits in Indian constituency pages, making it pretty obvious that it's the same person. By the time these edits are discovered and reverted, the IP user starts making similar changes on other Indian constituency pages a few days later with a different IP.

The last couple of IPs from where vandalism has happened are - 1 2 3 4 5

Is there any way to permanently block this vandalism from this particular user?. Thanks. Dhruv edits (talk) 09:08, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

@Dhruv edits Yes, you can report the vandalism to an admin but I do not see enough evidence to say that all those ip addresses could all be one user. ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 09:39, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

I've always assumed that in plot summaries in film articles, after the first listing of a character's full, subsequent references to that character should use their last name only, instead of their first name, but I just realized I can't find this convention in WP:FILMPLOT. Which is it? Pete Best Beatles (talk) 07:28, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Pete Best Beatles I think MOS:SURNAME applies here.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 09:06, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

The last sentence of MOS:SURNAME says "For fictional entities, use common names. For example, Jason, Luigi, and Wesker". I think this applies to plot summaries; use the name that is most commonly used in the film, or most commonly used in reviews of the film or sources about the film. It is quite possible in a film to have someone referred to only by their given name throughout the film, and yet whose surname is known, for example from a brief glimpse of an ID badge in some scene. It would be very unhelpful in such a case to use their surname. Where a character has a full name, given and surname, and both are used in a realistic manner, then it makes sense to use WP's normal rules for real life. For example, DI Humphrey Goodman in Death_in_Paradise_(TV_series) is called DI Goodman in professional situations, and Humphrey to his friends and family. In our article, he is initially referred to by his whole name, then "He" a couple of times, before "Goodman's replacement on St Marie is...", a very natural style for Wikipedia, and easily followed by our readers. Elemimele (talk) 13:06, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

How do I delete my account from this Trash Fire of a thing called Wikipedia. The admin I've encountered are bossy grouches who just show up, jump to conclusions and criticize when I've been trying to do my best for a long time. When you calmly explain they made a mistake, they follow with another dig. Then when you say one thing on the page is important to you they ignore you like you don't matter and tell you to stop being negative or they'll make you! Ugh! In two days I've learned to hate Wikipedia. Some of your admin think they can treat people as rudely as they want, when this place wouldn't exist without amateur volunteers. It's not worth volunteering for something where the admin treat you like crap.  Daltonsatom (talk) 06:46, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

You can't. Just stop using your account. – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 07:12, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Stupid website — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daltonsatom (talk • contribs) 07:34, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Sure. Bye. – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 07:38, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, thanks for your help. :) Don't like limbo accounts.Daltonsatom (talk) 08:12, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

It appears that this is about the article Intellivision Amico. -- Hoary (talk) 09:19, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Retiring for a means of creating a RETIRED banner atop User page, and I suppose Talk page. David notMD (talk) 10:44, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

@Daltonsatom: Sorry you had a bad experience here. Per Wikipedia:Username policy#Deleting and merging accounts, "It is not possible to delete user accounts, as all contributions must be assigned to some identifier". GoingBatty (talk) 16:19, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

A TOC can be useful for DAB and talk-pages, even when they don't have the required 4 headings. Talk-pages for instance can have discussions that go on forever, a TOC can help with jumping over the "mammoths". By using the "TOC right" tag one can always create a TOC, but on the right side, where I don't find it as user-friendly. Any solution for a regular TOC on the left? Thanks! Arminden (talk) 15:24, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello Arminden! You'll probably kick yourself. :) Use Template:TOC left. Hope this is of help! LooksGreatInATurtleNeck (talk) 15:44, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Dong... Can you hear it? That's me kicking myself. Thing is, I had tried once with <nowiki>((tocleft)) and remembered that it didn't work. Now I see that does create a TOC, but it's not above the first paragraphs, it pushes into it and squeezes it to the side. But it's there. Thanks! :))

Done, sorted, can be archived (unless you know how to fix that too, but it's not really important). Arminden (talk) 16:04, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello Arminden! No worries, so many templates. :) I'm happy to have helped. You can fix the spacing issue with ((clear left)) placed right next to the TOC left. That will make it nice & tidy just like a normally placed TOC. There's an example on my User Talk page. Take care, LooksGreatInATurtleNeck (talk) 16:17, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

It looks great! I'll put on a turtle-neck in your honour. NOW. Thank you!! Arminden (talk) 16:22, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

I want to somehow specifically follow the Wikiprojects theology and LGBT studies. Is there a way I can do this? MaitreyaVaruna (talk) 16:22, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

