Wikipedia:Teahouse

GreenMeansGo, a Teahouse host

Welcome to the Teahouse!
Your go-to place for friendly help with using and editing Wikipedia.

Ask a question

Question forumMeet your hostsArticles to improveBecome a host

New to Wikipedia? See our tutorial for new editors or introduction to contributing page.
Note: Newer questions appear at the bottom of the Teahouse. Completed questions are archived within 2–3 days.

Help Wikipedia

(Please remember to sign your posts on talk pages by typing four keyboard tildes like this: ~~~~. Or, you can use the [ reply ] button, which automatically signs posts.)

Tommy Roberts (sports broadcaster)

I need any help with making this a more neutral article and need to know what flowery words need to be taken out. thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Monmouth1946 (talk • contribs) 11:57, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Monmouth1946, looks like you've already gotten plenty assistance from multiple editors at the article itself since you posted here. Recommend MOS:WORDS as further reading on the subject. Cheers! Usedtobecool ☎️ 17:14, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Tommy Roberts (sports broadcaster)

I have made numerous changes to give article encyclopedic look. Can someone let me know if they have have given the article a better Format Thank You Monmouth1946 (talk) 20:44, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Courtesy link Tommy Roberts (sports broadcaster). TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)}

Tommy Roberts (sports broadcaster)promote the subjectP in making this better for submission

I have streamlined article and taken everything that I could think of to not not promote the subject. I don’t know where to go from here. If someone can help make this a betterarticle for submission I would gladly accept the advice. thank youMonmouth1946 (talk) 16:26, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Will also like to delete maintenance issues at top of article. I am afraid to do it myself because I do not understand the directions.Monmouth1946 (talk) 16:39, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

• Looking through the text, there is nothing left to justify either of the previously-placed templates ({{peacock}} and {{tone}}), so I removed them. I do think some stuff is unnecessary trivia but have not looked in-depth so will refrain from further edits.

Notice that the article Tommy Roberts (sports broadcaster) has been in mainspace since its creation in November, unless I am missing some page move somewhere, so it is already "submitted" and visible to the public at large. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 17:14, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Tigraan, it has not been reviewed/accepted by WP:NPP so it doesn't yet show in the search engine results outside of Wikipedia. Most sources are offline so it should take some time unless someone bold or familiar comes across it. Usedtobecool ☎️ 18:03, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Tommy Roberts (sports broadcaster)

I would like to submit article for publication. It has been vetted for any mistakes on talk and Teahouse. Would someone show me how t odd it orvsubmit it for me. I have done everything I can possibly do to make it read correctly. Also many of you have helped immensely inv preparing it foe submission. Thank YouMonmouth1946 (talk) 17:53, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

• @Monmouth1946: As I wrote above (though you might have missed it), that article is already "live", so it is visible to our readers. (The article can still be improved, of course, as is the case for 99.9% of Wikipedia text.) Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 18:02, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Monmouth1946, WP:NPP has a backlog of 6000+ articles and most of the sources in your article do not have online links; therefore the article is not easy to review for everyone. If after 90 days of creation, it is still left unreviewed, it will automatically be released for indexing by search engines. So, there's nothing to do but wait a couple months. Although, if you could find and add online links to sources, it might help speed things up. Usedtobecool ☎️ 18:09, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

I am confused as to what “live” means. Does it mean that I don’t have to submit it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Monmouth1946 (talk • contribs) 01:44, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

"Live" means that Tommy Roberts (sports broadcaster) is already a Wikipedia article, not just a draft. The purpose of submitting it has been achieved. Maproom (talk) 07:14, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

It means "visible to Googlebot" and other crawlers per WP:NPP (new page patrol). The article is published, all wikilinks to the former draft are redirected to the article, check out Special:WhatLinksHere/Tommy Roberts (sports broadcaster). –84.46.52.190 (talk) 08:12, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Tommy Roberts (sports broadcaster) followup

I have tried to make language clarified con the two sentences that were tagged. Would someone take a look to see if it reads more coherently. Thank You. Monmouth1946 (talk) 20:07, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Please provide a courtesy link to articles that you reference here. Like this: Tommy Roberts (sports broadcaster). —[AlanM1(talk)]— 23:20, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Monmouth1946, I've removed the tags, as the prose is now clear.--Quisqualis (talk) 02:07, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi Monmouth1946, please don't start new sections for your followups on Tommy Roberts, just add further questions here by clicking the edit link to the right of the title for this last sub-section with the same topic. The archive bot uses the freshest timestamp, everything about Roberts should be archived together after your last question was answered. –84.46.53.207 (talk) 11:08, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Fiction as references

I came across an article about floor-coverings that was using a work of fiction as a reference. It's easy to fix but I couldn't find an Help: page specifically saying not to use fiction as a reference for factual articles. Can someone, A) point to such an Help: page and, B) disclose an easy way to search Help: and Wikipedia: pages for answers? Thanks Mensch (talk) 16:31, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Hm, that may be considered so self-explanatory nobody wrote it down. WP:Reliable sources does not mention "fiction". Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:42, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

A bit like "but the fridge did not have a warning saying "Do not slam the door into your head 15 times"". Its sad but I suspect we may need to say "fiction is not an RS for real world facts".Slatersteven (talk) 18:51, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: You know you can sue..? François Robere (talk) 19:53, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Congratulations, Mensch. I've been on WP 10+ years but I can't remember encountering this question before. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:11, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

FWIW - I've commonly seen "In popular fiction" subsections, which I know annoy many editors, but that would be an appropriate use of a fictional work as a source. And of course don't forget the numerous "Blank in fiction" genre articles. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:05, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Here I slightly disagree. Such subsections/articles should be cited to a decent secondary source that noticed that the pop-cult exists. Plot-sections are an exception, and they also annoy many editors. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:20, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

In two minds, yes I see no issue with them, and wp:or means we should not be deciding if something is a cultural reference (say a major plot element vs a bit of scene dressing). But its also all pretty much trivia (which we should not really have). I suppose I err on the side of "it is interesting", and thus would judge each entry on that, is it in fact interesting.Slatersteven (talk) 10:26, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

I think we need to see the context of this question.Slatersteven (talk) 10:26, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Here is the example, "Most U.S. Navy warships removed their linoleum deck coverings following the attack on Pearl Harbor, as they were considered too flammable. (Use of linoleum persisted in U.S. Navy submarines.</ref> Beach, Edward L., Jr. “Run Silent, Run Deep” and “Dust on the Sea”.</ref>)" Found at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linoleum#Use I 'broke' the reference to make it render. I'm familiar with cultural references and while I find them overused I tend to leave those alone. Mensch (talk) 11:53, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Then no, I would say this is not as fiction is not generally regarded as RS for facts.Slatersteven (talk) 12:24, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

• I've WP:BOLDly created Wikipedia:Fiction as references as a redirect back to here (permalinked). ^{[Username Needed]} 12:00, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

• I've also replaced the ref with a {{Citation Needed}}. ^{[Username Needed]} 12:05, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

• This discussion was mentioned at WP:RSN § Interesting question at the Teahouse, so I'll copy over what I said there: The most applicable guideline is Wikipedia:Reliable sources § Context matters (WP:RSCONTEXT). A claim in a work of fiction is not reliable for anything outside of the context of its fictional universe. — Newslinger talk 10:31, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Sri Lankan film and actor articles

There is a prolific Sri Lankan Wikipedian who is seemingly creating an article for every single Sri Lankan film, TV show and actor (Special:Contributions/Gihan_Jayaweera). Is every Sri Lankan film, etc. notable enough to be included on Wikipedia? Should they just be limited to the more noteworthy ones? Should the user be encouraged to add more than a cast list and the release date? Obviously we don't want to discourage this user from contributing to Wikipedia, but perhaps their efforts could be refined into higher value work? --Danielklein (talk) 23:06, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Danielklein, I have not reviewed their contributions but only briefly scrolled through their talk page. Another Sri Lankan seems to have granted the user "Sri Lankan Wikipedian of the year" for 2019. So, I am guessing that at least from the Sri Lankan perspective, they are already doing a high value work. You are correct that not all such things are notable, but from my own experience, only a small fraction of such things that are notable in my country and offline can be shown to be notable using online sources alone. (And of course, there is no way to know if they are creating articles indiscriminately. Perhaps they are already picking the more notable ones of the bunch. After all, South Asia can churn out movies like no other region.) So, third world topics get a bit of a leeway when interpreting notability on the basis of available sources. There is nothing wrong with creating stubs per se. The article needs to make clear why the subject is notable either by showing that the subject meets one of the special notability guidelines or the general notability guideline. Other than that, creating short articles is fine. In fact, that is how Wikipedia began: with thousands and thousands of stubs. There are users who value article quality over article quantity, but for the developing world, I would say stubs on notable topics are just as valuable as in-depth coverage of high priority topics. If nothing else, this allows unregistered editors from those countries who are just getting acquainted with the internet or the Wikipedia to get into editing. Finally, since the editor in question is a trusted WP:AUTOPATROLLED user, they are expected to meet minimum quality and notability standards in their creations. After considering the above points, if you are still concerned that many of their articles might not, you could politely raise it with the user at their talk page. Note that I am not pinging the user in question here and therefore kept my response as general as possible, but if we continue to further discuss them, we should ping them to this discussion, or it would be talking behind their backs. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 09:09, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Gihan_Jayaweera I believe many of your articles are in violation of WP:PLOT. I think overall you are doing fine work on Wikipedia. I would just like to see articles that establish their notability. A list of every Sri Lankan film, TV show, and actor belongs on IMDB, e.g. https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1172522/?ref_=nv_sr_srsg_0, but not every film is automatically notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia. --Danielklein (talk) 00:45, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Danielklein, Thank you all for comments. I need to remind you that, I made those articles on the behalf of Cinema of Sri Lanka, but nothing else. Because, when compare with highly fan based Bollywood, Kollywood and Tollywood movies in my neighbor country, Sri Lanka is starting to develop as one of the critically acclaimed movies in past decade or so. Many Sri Lankan films won international awards and some of them were even included in Top 100 Asian Films. Eg. Gaadi. I also should note you everyone that, I cannot included every bit of sections for an article such as plot, production, reception, awards, etc. I just started it and other Sri Lankan Wikipedians should contribute that article with their efforts by adding a plot or production sections. So I leave this in here. Without criticizing a work, I think it is better to fill those gaps in my articles. That will be a great help for my lovable small island in South Asia. Cheers!!! Gihan Jayaweera talk 06:35, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Let's continue this conversation at your talk page. --Danielklein (talk) 06:26, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

How can I get this person to stop editing me out?