@MaitreyaVaruna: Welcome to the Teahouse! You can go to the WP:WikiProject Theology and WP:WikiProject LGBT studies pages and click the star icon to add them to your watchlist, so you can see when discussion is happening. Is that what you meant by "follow the Wikiprojects"? Hope this helps, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 16:40, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

@GoingBatty: Yes that is what I wanted to do. Thank you MaitreyaVaruna (talk) 16:42, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Once you have a Watchlist, you can add or remove article titles. You can also choose to watch individual editors. Which should not descend into stalking. David notMD (talk) 17:30, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

How to work on draft of a redirect page? Mukesh.kfc (talk) 15:19, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Mukesh.kfc, and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm afraid I don't understand what you are asking. If you mean you want to create a draft, but the name of your proposed article is already in use as a redirect, then go ahead and create the draft anyway: when a reviewer accepts your draft into the encyclopaedia, they will sort out what happens to the existing redirect. If you mean something else, then please explain more clearly. --ColinFine (talk) 16:25, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

@Mukesh.kfc — Per ColinFine, feel free to just create the draft. Simply enter your article name and insert the draft prefix (Draft:(insert title here)). You’ll notice that when using the template ((draft article)), it’ll say: “The page (insert title here) in the mainspace currently is a redirect to (target page here)”. When you submit your draft, if it’s accepted, then your draft will either A: be copy-paste moved, or B: the redirect will be deleted under CSD G6, and the draft will be moved to take its place. Hopefully this helps. — 3PPYB6 — TALK — CONTRIBS — 21:11, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi! We've edited quite a bit, but I would like to ask if making character lists that do not already exist be premature without help? -Jae RemusSandersRegretsEverything (talk) 00:18, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

@RemusSandersRegretsEverything: Hi there! It might depend on the amount of information and reliable sources available. I suggest you start a new topic on the talk page of article that discusses the character. (e.g. Before creating Characters of Mean Girls, I suggest you discuss on Talk:Mean Girls). Hope this helps, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 00:27, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

@GoingBatty, we've made major edits to the linked article already, so I believe that that would be an important separate article. However, for other edits we've made, there is almost no actual information on characters. The list I have in mind is a List of Heathers Characters or List of Encanto Characters. I'm not sure if it would be frowned upon considering we don't have as much knowledge on the editing capabilities of Wikipedia. -Jae RemusSandersRegretsEverything (talk) 00:32, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

ping:GoingBatty RemusSandersRegretsEverything (talk) 00:46, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Creating an article

FYI

 – Combined sections. GoingBatty (talk) 02:59, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Already posted something like this; we want to make a few character lists that don't yet exist. Would it be premature to make this article without much prior experience to making an article? We aren't sure how to use all the perks Wikipedia has yet. -Jae RemusSandersRegretsEverything (talk) 02:37, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

@RemusSandersRegretsEverything: Hi again! You don't need to create a new section to continue the conversation. Another thing you can do is go to Help:Your first article and use the article wizard to create a draft. This will allow you to work on your list over a period of time without worrying if it's going to be deleted. You can also post at Talk:Heathers or Talk:Encanto (film) to have editors look at your draft and make suggestions. When you finish the draft, you can submit it for review to become an article. GoingBatty (talk) 03:03, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

@RemusSandersRegretsEverything Welcome to the Teahouse. I fear you are rather in danger of being blocked for breaching one of our policies that bans 'shared use' whereby only one person may operate one Wikipedia account, and not two or more. If your use of 'we' as a personal pronoun is purely a preference or affectation, and is one not relating to more than one person accessing this account, please would you be extremely explicit and clear about this fact on your userpage? Without such additional clarification, I fear someone like myself might come along and block you per WP:SHARED, and that this could happen repeatedly if you use the 'we' form. As it stands, I'm afraid I can make no sense of what you're saying on your account's userpage, so both clarity and brevity is essential.

To try to address your intitial quesiont: it is always best not to dive in straight away to do the most difficult thing here - creating new articles or list articles. Better to learn the why's and wherefore's of basic editing first. All 'List' articles must list only 'notable' topics - i.e. the page must already exist elsewhere before you collate names into one article. See WP:LIST and WP:Stand-alone lists. Cheers, Nick Moyes (talk) 03:07, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Nick Moyes, copying RemusSandersRegretsEverything. See dissociative identity disorder. The User name Remus... represents a human with multiple personalities who has chosen to use the pronoun "we." David notMD (talk) 03:24, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes: See also User:RemusSandersRegretsEverything/pronouns. GoingBatty (talk) 04:56, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes You clearly didn't check our userpage before posting this, seeing as we have an essay linked about our pronouns as well as a slideshow of our alters that explicitly states that we are the Skeleton System.