There is a person who is editing me out from the Amber Heard page, because I put that she is bisexual, with a HuffPost cite as evidence. And this person is saying that there will be an edit war if I try to undo it. Even though my edit is accurate and based on facts.MannyPC (talk) 02:14, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Hello, MannyPC, and welcome to the Teahouse. With biographies of living people it's important that good sources are used that support any statement you add. To be frank, I think you are right in your edit attempt, and I would have added this source and this one too, and I note there are multiple other sources that seem to indicate her bisexuality. I haven't read the AH article to assess whether her sexuality is relevant to it, though I note there is a source to confirm her religious views there. When you seem to be in some sort of disagreement of editing, you should either have gone to Flyer22 Reborn's talk page and discussed your different perspectives on sources and relevance, or raised your good faith wish to change the article on its talk page. As I've now pinged FlyerReborn, they may wish to comment here, or on your talk page. Nick Moyes (talk) 02:38, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

I don't know how to reach this person to have a constructive discussion. And I am afraid of getting blocked. I am new here.MannyPC (talk) 03:05, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Hello, MannyPC. Our friend Nick Moyes lives in the United Kingdom so he might be asleep by now since it is in the middle of the night there. I live in California so I am still staring at the chicken bones on my dinner plate. If you tell the other editor that Nick advised you here, then I think that the risk of you being blocked is negligible, unless you consciously break some policy. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:45, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

I'd rather not discuss this in two different places. I already took this matter to the talk page: Talk:Amber Heard#Bisexual categorization redux. Permalink here. And I pointed MannyPC to that talk page. And I pinged Asarelah there because Asarelah started a discussion about this matter first years ago. The matter was taken to the WP:BLP noticeboard and resolved. Like I recently stated, "I just reverted these edits by MannyPC per the #Bisexual label discussion from years ago and how that was resolved. If, in the source that MannyPC added, it had Heard identifying as bisexual, MannyPC's edit would be fine. But once again, it is instead the source calling Heard bisexual. In cases like these, we follow WP:BLPCAT; we go by self-identity. In a similar case, with regard to Jodie Foster, per WP:BLPCAT, we also don't call Foster a lesbian or categorize her that way. This was decided after much discussion. But we do note that many media outlets described Foster as lesbian or gay after her 2013 speech at the 70th Golden Globe Awards." Yes, sources (including ones listed by Nick Moyes above) have called Heard bisexual. Sources have also called her a lesbian. In The Independent source that Nick Moyes cited, it even states, "The Aquaman star went on to describe herself as an 'outspoken, militant feminist, lesbian, atheist, vegetarian'." But where has she called herself bisexual? She has explicitly stated that she rejects sexual orientation labels. Sources have also called Foster a lesbian or gay. And in the case of Foster, the following is just one example of editors noting the importance of self-identity: Talk:Jodie Foster/Archive 4#RfC 2 - Should "lesbian" be used to describe Foster in categories?. The importance of self-identity is not different for Heard. Cullen328, MannyPC absolutely should not revert. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:49, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

MannyPC, the experienced editor above has given you some excellent advice. Read those links and think carefully before editing against consensus. I remember those debates about Jodie Foster. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:22, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Ok, but if she comes out explicitly as bisexual when she said "I'm Bisexual" or something around that, then it should be referrence in Amber's article. And I don't want no edit wars, I want edit in peace, if you know what I mean.MannyPC (talk) 04:31, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

MannyPC, instead of saying "when" you should say "if". Please remember that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:46, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Alright, thank you for giving me advice on how to be an excellent Wikipedia editor. Now I feel welcome in the Wikipedia community. I will try my best to be as accurate as possible, and this experience will help me. And I also want to thank Flyer22 Reborn for having the patience of explaining me why this is not accurate.MannyPC (talk) 04:53, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Cullen328 and MannyPC, thanks. We can see in this HuffPost source and this Us Weekly source that she was reported as having come out as a lesbian in 2010. This was because she revealed her romantic relationship with Tasya van Ree. Media sources labeled her lesbian even though she didn't state "I'm a lesbian." In the AfterEllen interview the sources are referring to, she doesn't state that she's a lesbian. And in a 2011 interview, she clearly states, "I don't label myself one way or another—I have had successful relationships with men and now a woman. I love who I love; it's the person that matters." In this 2017 People magazine source that reports her as having come out as bisexual, she's quoted as stating, "I saw I was attached to a label ... I never have myself defined by the person I'm with. I never saw myself defined as one particular thing or not. So, I watched as I quickly became not actress Amber Heard, but out lesbian Amber Heard." The "never have myself defined by the person I'm with" aspect is also noted in the aforementioned The Independent source, which also says she came out as bisexual. Any time Heard says she's dated men and women or has implied that she's open to dating men and women, a source labels her bisexual, just like sources initially labeled her lesbian because of her relationship with Tasya van Ree. So regarding MannyPC stating, "And why Amber Heard hasn't sue each and every publication last year calling her bisexual or ask the publication to edit this out? She dated both men and women.", I'm sure Heard understands that bisexual is the term people are going to use for her. But this obviously doesn't mean that she has to use the term for herself. I think it's best to be on the safe side and not state in Wikipedia's voice that she's bisexual or categorize her that way. Maybe we should state in her article the following: "Heard publicly came out at GLAAD's 25th anniversary event in 2010. Although media outlets have labeled her lesbian or bisexual, she has stated, "I don't label myself one way or another—I have had successful relationships with men and now a woman. I love who I love; it's the person that matters." This would replace the beginning of the second paragraph in the "Personal life" section. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:47, 10 January 2020 (UTC) Updated post. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:08, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Flyer22 Reborn, I forgot to remind you that the Amber Heard's page names her as agnostic in the "Personal Life" section on her page. But on the "Categories" section below, she appears in the "American atheists" Category. Atheism and agnosticism have differences. Can you also take a look at that?MannyPC (talk) 02:29, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

FWIW, there is a reference for "atheist" in Amber Heard#Early life. There's a red entry for Huffpost on WP:RS/P. Good luck with your good WP:BLPCAT fight, it took me about a year to get that right on Talk:Sasha Grey#Adult and atheist categories and obscure "blpo" lists. If you need expert input try WP:BLP/N. –84.46.52.190 (talk) 06:45, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Well, thanks, but I think Flyer22 Reborn is right on this argument. There was no specific case of her saying her sexuality. I was kind of stubborn at first, but I now agree with Flyer22 Reborn, you must have 100% specific evidence. The only thing that needs to be solved about Amber's page is to write her religious beliefs. There is no doubt that she is irreligious, but of what kind? Once again thanks for your support. MannyPC (talk) 07:58, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Just a quick "thank you" to Flyer22 Reborn for your helpful reply, explaining the subtleties of this issue, and to MannyPC and others for their consideration and input. Clearly, with this person, certain things were not as cut and dried as I and MannyPC had assumed.Nick Moyes (talk) 13:42, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

MannyPC, as noted in the Atheism article, atheism can be defined broadly. But we do have both Category:American atheists and Category:American agnostics. In the source in the Personal life section, she states, "No, I'm not a practicing atheist. I'm a practicing human and I know how that sounds but I'm learning everything I can about being human. I was raised in a strict Catholic environment but the only thing I feel comfortable saying that I know is that I can't know. I will never prescribe to an organization that claims to tell me how to do anything. I'm not anti 'higher power' so you could call me agnostic. Whatever, call me anything but I will never be a 'religious' person." Given all of this and the aforementioned "Early life" mention by the IP above, I don't know what is the best route to take in this case. Maybe she is okay with being called an atheist or agnostic. Not sure that she should be in both categories. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:56, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Think you're both wrong, if someone says they date and have loved men and women, they are bisexual, if people wish to define themselves alternatively that is their wont, perhaps pansexual for example, but not literally calling yourself bisexual isn't the point, and this seems absolutely bizarre both as a bi person and someone who rather appreciates clarity. As it stands it simply has a paragraph on an already long section about how she doesn't define herself after also saying she's come out. Either keep it to just coming out, or call her as she is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheTominater95 (talk • contribs) 14:26, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

TheTominater95 makes a valid point. This is only being scrutinized because sexuality is such a sensitive subject for so many people. If I publicly stated that even though I've been accurately measured as being six feet tall, I don't like being labeled as "six feet tall", I doubt that there would be any discussion about whether or not my biography should list my height as six feet. However, this discussion does show a healthy respect for people's sensitivities, and that's beneficial for social harmony and WikiPeace.Quickfix333 (talk) 00:07, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

s' vs. s's

Is James' correct, or James's? Just to check. Thanks, Thatoneweirdwikier Say hi 06:12, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

@Thatoneweirdwikier: See MOS:POSS. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 07:29, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

And to pull out the relevant bit. Nouns and names should be made possessive with the addition of 's even if they end in S already. So, James's is correct. If that makes them difficult to pronounce (which I don't think James's is) you can try to reorder the phrase. James' is never right except in the unlikely scenario that you are taking about several people called Jame... Hug^syrup 09:43, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Hugsyrup, both are correct. See https://english.stackexchange.com/a/130960/73636 --Danielklein (talk) 05:30, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

I am referring to Wikipedia’s guidance. See MOS:POSS as mentioned above. Hug^syrup 07:08, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

It's not as clear cut as "Wikipedia says". Does Wikipedia use British English or American English? It depends. Is James's or James' correct? It depends. See Apostrophe#Singular nouns ending with an "s" or "z" sound. If an article already used one spelling predominantly I wouldn't edit it to use the other, but I would edit it for internal consistency, making them all the same as the majority. Which should you use on Wikipedia? Lacking any other clear direction, James's is preferred for new articles. That doesn't make James' wrong as you asserted. It's not Wikipedia's place to dictate what correct English is. --Danielklein (talk) 06:20, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Can I add a picture of a person from a different website or not?

I just want to add a picture to a page that is outside of Wikipedia.MannyPC (talk) 00:41, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

​Almost certainly not. Only in rare cases are those images published under an appropriate license. – Thjarkur (talk) 00:48, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hello, MannyPC and welcome to the Teahouse. Usually not. Yoou can only do this in a few limited cases:

1. If the other site includes a statement releasing the image under a compatible licnese, most often CC-by-SA or CC-BY.
2. Very rarely, you write (email) the owner of the site, and they add a license to the page, or email Wikipedia directly releasing it under such a licnse. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for details.
3. the page is usable unde fair use under Wikipedia's quite strict criteria, see WP:NFCC. An image of a currently living person will almost never qualify.

But 9 times out of 10 or more, images from another site cannot be uploaded to and used on Wikipedia. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 00:52, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Another rare exception is a low-resolution version of a portrait of a dead person, per WP:NFCI #10, but only if free images of that person are not available. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:54, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Why?

I wonder why most blocks by new users last for 31 hours. Is this the admins' magic number, Iris there some concealed guidelines as for how long a first block should last?tLoM (The Lord of Math) (Message; contribs) 01:20, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

An IP block? Yea I don't know why an IP block is 31 hours either... --Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 01:16, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

The options in a drop-down menu on the block form are: ..., 24 hours, 31 hours, 36 hours, ... It's possible to write a time manually but it's easier to select from the list. 31 hours means they cannot come back the same time next day. It's the default for IP's in Twinkle. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:45, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, PrimeHunter is correct. There is nothing that mandates a 31 hour block but it is believed to be a slightly more effective deterrent than a 24 hour block, since it more affects the vandal's daily disruption pattern. It is more of an entrenched custom enshrined in a pull-down menu than an official policy. Any administrator could set a 29 hour block or a 34 hour block, but that is a bit more work. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:04, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

The Lord of Math You might also want to see User:Magister Mathematicae/31 hours from 2005, which may be the origin of the convention. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 08:45, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

and MediaWiki talk:Ipboptions#31 hour block?, the discussion that lead to 31 hours being a default option. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 13:53, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Posting A Page

I'd like to post a Page. Can anyone assist me on where to start? Lots of info how, but nothing on where to start.

Best,

Steven Trop — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steven Trop (talk • contribs) 10:06, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Steven Trop, welcome to the Teahouse. You might find Your First Article of help. It will avoid disappointment if you prepare a new article as a draft via the Article Wizards, so you can get feedback if it doesnt yet meet all our requirements. Creating a new, acceptable article is the hardest thing you can do here. It is best to learn the basics of editing in small steps, and you might find The Wikipedia Adventure worth doing. Hoping this helps, Nick Moyes (talk) 13:02, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Dear Administrators,

Is it possible to edit some articles on wikipedia ? also can I produce an article myself ? I am beginning to learn as I just recently joined wikipedia.

Regards

Kajmakcalan (talk) 12:37, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia and to the Teahouse, Kajmakcalan. Most of us here are not administrators, just experienced editors keen to help others, like you. Yes, this is "the encyclopaedia that anyone can edit" - see our five core principles. Please see the answer to the same question about article creation immediately above this one. No article whose subject fails to meet our Notability Criteria is accepted, so it is important to find reliable sources to support all that you want to add. Come back if you have any further questions. Nick Moyes (talk) 13:12, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Don't forget to add WP:Reliable sources for additional information that you add. Dbfirs 14:42, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Draft:The Masked Singer (American season 3)

Me and my friends need help with this page. The Masked Singer season 3 is less than a month away and there’s no page for it so we created a draft but it keeps getting decline. And now it has just been rejected, and we don’t understand why. Can you help us? Rider0101 (talk) UTC 14:46, January 11, 2020 —Preceding undated comment added 14:55, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Rider0101, I see that you have repeatedly tried to create an article on this topic, but each time you have failed to establish that the topic is notable (for what that word means here, click on the blue link). The last time, it was not just declined (as failing that show that the topic is notable), but rejected (meaning that the subject is not notable and you are wasting your time trying to improve it). As the topic is a show which has not yet been broadcast, it's not surprising that its notability can't be established. I suggest you wait until a month or so after it has been broadcast; by then it may be easy to find reviews etc. which establish its notability. Wikipedia has no deadline.   Maproom (talk) 15:04, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

But how can submit it if the only button is ask for advice? Rider0101 (talk) UTC 15:09, January 11, 2020 —Preceding undated comment added 15:13, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Rider0101, a reviewer can resubmit it using the script. I suggest you ask at either wp:AFCHD or here in a few months. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 16:13, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Another of you asked the same question at the AFC Help Desk. Here is my answer from there:

User:Magitroopa, User:Rider0101, User:Heartfox - The draft is being rejected so much now because the draft is being submitted so many times now without addressing the concerns of the reviewers. I and other reviewers said to discuss whether to create a separate article for season 3, which would split the series article]], at the series talk page. There has been no real discussion at the series talk page, only statements that the season is about to start and that there should be an article, but nothing resembling discussion or consensus. I assume that is why User:CatcherStorm Rejected the draft as Not Sufficiently Notable, after repeated requests to discuss notability were ignored with idle resubmissions instead. This does not mean that the topic will not be notable after the season starts. It means that the reviewer did not consider the topic to be notable at this time, and did not think that the draft was likely to be improved by quick editing and resubmission. When the season starts and the season becomes notable, the Rejected draft can be moved out of the way to allow development of a new draft. Until then, continued resubmission is tendentious. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:14, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

I am aware that some future TV shows and other unreleased "stuff" have articles. That doesn't mean that they should have articles, possibly only that no one has tagged them for AFD yet. The usual rule in Wikipedia is that unreleased "stuff" that is still in production (or not yet in production), such as future films and unpublished books, is not notable. If you can obtain a local consensus that the third season of The Masked Singer is notable before it is aired, then the local consensus is sufficient, but I haven't seen a local consensus, or even real discussion.

If you think that a particular upcoming season of a TV show is notable before it is aired, discuss on the series talk page. If you think that upcoming seasons of TV shows in general should have their own articles, discuss at the TV notability talk page. Otherwise, future TV shows can be described in series articles. Maybe User:AngusWOOF and User:JadenFolf, who have reviewed, may also comment. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:14, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Someone undo my 24 edits without a clearly purpose.

I'm Giangkiefer, Sorry I have to post this, I add a new columns on the article Paty Cantú, on the section albums, and I also create a new columns for singles, with the intent to gain more recognize to the singer, it took me 24 edits, and then user Magnolia677 undo all my 24 edits (as you can see in the article's view history section), that user say it unsourced...I didn't finish my work yet, I will add source when I finish my work, otherwise, that user can add source by herself, just like anyother users, why undo all my 24 edits like that, It took me a whole afternoon to finish those 24 edits. Giangkiefer — Preceding unsigned comment added by Giangkiefer (talk • contribs) 15:04, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Giangkiefer: if you add a section to an article, it is your responsibility to add supporting references as you do so, not anyone else's. It you add unreferenced content, you should expect it to be removed. Maproom (talk) 15:08, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Giangkiefer If the edit or edits you want to make will take awhile, you may want to try drafting them in your Sandbox first, then when you are finished you can copy/paste them into the article. You can also mark an article as {{inuse}} while you are working on it. 331dot (talk) 16:03, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Also, your work is not lost. You can undo Magnolia677's deletion and then add the references before hitting publish again. Might be wise to leave a message on M's Talk page, explaining your intent. David notMD (talk) 18:41, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

@Giangkiefer: You wrote with the intent to gain more recognize to the singer. Just a reminder – that's not what the project is about (per WP:NOTPROMOTION). Please also remember to sign your talk page posts by adding a space and four tildes ( ~~~~). Any other sort of manual signature causes problems. Thanks. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 23:11, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

need help with the 10 required edits to be auto confirmed

As a first step, I really do not understand what or where to find articles that need editing. Thanks for helping — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pouchcove (talk • contribs) 16:58, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

@Pouchcove: welcome to the Teahouse. Your question is a little difficult to respond to, but the best strategy would be for you to look at articles about subjects that interest you, and work on them. Why do you want to become autoconfirmed? --bonadea contributions talk 17:42, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

​Click here twice and then click on "Edit suggested article". It will point you to an article that has formatting or spelling issues that you can assist with. – Thjarkur (talk) 19:08, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

@Pouchcove: There are always typos and other cleanup that needs to be done. Check out WP:TYPO. That's how I started editing. There are links at the bottom of that page to other similar projects such as grammar and fixing common mistakes. RudolfRed (talk) 20:01, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Deletion of a page... My contributions just caused someone else's page to be deleted

I just fixed some broken links on the page Padmakara Translation Group, a page that had old links, and added one paragraph, and now a whole page of an award winning institution has been deleted. If the changes were not good, please revert them. But now, I'm to blame for a whole page to be deleted, that had been there for years. I feel terrible. Not only that, the deleted Wikipedia content has been stolen by this website: https://pt.qwe.wiki/wiki/Padmakara_Translation_Group displaying in other languages via automatic translation. I would like to have help on this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amaral Rodrigues (talk • contribs) 19:24, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

@Amaral Rodrigues: Padmakara_Translation_Group was deleted as copyright violation of another website. Someone watching the Recent Changes list probably saw your edit and then noticed the page was a copyvio. You can ask the deleting admin about it on their talk page: User Talk:Deb. RudolfRed (talk) 20:15, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

To make it more clear, Amaral Rodrigues: you did nothing wrong, and you did not cause the article to be deleted, in any way. What your edit did was to bring to somebody's notice an article that was in contravention of Wikipedia's policies, and that should have been deleted long ago. It may be possible to write an acceptable article about the Group, if it meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability; but articles must not contain significant amounts of copyright material copied from elsewhere. --ColinFine (talk) 23:38, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your explanations, in any case, what can be done about this website https://pt.qwe.wiki/wiki/Padmakara_Translation_Group stealing wikipedia material in order to display advertising? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amaral Rodrigues (talk • contribs) 08:40, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Amaral Rodrigues, per Wikipedia:Reusing Wikipedia content, as long as they say where they got it, and they seem to, that's ok. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:17, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Wrong name highlighted by robot

I entered a name in my page and it was automatically highlighted in blue to another wiki person of the same name. How do I block this? Kenpj (talk) 21:38, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

@Kenpj: Which page did this happen on? RudolfRed (talk) 21:45, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks RudolfRed. Outwood Academy Adwick, section Percy Jackson Grammar School, notable former pupils, David Dunn. Kenpj (talk) 22:16, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

@Kenpj: Please provide courtesy links to articles that you mention here, like this: Outwood Academy Adwick. Thanks. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 23:34, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Kenpj, Please find the David Dunn you are looking for at David Dunn (disambiguation) and use the corresponding title when you try to mention them on other articles. Usedtobecool ☎️ 23:42, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Kenpj, and welcome to the Teahouse. Thank you for wanting to help you improve Wikipedia. But there is a lot to learn, and a few things that I think you don't understand yet. The link to the wrong David Dunn was not "highlighted by a robot": you put the name in double square brackets so [[David Dunn]], and that is an explicit instruction to the Wikipedia software that you want it to put in a link to the article called "David Dunn". As it happens, that article (David Dunn) is about the cricketer, so you told Wikipedia to link to the article about the cricketer. If there was already an article about your David Dunn, (suppose it was called David Dunn (industrialist) - which doesn't currently exist) then you could have linked to it using a WP:piped link thus: [[David Dunn (industrialist)|David Dunn]].