@GoingBatty I tried to ping you in the previous one, but it hadn't seemed to work. Thank you!

@David notMD Thank you for helping! -Jae RemusSandersRegretsEverything (talk) 21:06, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

also @Nick Moyes, we have made clarity a large part of our activity on Wikipedia. We have expanded on, fixed major parts of, and generally edited many articles, so thank you. -Jae RemusSandersRegretsEverything (talk) 21:09, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

@RemusSandersRegretsEverything Please don’t take offence, as none was intended, I can assure you. No, I admit to not seeing your essay. It was 3am local time when I responded to you, so that may explain why I missed it, and perhaps my sharpness. The point I would like to get across to you is more one of suggesting how you can find a way to give quicker, easier understanding to admins like me who are intolerant of shared use accounts, and inevitably have to make quick decisions whether to block such accounts, or not. To distinguish you from those who ‘’are’’ editing against policy, might I suggest a better or at least more succinct form of wording to place right at the top of your user page that we can see? The actual wording is up to you, of course, but how does this sound?:

“Note to admins: This is not a shared account! - this user invites you to read [link] to understand how personal pronouns are deployed by this editor.”

I hope you do not feel disrespected by my, admittedly, terse initial response to you, and that this suggestion might be a helpful way of ensuring quick and clear understanding by other admins and users without the need to do a lot of additional reading. Kind regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 22:15, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes Okay, thank you. I am also sorry for the way I reacted, today's circumstances affected my moods when replying, and I admit that. I will work on doing better in the future. -Jae/Trix RemusSandersRegretsEverything (talk) 23:23, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

I recently made an article Draft:Astolfo (Fate/stay night) for a character who is definitely notable culturally relative to other characters such as Byleth (Fire Emblem) who have full articles. What kind of coverage should I include in the article to establish the notability? MaitreyaVaruna (talk) 18:09, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello, MaitreyaVaruna. I notice that your draft has only three references while the Byleth article has 22 references. Try to find coverage similar to those 22 for your draft. Cullen328 (talk) 18:42, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

One thing to note, though, is that notability isn't about the number of references so much as their quality. What you're looking for is works that come from a reliable source (one with a strong reputation for fact checking), that have detailed coverage focusing on that character in particular (not just incidental mentions of them as part of coverage of the wider series), and that are unaffiliated with Type-Moon. ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 19:00, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Something to note about the draft as well is that the Journal of Geek Studies – perhaps unsurprisingly – is an online magazine, not a peer-reviewed journal. Articles are submitted via email, MS Word document, RTF, or LaTex. "This is done in order to check if they are within the scope of the journal and if the research seems reasonably sound." [emphasis mine] While it does have a small editorial board, this clearly isn't scientifically sound enough to be cited as "a study". TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 01:17, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm sure there are more sources you could find about him. He's a pretty popular character, and very notably androgynous, so there's probably been at least one article written about him in a more mainstream site. Erinius (talk) 02:19, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello, this is a purely theoretical question I'm asking to satisfy my own curiosity as I read up more about Wikipedia rules. There are so many wikis around today, with more specialised areas--e.g. fandom wikis, computer game wikis, etc. What are the ground rules surrounding subjects that may be already covered in another wiki, which someone may think about transferring to Wikipedia? Are there content duplication rules that forbid acceptance of particular kinds of content if they have already been written about substantially in another source (and could an editor point me to the guidelines if a page exists on this topic? Can't seem to find it myself)? E.g. say for example, a new Star Wars character that's already been given a treatment on a Star Wars wiki, and which someone may want to write about in Wikipedia. On the assumption that the basic requirement to paraphrase instead of lifting is met, is that okay? Talamioros (talk) 08:43, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Wikis are not reliable sources, so it would be a non-starter. All articles must be based on reliable sources--Shantavira|^{feed me} 09:48, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

@Talamioros, See WP:COPYPASTE, WP:PLAGIARISM and WP:USERG. What may be useful on other wikis are the sources they use, if any. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:10, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

I would note that in certain (not all) situations, it may be legal to copy an entire article from another wiki, if that wiki's copyright license is compatible with Wikipedia's. See WP:Compatible license for details about that. However, in most cases, it would not be appropriate to copy an entire article from that other wiki, since the other wiki's standards for notability and verifiability may not match ours. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:33, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you so much for taking the time to explain! Talamioros (talk) 03:40, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Its being vandalised several times. The vandalism says that its cancelled. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hollow_Knight:_Silksong&action=history It has been vandalised and unvandalized several times. Lionsleeps26 (talk) 00:35, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

@Lionsleeps26 If there has been a lot of vandalism you can ask for the page to be protected at request for page protection. ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 01:43, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

@Lionsleeps26: Hello! If you haven't already, you may request for a page protection on the article's talk page by inserting this template, or you may do so at the following page. Thank you! 〜 ‍ ‍ ‍ elias. 🧣 ‍ ‍ ^{💬reach out to me!・📝see my work!} 01:47, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

@Troubled.elias: That template is only for requesting an edit to an already protected page. It is not for requesting protection. RudolfRed (talk) 03:37, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

@RudolfRed: Ah, dang, I misread the instructions. Apologies! Should be redacted now. 〜 ‍ ‍ ‍ elias. 🧣 ‍ ‍ ^{💬reach out to me!・📝see my work!} 03:40, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

I am having an issue with another Wikipedian. They seem set on deleting anything I add--and it appears from their talk page that they have done this to many others.

First they deleted notables that I added to city and high school pages, indicating that these people were not notable because they are not in Wikipedia. While I would have preferred it if this person had taken the time to review my citations, rather than assuming I was wrong, this is why there is a talk page. Next they deleted my addition of a notable who has a Wikipedia article, saying "they only went to school there." I maintain that going to elementary, junior high and high school in a town means a person is from a community and grew up there, matching the very definition of a related notable. At the same time, this Wikipedian did nothing to the other existing notables whose articles don't even mention a relationship to the city (something I plan on fixing, rather than deleting). To me, this shows malice toward me personally, rather than a sincere desire to follow the guidelines.

This has been going back and forth on two articles, and has escalated. Yesterday, I spent about 5 hours finding sources for data without citations, correcting incorrect facts, and adding content to the history section for the city. Ny change were +4,274‎. I used many sources, including a UNC press book, newspaper articles and the NCpedia (State Library/NC Dept of Cultural Resources), museums, and a credible e-newspaper. This person reverted all my work, saying that I used a blog as a source. Even if I did use a blog for one reference, why would any reasonable person delete other content that was unrelated to the blog? But I did not use a blog--I have a masters in library science and a masters in history, and know what an appropriate source is.

In the past, my activity as an editor has been adding sources and updating content. I rarely make bigger changes. I recently decided to try to be more active because I am currently not working (recovering from surgery) and the American Library Association has encouraged librarians (and women) to get involved. I want to do this, but I getting really frustrated and feeling bullied by this person. Today, I left them a message on their talk page making my case and asking them to revert my content and let me fix the source they are concerned with. However, based on the comments others have left, I am not expecting a response. If I don't hear back, what is my next step. How do I get someone to adjudicate this dispute? Is this normal? Rublamb (talk) 22:04, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Rublamb, thank you for your work for Wikipedia. You've made an objection in User talk:Magnolia677#Cary, North Carolina. Magnolia677 responded. You responded. (All of this was very polite, and entirely proper.) And then -- nothing. So it may seem that Magnolia677 is simply ignoring you. However, Magnolia677 hasn't edited anywhere since you posted your message, and may just be asleep in bed or busy with "real life". So I suggest waiting till Magnolia677 restarts editing (and preferably a couple of days after that). -- Hoary (talk) 03:03, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Hoary;Thanks. I am trying to keep the peace, but also resolve this issue so we can edit in peace--and maybe even have polite dialog about articles we want to edit in common. It was good that I got a response, but I am a bit concerned that once I had resolved their concerns about the non-existent blog, they switched tactics and challenged another source. Fingers crossed on thisRublamb (talk) 03:20, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

@Rublamb:It can be frustrating to have a dispute where only one person is objecting, which is why Wikipedia has avenues to involve independent parties to review the dispute and weigh in. The first step is often a Third Opinion request. If that does not resolve the dispute, you have the option of submitting a Request for Comment, which will bring in multiple independent editors to weigh in on a specific point of contention. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 03:35, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

You and Magnolia677 now appear to be in discussion on Talk pages about Cary, North Carolina, so please continue. David notMD (talk) 03:48, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

I put information about the nanovna in the Network Analyzers article and it was reverted. It had 3 references. I cannot imagine why the information was erased except that the editor has not kept up with this advance. Rather than getting a $10,000 piece of lab equipment hobbyists like me can buy a $50-$150 device small enough to fit in our pocket that is fine for our purposes. It reminds me of my father, a computer pioneer, who scoffed that microcomputers could be good for anything, or a friend at NIST who thought of microcomputers as an amusing toy. He used supercomputer time at work, so it was hard for him to understand that anything less could be valuable. It's very frustrating to put valuable information into Wikipedia, properly referenced, and be undone by someone who is just ignorant of significant advances in the instrumentation. Sometimes the advance is not greater accuracy, but, like the microcomputer, putting an affordable tool in the hands of anybody who wants it.Conscientia (talk) 04:14, 24 January 2022 (UTC) Conscientia (talk) 04:14, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Network_analyzer_(electrical) RudolfRed (talk) 04:21, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