But secondly, since there isn't currently an article about that David Dunn, he shouldn't appear in the list of alumni: see Write the article first. That is why Theroadislong removed him.

Thirdly, please remember that it is not "your page": it is one of Wikipedia's articles that you had a large part in creating (and your role in creating it is visible to anybody that looks at the "View History" tab); but it does not belong to you in any sense. --ColinFine (talk) 23:58, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

@ColinFine: The article is about a footballer, rather than a cricketer... Moaz786 (talk to me or see what I've been doing) 00:02, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. I am just an amateur, but colleagues wanted to publish an entry for the old school. I fully accept it is not 'my page'. That was just shorthand. One of our teachers was awarded the Military Cross in WW2. Is it not sufficient to ref the London Gazette entry? Does he need more notability? Are individuals only notable if they already have a separate Wiki entry? Would appreciate advice. Kenpj (talk) 00:50, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

YES, individuals are only notable if they already have a separate Wikipedia article. Further, you should be aware that if your editing Wikipedia has anything to do with your employment, then you have a conflict of interest, and need to read about and declare your WP:COI on your Talk page.--Quisqualis (talk) 01:54, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

To answer a question that you didn't ask, this page WP:NSOLDIER will help to determine this persons notability.--Darth Mike^(talk) 15:23, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Pauline Quirke DOB

Can any one help me?..administrarors?,I put in her dob and was quickly deleted by ~~ Ninjarobotpirate ~~ ,its her correct dob and it has always been on here,if this is going to happen all dobs should therefore be deleted?Its rather petty as everywhere on the net her dob is this same and always has been,it a few mnths later than my dob why i know its correct,Maybe i should write to Pauline herself? ~~ Drew270 ~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drew270 (talk • contribs) 22:36, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Drew270. You added a date of birth, but you didn't add a source that readers can check to see that it's correct, which is why you were reverted. If you want to add a date of birth to the article, you'll need a reliable source you can cite. See WP:VERIFY for more information on this. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:40, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Thankyou Cordless Larry but the/her dob has always been on here from 2001 since i joined the internet — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drew270 (talk • contribs) 22:46, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

That's not an excuse to add it back without a source, Drew270. Once something has been removed from an article, it shouldn't be added again without a reliable source. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:50, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

@Drew270: Also see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS – there are 6 million articles here; a lot of them have bad information in them that has never been challenged. That doesn't mean we shouldn't try to improve it. Also, Wikipedia is one of the most used sites on the internet. Lots of other sites copy directly from us (some without attribution), while many thousands of others may "borrow" information. A piece of data that's been "here since 2001" has now been copied in thousands of places on the net. That doesn't make it correct. That's why we need a reliable source that has used some kind of human editorial control to verify the information. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 23:42, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

And see also our guideline on dates of birth for living people, Drew270. An artilce about a living person should not contain an exact date of birth, only a year, unles the DOB has already been widely published elsewhere, or published wiuth the apparent consent of the subject, such a son the subject's ,own web site. Franky, ther is in most cases little enecylopedic value to the exact DOB --m the year gives sufficient context to tell hoe the person fints into history, and how old the person was at particular events. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 03:46, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Research Lab

Hi All,

I am a grad student working in a lab and our PI has requested that I make a wikipedia page for an upcoming conference we will be hosting and I was wondering if anyone had some guidance on how to go about creating an article about the project without referencing the project's main page too often. Unfortunately, the research lab has not had an expose about their staff and methods, but do in depth describe these on their internal website. I am a relatively new editor, so any guidance anyone has or suggestions, would be much appreciated. Thanks all and hope you all have a good day!

-Joe — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jspajka (talk • contribs) 22:42, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Jspajka. Unfortunately, if the conference hasn't been written about in some depth in independent sources such as newspapers or journals, it won't meet Wikipedia's notability criteria and therefore isn't eligible for an article. I know of very few articles about individual academic conferences - probably for this reason. Please also have a read of WP:COI if you are editing Wikipedia as part of your job or about your employer. There is a declaration you need to make to comply with the site's terms of use (see WP:PAID). Cordless Larry (talk) 22:48, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Apologies, Jspajka - I now see that you've already made the required declaration on your user page. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:43, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Jspajka: I have a guide on how to write articles that won't be deleted here.

In short, you need to find three or more professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources that are specifically and primarily about the conference but not affiliated with, dependent upon, nor connected with the conference, the research lab, or your school. As you admit there has not been an expose, that's a problem. Without three such sources, the article is not supposed to exist, period.

But, if you can find three such sources, you just need to summarize them and then paraphrase the summaries. Once that's done and the article is approved, you can expand the article using affiliated sources. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:49, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

@Jspajka: Process aside, there may be a misunderstanding of Wikipedia's purpose. It's not a place you should be looking to get the word out about the conference to encourage attendance or attention to your lab and research. Please see WP:NOTPROMO and the rest of that page. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 23:47, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Format of Responding in "Request for Comments"

Please refer to this link: Talk:Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019#Request for Comments: Should second line of lead of this article be modified ?

There, you can see the instruction is that the survey should have the vote and the reasons should be given in the Discussion section. One editor has responded in this way, but others have put both the votes and their reasons in the Survey section.

Which is correct ?

Thanks.

Kmoksha (talk) 23:24, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Kmoksha. The "Survey" section is for editors to express their opinion on the specific question and their policy-based reasons for thinking so. The "Threaded discussion" section is for discussion about relevant matters broader than the specific question posed in the RFC. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:07, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Cullen328 Thanks for your response. Can I ask you another question which I asked earlier here but noone answered that. What exactly is a "Mainstream Source" ? Is it strictly according to what the wiki policy WP:Wikipedia is a mainstream encyclopedia says or is it flexible as per what is agreed by means of Consensus in a particular context ?

Kmoksha (talk) 00:48, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Hello again, Kmoksha. I have answered this question in the separate section you created below. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:15, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

info

Why I can't edit the pages about Republic of Macedonia? How is possible for bulgaro-tatars to write and edit the page about Republic of Macedonia, Macedonians war heroes, the whole history? The information that they put here on Wikipedia are more then a half lies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soniajovan (talk • contribs) 00:50, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Hello Soniajovan. You didn't read the messages on your Talk page. Your primary mistake, however, is that you are taking your ethnic activism to Wikipedia. What you see in a Wikipedia article is the result of research of reliable sources and, where controversy exists, much discussion (viewable on the article's Talk page). You are not welcome to change Wikipedia content to your preferred picture of the world as it "should be". If you mistake Wikipedia articles for a public forum, you are badly mistaken. Please read the articles in the list posted to your Talk page. They are both relevant and important to your future as a Wikpedia editor.--Quisqualis (talk) 01:45, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Clarification of "Mainstream Sources" and applicability of content of cited sources

I would like to ask these questions -

1. What exactly is a "Mainstream Source" ? Is it strictly according to what the wiki policy WP:Wikipedia is a mainstream encyclopedia says or is it flexible as per what is agreed by means of Consensus in a particular context ?

2. If a source is cited for an article for a particular line or particular words, does the other content written in that source also apply to the article ? Can that content be inserted into the article ?

Kmoksha (talk) 01:57, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Kmoksha. Please be aware that WP:Wikipedia is a mainstream encyclopedia is only an essay expressing the opinions of one or more Wikipedia editors. It is not a policy or a guideline. What matters is whether a source is reliable. That means in brief that the source has professional editorial control, and a reputation for accuracy, fact checking and correcting errors. Many of those sources might be called "mainstream" but others might be dissident in one way or another. To answer your second question, a single good quality source can be used multiple times in an article. See WP:NAMEDREFS for an explanation of the coding. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:06, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

@ Cullen328 Thanks for your response. But the "mainstream source" is not clear. It is quite often used by the editors who say "This is a mainstream source" or "This is not a mainstream source and so not acceptable even though I agree with the content of the source article". You can often see Wiki editors rejecting proposals solely on the basis that the referenced source is not mainstream.

So, my first question was that if this link is just an essay and let us say the source suits the given definition of reliability. then can it be rejected saying that "it is not a mainstream source ?"

Also, let me rephrase my second question - Say there is an wiki article A containing a line 1 from a reliable source RS which has the line 1, but the source RS also has a line 2. So, my second question is that since the source RS is referenced in the wiki article and let us say that line 2 also is relevant for wiki article A, then does it mean line 2 also applies to the wiki article ? What if the line 2 contradicts some part of the wiki article ? -- Kmoksha (talk) 02:34, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

As I said previously, Kmoksha, what matters most is whether or not a given source is reliable. The article should summarize what the full range of reliable sources say about the matter, paying less attention to sources that present a distinct minority viewpoint. To the extent that "mainstream" in this context indicates the type of source that represents the most broadly held views by most scholars, then that is a good tool for evaluating the usefulness of a source.