You already started a discussion on the article's talk page. I suggest you start a new discussion in a civil manner, and WP:AGF RudolfRed (talk) 04:21, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello there, Can I write an article with a group of people and on one account, or do we need to have separate accounts and work individually? LOWTeam2022 (talk) 05:43, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi LOWTeam2022. You may work collaboratively with other editors, but WP:SHAREDACCOUNTs among multiple editors are not allowed. In addition, based on what you posted below, you (and your colleagues) might want to carefully read through Wikipedia:The answer to life, the universe, and everything, Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, Wikipedia:Expert editors and Wikipedia:No original research because it sounds like you might be misunderstanding some impportant things about Wikipedia. You might also want to take a look at Wikipedia:Username policy#Promotional usernames because your username might be considered unacceptable if you and others start editing as a "team" even if you all create individual accounts. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:59, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your quick response and feedback. I will make these changes. Super helpful! — Preceding unsigned comment added by LOWTeam2022 (talk • contribs) 07:52, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

If you are creating a Wikipedia page for a woman who is known by her maiden name although she is married, which last name should be used as the title for the wikipedia page? Weissepedia (talk) 23:26, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

The article title should be the name by which she is most commonly known, see WP:COMMONNAME, but if she is also known by another name then a redirect can be provided from that alternative. --David Biddulph (talk) 00:04, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Uh, that makes no sense at all. Why would you use a name she is not known by? Or is this some culture where women but not men are legally obliged to change their surname when they marry? --bonadea contributions talk 00:15, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Bonadea, I don't see above any advocacy of the use of names that people aren't known by. (Am I missing something?) -- Hoary (talk) 07:56, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

No, I did not mean to imply there was advocacy involved – I was genuinely confused by the question. The only way I could interpret it to make sense to me was if "she is married" meant "she is required by law to have the same last name as her husband". (Which has been true in many European and anglophone countries in the past, and possibly still is in some parts of the world.) --bonadea contributions talk 10:02, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

It's true in Japan, for one. (Successive governments -- all of the same one party -- have claimed that it's not sexist because the couple can plump for either one of the two surnames. Uh-huh.) If a Japanese person marries a foreigner, each can keep their surname; and there may be other minor exceptions. Anyway, if you are creating a Wikipedia article for a woman who is most commonly known by a certain name, then you title the article with that name. And ditto for an article about a man. -- Hoary (talk) 11:44, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

@Bonadea: I think you're over-stating the requirement a bit. It could simply be that she lives in a society where it is common for women to take their husband's name on marrying. Without knowing the specific example, we can't really comment on how common that is in the society where the subject lives.--Gronk Oz (talk) 05:44, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

@Bonadea, @Hoary: I read the question as either:

1. Do we use a subject's most well-known name or their official name (the former, covered by wp:COMMONNAME); or
2. Do we use a person's current name even though it is less well-known or TOOSOON for much to have been written about them under their new name? Would our answer be any different if, say the person was a writer, academic, or performer who is credited under their new name on recent works? What if they have stated in an interview or a blue-tick tweet that they want to be known by the new name?

The second one is interesting in comparison with how we handle photos – we prefer a recent photo for a living subject, but after they die we would prefer one from the height of their career, or a particularly well-known or good portrait. (This actually happened with Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh.)

@Weissepedia: I hope some of the considerations above help you to decide. But don't sweat it too much, you can always do a find-and-replace. ⁓ Pelagic ( messages ) 08:07, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

making article 71.31.41.249 (talk) 04:18, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

please make an article about wwe superstar, wendy choo.

71.31.41.249 (talk) 04:18, 24 January 2022 (UTC)livvy

Welcome to the Teahouse! The formal place for requesting someone else writes an article is Wikipedia:Requested articles, but there is no guarantee anyone will ever choose to write one. You could also try posting at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling. In either case, you might improve your chances of someone writing the article if you provide multiple independent reliable sources that provide significant coverage about her career. Hope this helps! GoingBatty (talk) 04:33, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps you didn't read the answer you received at Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1138#Wendy Choo WWE when you asked the same question from a slightly different IP address. --David Biddulph (talk) 08:51, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Dear Team,