If a reliable, independent source is used properly in the article for one factual assertion, then it is probably a good source for other assertions. If one good source contradicts another good source, then all readily available sources on the matter should be consulted, and the article should reflect the preponderance of the sources.Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:56, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

@Cullen328 In the light of what you said before, can you tell me if these are "mainstream sources" or not - http://www.radicalsocialist.in/ and https://www.sabrangindia.in/ -- Kmoksha (talk) 04:50, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Kmoksha, I am not an expert on left wing publications in India so I cannot give a definitive answer. The first seems to be a Trostkyist advocacy publication and at first glance, I do not see an editorial team. The second seems to be a site opposed to aggressive Hindu nationalism and at least two co-editors are named. Do other publications frequently cite these publications and praise their journalistic accomplishments? Have they won journalistic awards? Do they correct errors and carefully fact check their assertions? You can ask for a more detailed analysis at the Reliable sources noticeboard. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:17, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

@Cullen328 Now that you have listed all these parameters, it seems to me that what the editors mean when they say "this is not a mainstream source" is that the source is not widely acclaimed. But the same editors quote the wiki essay link of WP:Wikipedia is a mainstream encyclopedia . That creates confusion since that essay says very different and almost opposite things. In my opinion, the wikipedia community should edit this article and make it more in conformity with the actual practices of Wikipedia editors. Thanks for your responses -- Kmoksha (talk) 07:04, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

At the risk of being repetitive, Kmoksha, let me say again that WP:Wikipedia is a mainstream encyclopedia is not an article, not a guideline and not a policy. It is an essay written over eleven years ago. Any editor can write an essay, good or bad. It is rarely cited and very few pages link to it. Discussion on its talk page ended in 2016. I see no evidence that is is highly regarded by large numbers of editors. I suggest that you forget about it. As for your other point, there is no need that a source is "highly acclaimed". An academic journal published by a respected university will probably be a very reliable source but unknown outside that particular academic discipline. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:21, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Vandalism templates

The https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Uw-vandalism1 template says that "one or more of your recent contributions have been undone". How recent does the unconstructive edit have to be to be considered "recent"? 125 Beethoven (talk) 02:50, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Hello, 125 Beethoven and welcome to the Teahouse. There is no hard and fast rule on that. Most often such a template will be placed within a day or so of the act of vandalism, or at least within a day of its discovery. If the vandalism is more than a couple of weeks old, I personally would tend not to use that template, but a different template or hand-compose a message. Or one could "subst" the template and then edit its wording to fit the specific case at hand. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 03:55, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, 125 Beethoven. I am not aware of a formal definition of "recent" in this context but I am inclined to think that hours or even a day or two qualifies. Be aware that use of escalating templates is recommended most of the time, but not mandatory. You can write a custom crafted warning, or you can modify the language in an existing warning template. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:58, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

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

Hello, is it possible to start an short Article a little faster? (There are 3,733 pending submissions waiting for review currently) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wname1 (talk • contribs) 08:52, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Hello Wname1! This draft is unlikely to pass review, none of the sources mention the word. Guidance at WP:NOTNEO. As to your question, see WP:AUTO and WP:MOVE. But as I said, if you move this article as-is to mainspace, I think it will be moved back or deleted. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:04, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps you should consider a title more like "Greek withdrawal from the eurozone"? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:09, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

If none of the sources mention the title word, which is quite a specific word, then it really cannot become an article (e.g. unlike Megxit, which is drowning in global WP:RS/P that have the word " Megxit" in the title, but is still a deletion candidate). I am not aware of any Danish withdrawal from the eurozone, but I think that GGS is right that this would need to be the title; and you would need to have high quality sources talking about the subject in detail (e.g. WP:SIGCOV). thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 11:42, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

It would be difficult for Denmark to withdraw from the Eurozone, Britishfinance, because it's not a member! Danish withdrawal from the European Union would be a suitable title, although there are sources available that use Danexit. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:55, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Good point Cordless Larry, (as per the UK, they keep their own currency). There at portmanteaus for almost every member of the EU now (even Frexit), however, I could not find much credible RS for Danexit (in the article, or otherwise); however I was not searching in dan-lang sources (it is not a topic that interests me). thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 14:08, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Details! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:53, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

What to do against fake data?

I've just read the wiki page on FIEDLER Ferenc in English. He was a Hungarian painter who lived in KASSA and BUDAPEST before going to PARIS. He was an ethnic Hungarian born in KASSA in 1921. In that year KASSA was on the territory of Czechoslovakia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Czechoslovakia). So, it's not true/correct to indicated that Mr Friedler was born in "Kosice, Slovakia". Slovakia did not exist in 1921 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slovakia). We can speak about a truly independent Slovakia as of 1993 only. Unfortunately, Slovaks always try to "change history" for whatever reason. In my opinion the text in English is not correct, therefore it should be corrected as soon as possible. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tassilo5331 (talk • contribs) 12:54, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

There is no Fiedler Ferenc on en-WP, did you type that right? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:59, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Tassilo5331 Please don't accuse other ethnic or national groups as a whole for the actions of any individual. This is a collaborative environment where we all work together building this encyclopedia. I'm not sure what Wikipedia policy is in this general area, but you should discuss any concerns you have with an article on its article talk page. As Slovakia succeeded Czechoslovakia, it doesn't sound incorrect to me, but as I indicated, I don't know what general policy is in this area. We state that Lenin "was born in Streletskaya Ulitsa, Simbirsk (now Ulyanovsk)". Perhaps the article you speak of should say something similar, I don't know- but please discuss the issue with respect for others and collaborate to achieve a consensus as to what the article should say, typically based in Wikipedia policy. 331dot (talk) 13:05, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

I looked around for guidance on that at one point, what I came up with was Template:Infobox person: "Use the name of the birthplace at the time of birth" and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Capital letters: "If a different name is appropriate in a given historical or other context, then that may be used instead, although it is normal to follow the first occurrence of such a name with the standard modern name in parentheses.". Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:13, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

The article in question appears to be François Fiedler – he probably went by the French as well as the Hungarian form of his first name. (In Hungarian, names are often written Surname Firstname, unlike the English convention.) --bonadea contributions talk 13:23, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

@Tassilo5331: I think you are raising a valid point – the town had been in Austria-Hungary until a couple of years before Fiedler's birth, when it was annexed into Czechoslovakia. The place to discuss this is Talk:François Fiedler, and as 331dot says, please present this as a simple matter of getting the facts right, without any reference to the ethnicity of other editors. --bonadea contributions talk 13:33, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

 Fixed I corrected the article and added a note about the discrepancy. The article could really use some work by someone familiar with how we write artist BLPs. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 15:06, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

How can I get my weekly community newspaper, the Northwest Observer, added to the list of newspapers in North Carolina?

Hi, Since November 1996 I've been publishing a community newspaper which started as a monthly newsletter for the Town of Oak Ridge and evolved over the years into a weekly newspaper covering three municipalities in northwest Guilford County: Oak Ridge, Summerfield and Stokesdale. How can I get my newspaper added to the list of newspapers published in our state? BTW, our website is: www.nwobserver.com and our weekly print circulation is 13,800. Thanks, Patti Stokes, president/CEO of PS Communications and publisher/editor of Northwest Observer— Preceding unsigned comment added by PS Communications, Northwest Observer (talk • contribs)

PS Communications, Northwest Observer Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. First, please review the conflict of interest and paid editing policies as you have some required formal disclosures to make. Regarding what you want to do, list articles like the one you mention are not intended to list every possible member of the list in existence. They are meant to list those with Wikipedia articles- so in order to be listed there, there must be a Wikipedia article about your newspaper. In order for that to happen, your newspaper needs to be shown with significant coverage in independent reliable sources to meet Wikipedia's special definition of a notable organization. In plain English, that means other sources unaffiliated with your newspaper must give significant coverage of of it in order for it to merit a Wikipedia article. For example, The New York Times merits an article because many independent sources have written about The New York Times, not simply because it has a large circulation or readership. If your newspaper does merit an article, you shouldn't be the one to write it, due to your conflict of interest. You can request that others do so at Requested Articles, but there are literally tens of thousands of requests there, so it won't be done quickly. 331dot (talk) 14:42, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Kalos Circle

I write history books about Weiser Idaho. Recently I came across information about a group called the Kalos Circle. They were the women's auxiliary of the Woodmen of the World. I've checked Wikipedia and sites for the Woodmen with no joy. I have six paragraphs from newspapers in 1898 and 1899 discussing activities of the Kalos Circle in Weiser, Idaho. I'll use this information in my book but I feel it is good information and deserves wider distribution than I can provide. How do we make that happen? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Walstonken (talk • contribs) 15:51, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Hello Walstonken and welcome to Wikipedia. WP:EXPERT may be a good starting point for you. Are your books WP:SELFPUBLISHED? We have something of a reluctance to use selfpublished sources, though context matters. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:17, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Walstonken (edit conflict) Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Please understand that Wikipedia is not just for distributing information; this is an encyclopedia, where articles summarize what independent reliable sources state about subjects that meet Wikipedia's special definition of notability. Sources do not need to be online, just publicly accessible(so old newspapers are fine as long as copies are in public hands, like in a library) Wikipedia is not for posting original research, so unlike in writing a book, you could not post your own conclusions or research findings in a Wikipedia article, it could only summarize what the sources say. If you wish to attempt to write an article, you may use Articles for Creation to do so, though you should first read Your First Article and perhaps use the new user tutorial. 331dot (talk) 16:21, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article WoodmenLife states that the organization was originally "Woodmen of the World" and the women's auxiliary was Woodmen Circles. David notMD (talk) 01:22, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Question re. brackets

Could someone tell me what the difference between [] and {} is?

I've tried working it out in the sandbox, but they both seem to do the same thing. Grateful for clarification, thanks! Maryanne Cunningham (talk) 17:03, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi Maryanne Cunningham and welcome to the Teahouse. Square brackets are used for internal links to another Wikipedia article. See WP:Internal links. Braces are used for templates like the one I use to notify you at the beginning of my reply. Dbfirs 18:49, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Dbfirs Maryanne Cunningham (talk) 21:15, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

@Maryanne Cunningham: Single square brackets (e.g., [https://foo.bar.com]) produce external links (see WP:EL for policy), while double square brackets (e.g. [[blah]]) produce internal links to Wikipedia (and other wiki projects). Double braces (e.g., {{Cite web}}) are used to transclude templates and other pages. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 21:38, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks AlanM1 Maryanne Cunningham (talk) 21:15, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi again, Maryanne. A pair of square brackets [[ ]] around a word will give you an internal link to another Wikipedia page. It'll be blue if the page exists with that spelling, or red if no page exists here.

• Eg: [[Mont Blanc massif]] gives Mont Blanc massif
• [[Mont Blank massif]] doesn't exist, so gives this red-coloured link: Mont Blank massif

A single square bracket [] is used to link to an external website OR to a full external link to one of our own pages. You put the url first, then ONE SPACE, then the word or phrase to display. Like this link.