Kindly advise, how could i list my organization details in Wikipedia. and if our organization has featured in any other news articles how do i attach the resource/referal . and what is the content format to publish here Radeemshu (talk) 08:16, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Radeemshu, Wikipedia is not a place for the mere listing of the details of any organization. Please read and digest Help:YFA and WP:COIE. -- Hoary (talk) 08:35, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Also WP:NCORP. David notMD (talk) 10:57, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

I have no idea how to fix this, but can someone fix the ref error on citation 11 at Algerian nuthatch, thanks. 2001:4455:364:A800:C13C:8A64:1CEF:F186 (talk) 11:09, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Done. Thank you for asking. -- Hoary (talk) 11:14, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

It's true that on the English Wikipedia many editors here often add the original English voice cast to French and Quebecois animated series to the articles I used to edit before, but there is a problem, it turns out that when I changed the original voice cast from english to french to infoboxes (these two revisions for example[20][21]) have taken care to revert my edits without leaving summaries as a reason indicating now that only my edits appear as vandalism or non-constructive to it, the same thing happened with Angel's Friends (which is an Italian animated series) I was about to remove the cast of voices to the infobox knowing that international voices do not fit here but even so[22], both the bot and two users who have had several incidents [here reverted it again and the question for me is can some information be copied from the original voice cast from French Wikipedia and paste it here? Well here are the web sources as proof:

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_Lyoko#Distribution

http://www.doublage.qc.ca/p.php?i=162&idmovie=3179

http://www.doublage.qc.ca/p.php?i=162&idmovie=3241

152.0.138.36 (talk) 07:00, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse! In general, information can be copied from another language Wikipedia to the English Wikipedia if you provide a reliable source and give proper attribution per WP:TRANSLATION. In these cases, per the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, you may post on the article's talk pages so you can discuss the benefits of adding this information, and you can work with other editors to develop a consensus. Hope this helps, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 17:50, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello there, the biggest reason why your edits might be called unconstructive and have been reverted is because this is the English Wikipedia and not the French. Also it seems the sources you have given are unreliable sources and information on Wikipedia must be backed by reliable sources. ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 17:52, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

@Kaleeb18: Thank you for telling me, about the reason you were talking a while ago about the sources that I have provided if they are reliable, that is why there are times when users must verify web references to French-Canadian animated series articles to the database before to revert my edits again and yet I still haven't started on article discussion pages on this topic. By the way, add the information table to the Voice cast section so that something like this and this for example look comfortable. 152.0.138.36 (talk) 03:50, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Well I would suggest starting a discussion on the talk page and saying there should be a table where it says the French name and the English name of the actors like how you provided those examples. ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 12:50, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi, I came here, because of something that I have done, and cannot revert it. I moved Benipal to Draft:Benipal. It was actually an accidental move, and I cannot revert. Please do something about it. Itcouldbepossible^Talk 08:20, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Itcouldbepossible, that draft doesn't qualify to be an article. It can't decide if it's about a surname or a clan, it's only three sentences long, and it doesn't have a single reference. And therefore nobody should move it. Perhaps you would like to augment and improve it. -- Hoary (talk) 08:38, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

@Hoary No need. I wrote 'accidentally move', but it was honestly not accidental. I actually meant to draftify it, but then I found that it was a long standing article, and someone told me not to draftify long standing articles, so I came here if the draftification could be reversed. Just as a matter of question, how is a draftification reversed, or is it not possible? Itcouldbepossible^Talk 08:44, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

@Itcouldbepossible: You may reverse it now. – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 10:12, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

@AssumeGoodWraith No need, I was just asking if reversing draftification is possible, or not. Itcouldbepossible^Talk 10:14, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

@Itcouldbepossible: Move it back. – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 10:15, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

@AssumeGoodWraith Where? Itcouldbepossible^Talk 10:16, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

@Itcouldbepossible: Article space. – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 10:18, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

@AssumeGoodWraith I don't think that should be done, as Hoary days that it doesn't qualify to become an article. Itcouldbepossible^Talk 10:20, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

The point is, you technically can move it back. – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 10:33, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

@AssumeGoodWraith How? Itcouldbepossible^Talk 10:37, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

I found that it was a long standing article, and someone told me not to draftify long standing articles It's a little more complicated: it was created as an article about five years ago, but was almost immediately changed to a redirect, and the redirect was there until a month ago. Some content was added, but the title was reverted back to the redirect. Yesterday, the same editor returned and added the current content. So the article you draftified is actually quite new, even though the title has existed for several years. --bonadea contributions talk 10:54, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

@Bonadea Thanks for the explanation. Itcouldbepossible^Talk 11:19, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

When an article is "draftified", it should simply move: no redirect from the article should be created. If there is indeed no redirect, then the draft can simply be moved back to become an article (once it's good enough). -- Hoary (talk) 10:59, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Older history: Talk page of the draft shows that a version of an article by this name was deleted in 2011. David notMD (talk) 11:07, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