Double curly brackets invoke a named template, usually inserting set text. This could be a complex welcome message left on a users talk page, a warning, an infobox in an article, or a simple line of text you don't want to keep repeatedly typing. Thus {{please}} produces this request to sign every post: " (Please remember to sign your posts on talk pages by typing four keyboard tildes like this: ~~~~. Or, you can use the [ reply ] button, which automatically signs posts.)

Finally, you can include certain parameters by means of a vertical pipe character to make a template do certain things, though this is a little tricky to explain. Although I told you when you started how to notify a user, another way to do it is my means of the {{u}} template. Thus, {{u|Maryanne Cunningham}} produces Maryanne Cunningham which ensures you are notified about my reply. Hope this makes some sense. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 23:00, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Er, um, getting thereNick Moyes. Thanks! Maryanne Cunningham (talk) 21:15, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Becoming an admin

Hi everyone. I am hoping to become a Wikipedia administrator since I like to think of myself as a judge of sorts, and I believe it would look good on my CV as a volunteer activity. I’m just wondering how long it usually takes and how many edits I will have to make. Also, are there certain areas I should focus on? Sorry if I’m asking too many questions - I’m just new here and curious to find out what I need to do. Thanks! - Matt (Moresiva) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moresiva (talk • contribs) 18:51, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

@Moresiva: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Administrators are selected through a process known as an RFA (click the link to learn more). There is no set time or number of edits one needs to make in order to become an administrator. It all depends on the quality of the contributions, not the quantity. One way to become an administrator is to focus on what you can do (not what you can't do) as a normal editor and not focus on gaining permissions just to show off. Administrators use their tools to help make Wikipedia a better place. Keep in mind there is more you can do as a normal editor than what you can't do as a normal editor. Some things you can do as a normal editor include fighting vandalism, fixing typos, and much more. Check out the community portal for more tasks you can do. I also suggest reading WP:Contributing to Wikipedia to learn more how to improve this wonderful encyclopedia without administrator rights. I hope this helps and please come back here or drop a note on my talk page if you have any more questions. Interstellarity (talk) 19:06, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

@Moresiva: Being an administrator just means that one has some extra buttons that would be irresponsible to give to the whole community. I'm not entirely sure it would merit inclusion on a CV. It mostly involves routine tasks and evaluating community consensus; it doesn't actually involve the administrator making judgments or decisions in most cases. As noted, going out from the start to obtain administrator rights looks like you are just showing off-(and you state your primary reason for wanting to be one is to put on your CV/resume) just concentrate on being a good editor and if in the course of your editing you find that having admin powers would be beneficial, then you can look at being nominated. I didn't seek out admin powers until other editors thought that I would make good use of them. 331dot (talk) 19:13, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

(ec) Something far above 10,000 edits and about four years of editing could be good enough, your first step will be to get "patrol" User rights, IIRC that's automatical unless you successfully request an earlier "promotion". These rights mostly mean "spam fighting as a hobby", no special bragging rights. Also see Special:ListGroupRights. –84.46.53.221 (talk) 19:17, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Theroad posted on your Talk page a guide to advice on being an editor (everything that is blue is a link). Welcome to Wikipedia. David notMD (talk) 01:28, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Something I would like to know

Is it okay if I add categories to articles without using HotCat?

-Prana1111 (talk) 20:19, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Prana1111, Yes, you may. HotCat makes it easier, but it can be done manually without. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:28, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

My draft was declined :(

I'm fairly new to making new Wikipedia articles. Anyone help me out with it? meowmeow \S-) (talk) 20:31, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Please always wikilink what you are talking about, e.g., [[Draft:Young Scientist Programme]] is rendered as Draft:Young Scientist Programme. Some ideas, "ambitious" is a WP:PEACOCK term, drop it unless you have reliable sources using it, then you can quote it. The layout of the draft with images is nice, I haven't read the text or checked your sources, but India Today is a "thing" (enwiki page exists, blue link), wikilink it in all references. –84.46.53.221 (talk) 20:50, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Aadarshashutosh, Phrases like "programme was aimed to inculcate and nurture space research fervour in young minds" are definitely promotional and should be made more neutral in tone. The aims and activities section should is in the future tense, which doesn't quite make sense. Another issue, I think the draft probably needs higher quality sources. Careers 360 doesn't strike me as reliable. The Organization's own website is not independent. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 01:18, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Clothing retailers of Canada

Hello. I googled and read this article because of so many recent retailers closing. I am wondering how someone could add Strong Canadian retailers who are absent from the list? Comark,is the parent company to all three Bootlegger, Rickis and Cleo who are All Canadian and have been around for a significant time, 80 years for Rickis last year. Any advise how I can get these retailers added to the list is appreciated? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.65.86.11 (talk • contribs) 21:09, 12 Januay 2020 (UTC)

Hi, 50.65.86.11, and welcome to the Teahouse. Every Wikipedia article has a talk page, which you can reach though a tab at the top of the article page, and that is usually the best place to suggest changes to a specific article. If the article you mean is List of Canadian clothing store chains, the talk page is at Talk:List of Canadian clothing store chains. Many list articles list only things that have existing Wikipedia articles about them, so you might check whether there are articles about the retailers you'd like to include, first. Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 21:21, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

NEED HELP!

How can put tables, pictures and different sections in my article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Têêłînj ßœ ß-Sôul (talk • contribs) 22:20, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

@Têêłînj ßœ ß-Sôul: Maybe your article should have textual content before you worry about adding that stuff? In other words, maybe you should write an article before you make it a fancy article? Ian.thomson (talk) 22:25, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

WikiProject History needs people

Hi everyone. I am the new coordinator for WikiProject History. we need people there!! right now the project seems to be semi-inactive. I am going to various WikiProjects whose topics overlap with ours, to request volunteers.

• If you have any experience at all with standard WikiProject processes such as quality assessment, article help, asking questions, feel free to come by and get involved.

• and if you have NO Experience, but just want to come by and get involved, feel free to do so!!!

• For anyone who wants to get involved, please come by and add your name at our talk page, at our talk page section: WikiProject History needs you!!!!

• Alternately, if you have any interest at all, feel free to reply right here, on this talk page. please ping me when you do so, by typing {{ping|sm8900}} in your reply.

we welcome your input. thanks!! --Sm8900 (talk) 20:46, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

@Sm8900: What topic are you most in need of for your project? Eclipsefc (talk) 23:09, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

hi. Good question. However I’m just a facilitator. I found this wikiproject and saw it was basically inactive. It seems like something people might need, given its basic topicality. I’m leaving it up to the community to let me know what people might feel is most needed, if anything. Thanks!!! —Sm8900 (talk) 23:29, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

On copyright issues in a page

Hi there -

I've been putting together a biography page of someone - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Ivan_Gaal

Current status is I have copyright issues, taking info from another page.

I have put a copyright exemption notice on the offending page http://www.innersense.com.au/mif/gaal.html and noted this on this Talk page - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft_talk:Ivan_Gaal

I did this 2 months ago.

My basic question is - do I need to do anything else ? Is this a normal wait period for this small adjustment ?

Thanks, Bill Bmous63 (talk) 01:17, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Hello there, Bill and welcome to the Teahouse. If a page that you use as a Reliable Source contains a CC-BY-SA licence declaration, then you are free to use that content on Wikipedia. The problem is that the source (your own website) doesn't seem at first glance to meet the criteria of a reliable source, as it looks to me to be a personally maintained website, written and owned by yourself, without any editorial board of control. I'm afraid we don't accept personal blogs, websites and social media as reliable sources, I'm afraid, especially if they are being used to establish notability. I don't know whether you might have a Conflict of Interest in possibly knowing this person, but if you do, you really should declare it on your user page. Even now that you've put a CC licence on that page, it might be best simply to rewrite the text in a new way just for Wikipedia. But I see that you have now met the conditions of the third bullet point in the copyright notice issued on your talk page last November - so that's great.

If you want to get the article accepted, try to remember that this is an encyclopaedia of notable subjects. Cut out the petty contents about winning his local bowls club competition - put frankly: nobody cares. Never say in the lead that he's an 'award-winning' this or that (that's just vague waffle)- tell us what notable award(s) he has actually won. This will (hopefully) show reviewers that he is notable, and mention of his Olympic participation sounds a likely candidate for that - but the link is a 404 dead link, so who knows what he did? The style of writing you have used is a bit too chatty, and not encyclopaedic enough. When you say '...to this day' how do you think that will read in 20 years time? Sorry I can't give a more detailed review, but I hope this reply is of some use. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 02:19, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia presents articles on the 8th, 11th, 19th, and 20th centuries in science. I propose that Wikipedia present comparable summaries of science in the 12th through the 18th centuries. Thanks for giving the opportunity to propose this idea! RW

Wikipedia presents articles on the 8th, 11th, 19th, and 20th centuries in science. I propose that Wikipedia present comparable summaries of science in the 12th through the 18th centuries. Thanks for giving the opportunity to propose this idea! RW — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dachluft (talk • contribs) 01:59, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

@Dachluft: You can find a simple set of instructions on how to write an article that won't be rejected or deleted in this link. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:05, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Sources

Hi. I created a page, Jean-Sim Ashman, and it was not accepted. I’m having a hard time creating the page so that it meets Wikipedia’s guidelines. Can someone help me? I was told that the sources were not independent but I believe they are. These are sources about the author and I didn’t get the information from the author’s personal website. These sources are publications.

Any help would be great! Thanks!

Here is the page

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Jean-Sim_Ashman

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jl1121 (talk • contribs) 02:07, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Jl1121. Reading the rationale for why your short article was declined, it's not so much about the quality of the sources, it's about a failure of any of those sources to demonstrate how that person meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability. None of the sources you have used show that the world at large (i.e. independent sources) has written about her in depth. They are mostly personal interviews, book cover notes and IMDB entries, which are not sufficient, and not independent. If they were, I would have a page here about myself as I, too, am a published author. You will need to find much better sources if you stand any hope of putting such a page on Wikipedia. See also this Wikipedia criteria for notability of creative people. I recommend you read this essay (shortcut: WP:TOOSOON) as it's something that gives people like me a glimmer of hope that one day, maybe one day we might be notable enough at some point in the future. But I'm not counting my chickens!) Sorry this isn't what you want to hear. (Please remember to sign your posts on talk pages by typing four keyboard tildes like this: ~~~~.) Nick Moyes (talk) 02:32, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Confused about reliable sources

Hello,

I recently checked a submission and found it was rejected because I didn't adequately provide reliable sources but I'm confused as why there were not reliable. I'm a bit confused if the sources aren't "reliable" or if I didn't reference correctly. I would like to resubmit but would like to get some help to do so so I don't waste my or anybody else's time.