@David notMDYes, it is here. Itcouldbepossible^Talk 11:21, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

@Hoary Yes, but to move a draft without keeping a redirect, we need mover rights isn't it? Itcouldbepossible^Talk 11:18, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Itcouldbepossible, I don't know if you're now (A) asking about moving a draft to an article (without a redirect), or (B) asking about moving an article to a draft (without a redirect). Are you in a position to improve Draft:Benipal? If you are, please improve it. If you are not, just forget it. Let it rot. Months from now, it will then disappear. The time you save can be spent on other articles. -- Hoary (talk) 11:43, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

@Hoary No, I don't have knowledge about Benipal. I am not thinking about developing it. My question is, for example I just moved page A to Draft:A, and page A, has now a R2 CSD notice. Now, if I think, that it was an accidental move, and I want to move Draft:A back to page A, then what is the procedure? Itcouldbepossible^Talk 13:00, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi,

My son is an actor and he had a page on Wikipedia which was removed in 2019. He has numerous film and TV credits (as a lead actor) and has another big project coming out this year. I don't know anything about wikipedia, but I would like to get his page re-instated and find out what I need to do to keep it active. I note many other actors with less experience than him have active wikipedia pages.

His name is Toby Woolf

Can anyone help me?

Thanks so much.

Marnie Woolf Mw1357 (talk) 11:22, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

@Mw1357: What is the name of the article? – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 11:29, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Never mind, found it, deleted for lack of notability. [23] – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 11:30, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

@Mw1357, hello. Read WP:BASIC. What are the 3-5 best sources you can link that are at the same time reliably published (WP:RS), independent of the subject and about the subject in some detail? This excludes blogs, wikis, imdb, own webpages etc etc. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:23, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

At the deletion discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Toby Woolf there was a sense that in 2019, it was WP:TOOSOON for an article about Toby Woolf, at that time 10 years old, right now 13 years old. If you believe his acting career has advanced significantly, you can attempt a new draft, to be submitted to Articles for Creation (AfC) for review. See WP:YFA for process. As noted by GGS, quality references are mandatory. Given your connection (parent of) you will also need to post on your User page the nature of the connection. Required by WP:COI. Analternative to all this is to hope that Toby's career continues to blossom, to the point that a person with no connection will create and submit a draft. David notMD (talk) 12:35, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

• <https://www.radiotimes.com/tv/drama/summer-of-rockets-cast-toby-stephens-keeley-hawes-bbc2/>
• <https://www.express.co.uk/showbiz/tv-radio/861104/The-Last-Post-season-1-swearing-child-secret-Jessica-Raine-sex-scene-BBC>
• <https://www.standard.co.uk/culture/tvfilm/summer-of-rockets-mysterious-threads-russian-spies-and-lashings-of-lipstick-in-this-cold-war-thriller-a4148876.html>
• <https://www.empireonline.com/movies/reviews/rare-beasts/>
• <https://www.theguardian.com/film/2021/may/20/rare-beasts-review-billie-piper-david-thewlis-kerry-fox>

Mw1357 (talk) 12:31, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

No, no, no, no, no. All those five do is mention him by name as having a role in TV shows and movies. Those are not ABOUT him, as in content at length about Toby. If that is the best you can find, then still WP:TOOSOON. David notMD (talk) 12:44, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

The radiotimes is closest to one of the "multiple" sources demanded at WP:BASIC, but not close enough. The others (one noted "very sweet") just mentions his name. WP:TOOSOON seems to still apply. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:49, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi Mw1357. In addition to what's been posted above, you might want to consider whether it's really a good idea for a Wikipedia article to be written about your son. Wikipedia is in the WP:REALWORLD after all which can often be quite nasty. There can be quite a less than obvious downside to being written about on Wikipedia as explained here and here, and there's no final editorial control granted to subjects of articles or their representatives as explained here. Bascically, if you were successfully able to create an article about your son, you would be discouraged from directly editing it yourself and it couldn't be used to promote your son or his career in any way. If you had concerns about what was being added or removed, you would be expected to seek assistance from other editors as explained here and here and any changes you propose would need to be in accordance with relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines. I know it might seem like a really great thing for your son to be written about on Wikipedia, but you might find out that you have so little control over things that it turns out to be not such a good thing after all. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:55, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

That. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:02, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks all - that's really really helpful. Marchjuly what you say makes so much sense. With that in mind, I will drop this. The only reason I edited his page in the first place was that he had a page written for him when Rare Beasts went up on Wikipedia, but his page just linked and looped back to the Rare Beasts wikipedia page, which I found frustrating as he had done more than just Rare Beasts. I presume that if, in years to come, he justifies having a Wikipedia page, then it won't be problematic that there was a page in the past? Thank you all for your help and advice! Mw1357 (talk) 13:03, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Mw1357. No, that shouldn't be a problem. A reviewer may look and see that there had been an article deleted before, but it should be reviewed on its own merits. I would recommend that you banish the concept "his page" from your mind, and substitute "the encyclopaedia article about him". Nobody owns a Wikipedia article, and specifically not its subject. Nor is a Wikipedia article in any way for the benefit of its subject, except incidentally. --ColinFine (talk) 13:17, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Some pages (such as this one) have this template at the top:

This is a decree by the Supreme Cabal Regime of the English Wikipedia (SCREW). It expresses opinions and ideas that are absolutely and irrefutably true whether you like them or not. Changes to it must reflect the wishes of the Supreme Cabal. When in doubt, please ignore the talk page and just keep reverting.

Shortcut WP:TH

Is this cabal actually real? I.hate.spam.mail.here (This is YOUR page) (talk) 03:49, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

@I.hate.spam.mail.here: It may have been when the essay was created in 2007, but it's unlikely that it's still "active". GoingBatty (talk) 05:03, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

So it existed back then, but doesn't anymore? I.hate.spam.mail.here (This is YOUR page) (talk) 06:01, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

It may have existed back then, but it's unlikely that it exists any more. -- Hoary (talk) 09:09, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

It never actually existed. The circus got closed down due to poor reviews in any event, and so pages intentionally meant to just be humourous aren't a thing anymore. (That's not to say incidental comedy is a lost art on Wikipedia - just look at List of whale species.) —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 09:13, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

@Jéské Couriano: - okay, I give up. I looked through List of whale species pretty carefully, and I must have missed the incidental comedy. Can you at least give me a hint where it is?--Gronk Oz (talk) 09:39, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Picture column, everything that lacks an image. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 11:03, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Jéské Couriano that made my day. Thank you so much for drawing our attention to that! Elemimele (talk) 13:12, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Jéské Couriano LOL! I had to scroll down almost to the end of the article, but it was well worth it! It is so nice to see that a sense of humour has not been completely banished by the WP Fun Police! Thank you. --Gronk Oz (talk) 15:09, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

A bit of a pity, really, and plenty of humour still around. When I am really down about Wikipedia, this always cheers me up. Mind that we are a allowed to keep this and other pages as "it is considered to be humorous". Lectonar (talk) 13:51, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

What do people thing of signatures in biography articles? I really don't see how they add anything to an article and it was off the back of a conversation we had at Talk:Emma Watson#Watson's signature?, I feel they breach a few type of laws myself. Was looking for more input on the subject. Regards Govvy (talk) 10:15, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

This is a question worth asking, but you're asking it in the wrong place. I suggest that you work on a proposal. (One area that obviously needs work is: What is/are "a few type of laws", and in which legal system, and can't you improve on whether or not you "feel" something to be true?) When your proposal is better thought out and better phrased, ask about the improved version at Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab). (However, since you ask: I too don't think that they add anything; and I worry that their inclusion may suggest that signatures are important, and thus that "graphology" isn't piffle.) -- Hoary (talk) 11:11, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Whether including the signature is appropriate or not varies widely depending on the person, and the inclusion or exclusion of signatures from infoboxes has been hotly debated. For pre-photography era people, I always support inclusion of signatures, as they are one of the few things we have reliably identifying the individual. Sometimes the signatures are iconic, as with Picasso or John Hancock. —Kusma (talk) 11:16, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Having said that, I think for living people the signature should only be included if it is commonly depicted in RS. For example, those of presidents often get photographed signing laws or international treaties. Can't see a strong reason why we should care about Emma Watson's signature. —Kusma (talk) 11:49, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

I can understand for a deceased artist, that makes sense to me, but for people that are living. Doesn't make sense so much to me. Govvy (talk) 14:23, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

I have been an occasional contributor to Wikipedia since 2016 who has so far stuck mostly to topics I was particularly passionate about at the time. My most notable contribution by far has been the creation of the List of mass shootings in the United States article.

But I would like to contribute to Wikipedia more regularly and graduate from being a WikiTeen. I'm not particularly confident in my ability to write new articles or completely transform existing ones because I'm not a subject-area expert, more a jack of all trades.

What area of Wikipedia needs the most help? Categorization? Spelling/grammar errors? A particular subject? OttoKaneko (talk) 18:27, 23 January 2022 (UTC)