The article in question: Draft:Blue Sky Architecture

Thank you for your help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quettal (talk • contribs) 04:10, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

One of the review comments, which you did not address, said "Please help our volunteer reviewers by identifying, on the draft's talk page, the WP:THREE best sources that establish notability of the subject." --David Biddulph (talk) 04:26, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

QR codes as image for links

I saw on Saint Francis of Assisi College that a QR code is used for a link to some website. Isn't this why there is [link_to_website]? Is this form of including a link a desired form of doing it. I question if this integration is reasonable. On PC and Laptops you would need a QR code scanner like your smartphone to get to the website. On your smartphone you may even need a second device to open the link. Either way, on both devices a link is more than enough. A potential problem I see here is that you can not view the link before scanning it. So you could hide a spam or virus infected website behind the code. Or use a redirect service like bitly.com or cutt.ly and guide people to malicious websites. Is there any consense or guideline on Wikipedia about that that? --193.171.152.104 (talk) 07:44, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing this, IP editor. I have removed the inappropriate QR code. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:56, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

@Cullen328: OK, I was actually hoping for a yes/no answer here. Are QR in general allowed on Wikipedia or not? --193.171.152.104 (talk) 07:59, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

I have been editing Wikipedia for almost 11 years and I am an administrator. I have never before seen QR codes used in this manner in a Wikipedia article and would remove them on sight for the reasons you stated originally. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:03, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the help and your quick answer! --193.171.152.103 (talk) 08:09, 13 January 2020 (UTC) (BTW. x.103 and x.104 are the same. They switch for weired ISP rules)

Suggestion a slight change to a Wiki diagram:

Is it possible to contact Wiki moderator "Gaeanautes" about a useful diagram that was added to the Article about "Limits To Growth"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.140.101.140 (talk) 09:26, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

User:Gaeanautes is not an administrator (we don't call them moderators). To contact any Wikipedia editor, you can start a new section on the editor's user talk page. --David Biddulph (talk) 09:37, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hello, IP editor, and welcome to the Teahouse. you could contact Gaeanautes at User talk:Gaeanautes, but I note that Gaeanautes has not saved any edits since last October.

The better place to make comments on how that article might be improved would be at Talk:The Limits to Growth, which is the page for discussing how to improve that article, open to all interested editors.

By the way, Gaeanautes is not an admin, which is the closest Wikipedia has to a "moderator" although it is not really the same thing. For most editing, all editors are equal and an admin has no special authority. Admins delete pages when there is community consensus to do so, block users who are violating policy in a way that has harmed and is likely to continue to harm the project, and try to clean up messes. That is why the official nickname for an admin is a "Janitor", and the symbol of an admin is a mop. See WP:ADMIN for more info. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 09:41, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Border posts between Northern Namibia and Southern Angola

There are 7 border posts as per subject above.

Katwiti can be added +- 17 deg 39 min south (latitude)  

I was instrumental as a Geomatic Engineer & Professional Project Manager of the road C45, hence we past the border patrol turnoff frequently. > Rundu to Eenhana.

Please request more info if needed.

Peter f Spronk. BSc > Geomatics (University of Cape Town) > Cape Peninsula University of Technology Geomatics[survey] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.119.33.10 (talk) 10:20, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Are you inquiring about a certain article? 331dot (talk) 10:23, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

submitting article about a person

Hi,

Many thanks for having this opportunity to ask questions here guys! I would like to write a biography about my grandfather, without him, Leni Riefenstahl's film Tiefland (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiefland_(film)) would have not happened. I know little about my grandfather Josef Plesner, and I am in touch with the Austrian film institution to find out more. My article draft has been rejected as I could not prove the significance of the person. He has done outstanding and groundbreaking work in nature documentaries as well as producing and filming the 2 important pieces of German/Austrian post-war (filmed during war partly) films Tiefland and Bergkristall (mountain crystal). At a time where it was nearly impossible to pay for film rolls and production, he spent all his money on making movies.

Thanks for your help, Alexandra — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlexandraSarcletti (talk • contribs) 10:38, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

• You need to find reliable sources that reported on him as a person. Although I would recommend against trying to create an article on him without help from another editor, as is not usually a good idea to write an article about someone you know, since you may not be able to remain neutral. ^{[Username Needed]} 10:47, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

• @AlexandraSarcletti: Please also note that words like "outstanding", "groundbreaking", and even "important", are indicative of the NPOV problem that often appears when writing about a subject with whom you have a relationship (see WP:COI). Unless multiple sources characterize the work in this way, the article shouldn't use such terms. Even if multiple sources do use such flowery language, it should only be used sparingly here, and attributed to those sources. This is part of maintaining a neutral, encyclopedic tone. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 12:51, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
• @AlanM1: that is very helpful thank you. I am a story teller so writing in neutral language will be quite a challenge. Personal relationship or not. I will learn as I go along. I am currently trying to piece together the biography. The contribution to the film industry and culture are undeniable. But I do lack references as post war has made it difficult to find reliable sources in digital. What if I find written or printed evidence? For example, I do have a handwritten note by Leni Riefenstahl, where she thanks my grandfather. But how would that work to digitalise it - upload on Wikimedia Commons? --AlexandraSarcletti (talk) 16:29, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
• You can find some sources on the German wikipedia articles w:de:Tiefland (Film) and w:de:Josef Plesner. You can ask English questions on the relevant talk pages, w:de:Talk:Tiefland (Film) + w:de:Talk:Josef Plesner, it's "Diskussion" instead of "Talk" on dewiki, but otherwise the same idea. @Others, I'm not up to date with the current procedures for a "transwiki" or Special:Import of w:de:Josef Plesner, but the German article is short enough to try a translation. –84.46.53.221 (talk) 14:01, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

  Just my 2 cents here: one needs to keep in mind here that different Wikipedias have different ways of doing things and judging if an article can be written and kept or not. The fact that an article exists in one Wikipedia does not guarantee there can be an article in different Wikipedia. Looking at the sources in the de:Josef Plesner article: citing imdb, e.g., is covered here. And passing mentions alone will not confer notability. Lectonar (talk) 14:18, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

(ec) I'm afraid it's not enough information in the dewiki article to reach the WP:N threshold and make even a stub at enwiki. Here's a Google's translation:

Josef Plesner (born January 13, 1911 in Ernstbrunn, Lower Austria, † October 30, 1993 in Kufstein, Tyrol) was an Austrian film producer and cameraman.

He has made a name for himself in the genres: cultural film and nature film, local film and mountain film. He was also the founder and head of the Plesner Film production company.

plus a filmography. Just dates and places of birth and death, his profession and names of movie art streams do not warrant an article, IMVHO. --CiaPan (talk) 14:21, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

(ec) Yes, I'm always excited if I see a possible technical adventure, here Help:Transwiki ending up on m:Help:Transwiki, but Plesner and w:de:Bergkristall (1949) aren't very helpful. OTOH w:de:Tiefland (Film) has some references and could be notable here, and that would allow AlexandraSarcletti to create a redirect for her grandfather to the film. –84.46.53.221 (talk) 14:39, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

See Tiefland (film). Lectonar (talk) 14:47, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

And Mountain Crystal. Lectonar (talk) 14:48, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Problem solved, next TEAHOUSE adventure stop for the OP is WP:AFC/Redirects to request a redirect. –84.46.53.221 (talk) 14:58, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

• Google translate for once is surprisingly correct :). Lectonar (talk) 14:31, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

@Lectonar: Google translate these days is pretty good. Thank you I did not know that articles on one Wiki page are not autmatically ok to go out on all languages. I know his work is notable - especially Tiefland, but how can I reference that correctly, given that there are hardly any digital sources but the IMDB entry: https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0687205/bio --AlexandraSarcletti (talk) 16:29, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

@AlexandraSarcletti: WP:FILMMAKER isn't obvious for your grandfather, but you are of course free to start a draft anyway. IMDb would go to an "external links" section of the biography and doesn't count towards WP:THREE (not a policy, only a rule of thumb.) –84.46.53.221 (talk) 17:48, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

AlexandraSarcletti There is no requirement that sources be digital or findable online. However (at least on this Wikipedia) there is a requirement that they be published. A printed book, magazine or newspaper article is fine. Give the title of the book or article, and the name of any publication in which it is included (for an article). Give the publication date. Give the page number or numbers. Give the author if known. Possibly include a short quote (use |quote= if using a citation template such as {{cite book}}, {{cite news}} or {{cite magazine}}). Such a quote can include the key sentence(s) from the source on which the Wikipedia entry is relying.A handwritten note would not be acceptable, unless it had previously been published elsewhere. Cite only reliable sources. I hope that is helpful. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 17:54, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion

Hi Team ,

Why was my Wikipedia page deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Auisytech (talk • contribs) 12:58, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

@Auisytech: I am unable to view deleted pages so I can't give you a detailed explanation of what the issues were. However, it was tagged as being 'unambiguous advertising' and 'containing writings not closely aligned to Wikipedia's goals'. Based on those, I would suspect that you created a page which came across as solely promotional and not a sincere attempt to draft an encyclopedia article.

(Auisytech actually appears to be blocked now, but I thought I'd reply anyway so that at least they have an answer to their question.) Hug^syrup 13:17, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

At the moment the only page you could still edit using your blocked account is your user talk page, you'll find an explanation there. It's also the only good place to ask further questions about this incident, just creating another account without an indication that you understood the problem can get you blocked again, because it could be interpreted as "block evasion". Not logging in (like me, editing as IP) can also backfire for the same reason (block evasion). –84.46.53.221 (talk) 13:39, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

I looked at the deleted sandbox, and it includes such text as We enhance life and communication efficiency through a better-connected world, acting as a responsible corporate citizen, an innovative enabler for the information society, and a collaborative contributor to the industry. The tone of the rest is similar. It is a classic work of corporate promotion as it is often attempted on Wikipedia, and I fully agree with the G11 deletion. It also has a tone not uncommon in paid editing. I make no accusations, but that thought is likely to be in the mind of any admin reviewing an unblock request by Auisytech. It should be addressed, in my view, for an unblock to be successful. Have a look at the section below. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 16:47, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Paid Contributions at Wikipedia

Hi, I am writing content for Wikipedia in exchange for payment. The disclosures are given on my user talk page and the talk pages of the drafts I am submitting. However, each page gets flagged or tagged for content even when they are written in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines for notability, independent and reliable sources, and neutrality. I even refer to other articles published in the same category to ensure that the drafts are up to the mark with what has been accepted by the Wikipedia community.

Is it true that the editors/moderators here are unusually rigid about paid content and would not let anything pass no matter what you do to comply with Wikipedia and its community guidelines and rules? Ashley.Bell (talk) 15:42, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

@AshleyBell208 really? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlexandraSarcletti (talk • contribs) 16:05, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

@AshleyBell208: I am not sure what you mean by 'unusually' rigid since it depends what is usual - are you comparing en.wiki to other language wikipedias? Or to other websites entirely? So, I can't really answer if editors are unusually rigid but I would certainly say that we are pretty rigid about paid content. Many editors and admins, myself among them, see the proliferation of paid content (even when suitably declared) as a substantial threat to the integrity of Wikipedia as a serious, balanced and unbiased encyclopedia, so it will tend to be reviewed very, very closely. To put another spin on it, you are making money out of doing what we do as a hobby, so you can't be too surprised if we hold you to a pretty high standard. As for whether editors will not let anything pass: no, I have not seen that to be the case. Plenty of articles do exist that have been created or edited for payment. As for flagging and tagging, a huge number of articles have some kind of tag on them so I wouldn't take that too personally and, as I say, paid articles are held to a high standard - just because you believe you have complied with all Wikipedia policies does not, I'm afraid, mean that others will agree. Indeed, I hate to say it, but by 'referring to other articles passed in the same category' you are in fact failing to be aware of a very useful Wikipedia essay called Wikipedia:Other stuff exists, so I wouldn't set too much store by that. Hug^syrup 16:08, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hello, AshleyBell208, and welcome to the Teahouse. The answer is mostly yes, and mostly no. Many, but not all experienced editors. and a number of admins do tend to be stricter than usual in assessing contributions from disclosed paid editors. Few would not let anything pass no matter what, and doing that, that is failing to approve (and instead declining or rejecting) a clearly valid draft, or declining valid edit requests properly supported by high-quality sources, would be in my view against policy. However, there is a wide range of judgement, of just how strictly to construe the various content policies, and as long as a reviewer stays inside that line, s/he may choose to be more strict with paid editors. It is a fact that paid editors often do exhibit bias towards there clients, and write overly promotional articles, or ones of dubious notability (although perhaps not more than fans of "up and coming" bands). The rule about a paid editor not editing directly in mainspace, and instead using AfC and paid edit requests is being enforced significantly more strictly now than nit was, say two years ago, and a lot more strictly than it was 10 years ago; back in 2010 it really was a "suggestion". By now I think it should be taken as a requirement. I may propose rewriting for clarity. (The exception is fixing clear vandalism, and correcting non-controversial factual errors, such as the name of a new CEO, or the spelling of the city in which a company has its HQ.)

I have read the msgs on your talk page, but I have not (as yet) reviewed your work, and cannot judge the quality of the article or the accuracy of the comments. I tend to be more sympathetic to disclosed paid editors than many admins, but even I normally advise people (if they ask) not to use such services. See WP:BOGO for an essay describing the views of some on this subject. See also my comments on the talk page at Wikipedia talk:Buy one, get one free#Oppose this concept. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 16:33, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Is this about the article with the title Nicholas Porter Earp. It seems to be more about the family history. Dbfirs 16:40, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

• @AshleyBell208: Although the question was asked generally, I looked at the particular case of Draft:Ibrahim_S._Quraishi_(visual_artist), which I assume to be the one which prompted the question. There were significant tone and copyright issues in former revisions; the current one seems fine on that front.

Unfortunately, that is not quite enough to have a Wikipedia article. First of all, all information needs to be properly verifiable, that is, cited to reliable sources validating what is in the Wikipedia article; I would usually not insist on this but one of the reviews specifically cited a failed verification. Furthermore, you need to demonstrate that the person is "notable", which means not "worthy of being noted" but "has been talked/written about at length by multiple independent and reliable sources". (In the case of artists, that is usually highly correlated with the criteria listed at WP:NARTIST.) Skimming through the sources, I see only the welt.de article that could rise to that threshold.

All in all, maybe the reviewers gave you a harder time because of paid editing status, maybe not; maybe the reason for the decline was incorrect, but declining was clearly the proper course of action. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 16:52, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Verification failed is pretty serious, that requires emergency fixes. Please use {{cite web}} for online references, free style without links doesn't cut it. I've added one URL to your references, you'll find millions of correct {{cite web}} references on enwiki, it's no rocket science. Also wikilink the publisher whenever possible, e.g., I know what Die Welt is, others don't, and without wikilink Die Welt looks like "yet another unreliable source". –84.46.53.221 (talk) 17:12, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

84.46.53.221, that is rather overstated. "Verification failed" is significant, but little more so than "citation needed". Sometimes it means that an online source has changed and no longer says what it once did. Sometimes it means that the would-be verifier made a mistake. More often it means that the editor who provided the source misunderstood just what the source actually supported. Sometimes it means that someone added additional statements that s/he thought correct but were not supported by the cite already in place. Unless the unsupported statement is a negative or controversial one in a biography (or other article about a living person), or a controversial quotation, it is not an emergency matter like a copyright violation. Few things are emergencies in Wikipedia editing, see WP:NORUSH. There is time to get it right, and we should. Also see WP:CITEVAR, templated citations are absolutely not required, and any attempt to require them is in direct violation of policy. A given article should be consistent in citation style, but a new draft can use any sufficient style the author pleases (bare URLs are not sufficient, but manual cites can well be). @AshleyBell208: DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 23:52, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Oh and there is no requirement that sources be online, or linked, or in English, or available free of charge. When this is easy it is generally preferable, but not at the cost of using a poorer source. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 23:55, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

@AshleyBell208: I'd like to stress the last paragraph in DESiegel's response above: more sympathetic to disclosed paid editors. Those who review new article content are particularly adept at recognizing promotional content because so much of it is submitted, it's not hard to recognize the pattern after about the tenth one (sadly, that might be 10% of the weekly volume)^{[citation needed]}. Regardless of disclosure, such content will in all likelihood be found and rejected. Disclosing paid status, though, will definitely earn some benefit of the doubt in close calls, and it's the "right" thing to do, too, if you care about the goals of Wikipedia (which is expected of you by the community of unpaid volunteer editors). —[AlanM1(talk)]— 22:25, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

TriArtisan Capital

Hello!

I am a finance student, and will be writing a few articles about private equity firms. Can you please help me with the draft for TriArtisan Capital?

I will also be writing about a few other middle market firms, too, and hoping you can help me write good articles! — Preceding unsigned comment added by WallStGuy (talk • contribs) 17:14, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

WallStGuy, As common courtesy, we usually provide a wikilink to the target article. I will do so for you: Draft:TriArtisan Capital MoonyTheDwarf (Braden N.) (talk) 17:21, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

When a draft has been Declined, that information is required to stay with the draft until it is accepted. The reviewer provided guidance on why it was declined. I restored your deletion of the Declined decision. The (volunteer) editors here at Teahouse advise on Wikipedia, but are not generally here to improve drafts. Except sometimes to cut stuff. Please use your experiences in trying to create your first article improve your understanding of Wikipedia before essaying other new articles. David notMD (talk) 17:28, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Hello, WallStGuy and welcome to the Teahouse. One thing to remember is that Wikipedia is basically completely uninterested in what the subject of an article say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. This means, for example, that the Nation's Restaurant News item, which begins "Investment firms TriArtisan Capital Advisors LLC and Paulson & Co. Inc. announced" is irrelevant to the draft Draft:TriArtisan Capital: the reference shouldn't be cited, and the information about P F Chang should not appear in the article unless you can find an independent source. (I have overstated the case slightly: in some circumstances, uncontroversial factual data like dates and addresses may be sourced from non-independent sources; but the bulk of the material in an article should be cited to independent sources, and anything which might appear to be promotional in character - including naming products, clients or subsidiaries - certainly should be). --ColinFine (talk) 18:19, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi WallStGuy - I made some changes to better help your article succeed and demonstrate that the firm is notable. If I were you, I'd beef up the history, including putting in coverage of their more notable acquisitions. Look at Toba Capital as an example. There's some good info here in reliable sources [[1]] [[2]] [[3]] [[4]] (last one is paywalled). You'll also want to start a user page with a sentence about your interests, so your name isn't redlinked. (Please remember to sign your posts on talk pages by typing four keyboard tildes like this: ~~~~. Or, you can use the [ reply ] button, which automatically signs posts.) TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:32, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

add external links on Cygwin page

How do I discuss how to better include the reverted references of relevant citations with the editor? 24.64.172.44 (talk) 19:48, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

@24.64.172.44: Use the articles talk page. Include a {{ping | user name}} at the start to show who you're talking to. Brian R Hunter (talk) 20:00, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. The article talk page is the place to discuss any improvements to articles that you are not comfortable doing by yourself. Interstellarity (talk) 20:00, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Ongoing issues

Hi All...

I keep making edits to reflect the necessary changes, yet no progress is made. (Also, somehow, something was deleted before approval, but I added it back.) I am more than a little confused about why something so basic (and so short) is causing such a problem. It woould be great to get some insight into this, and I appreciate those who might be able to help me.

Link: Draft:Lee_Olesky

(Wpearce1983 (talk) 22:59, 13 January 2020 (UTC))

Hello, Wpearce1983, and welcome to the Teahouyse. Actually, it is my impression that things are making progress with Draft:Lee_Olesky, and in fact it is getting close to the approval level. I just made a few edits, one to improve how a wiki-link recently added was used, and a couple to improv how citations are being done. Take a look at what I did, please, and try similar changes mon the other refs. While I wouldn't agree with one reviewer that basic early biographical data must be sourced -- that isn't what our verifiability policy says, it is often easy to source and it is good to do so if possible. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 00:28, 14 January 2020 (UTC)