Jump to content

Wikipedia:Teahouse: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
→‎Question: new section
Line 1,003: Line 1,003:


Thanks for the response, Hoary.[[User:GuyForceOne|GuyForceOne]] ([[User talk:GuyForceOne|talk]]) 04:51, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the response, Hoary.[[User:GuyForceOne|GuyForceOne]] ([[User talk:GuyForceOne|talk]]) 04:51, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

== Question ==

Hi! My question is that after reading the queries on Teahouse, I want to know how do I find the 'substandard' articles. Do I have to manually
search for them, or is there another way?( I know this question sounds silly, but responses are appreciated [[User:GuyForceOne|GuyForceOne]] ([[User talk:GuyForceOne|talk]]) 05:24, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Revision as of 05:24, 12 November 2021

Skip to top
Skip to bottom



Introduction

Hello, I'm a new user on Wikipedia. Can I make an article?. Regards 👻Casper𝙿𝚒𝚗𝚐! 19:18, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,
  • Casper: welcome to the Teahouse and to Wikipedia. The answer to your question is that you are permitted to try and do so; but in my view your question is a bit like "I have just started learning about building. Can I build a house?" Experience shows that when editors who do not have much experience in Wikipedia try to create a new article, they tend to have a disappointing and frustrating time. My advice - always - is to spend at least a few months "learning the trade" first. We have over six million articles, tens of thousands of which are seriously substandard: in my view you can add far far far more value to Wikipedia in your early days by finding things you can improve in some of these than by trying to "build a new house" of your own (when you probably don't yet understand how to build the foundations or even to survey the site for suitability to build on). When you you feel ready to move into creation, please study your first article. Happy editing! --ColinFine (talk) 19:30, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, ColinFine: Thank you for helping. 👻Casper𝙿𝚒𝚗𝚐! 19:34, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Casper is not yet Autoconfirmed (first edit 7 Nov), yet has created an article Horas Amang: Tiga Bulan untuk Selamanya. David notMD (talk) 02:39, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Casper is autoconfirmed. The age is counted from account creation 2 November [1] and not the first edit. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:36, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I sit corrected. I know the phrase is "I stand corrected." but I am sitting. David notMD (talk) 19:29, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why is there a wikipedia article on Nikkita Oliver?

I live in Seattle and vote. As such, I research people running for office in any way I can. I noticed that Nikkita Oliver- who recently lost another election here- has a wikipedia article but Sara Nelson- who is now the winner of the election for Seattle City Council- is not represented in Wikipedia. Since Sara's name is potentially more common, I did try to make sure that I just didn't see her, but indeed all the Sara Nelson's listed on Wikipedia are someone else.

I read the guidelines for a biography and I read Nikkita Oliver's biography. She is not notable. There is nothing in her accomplishments that is notable. For example, her claim to be a leader in BLM is at best questionable. Many people have made that claim only to have others in the movement dispute it. For example, she live-streamed a conversation with city officials and that is notable? It sounds vaguely illegal to me if done without their consent, and a form of trying to entrap or catch people saying something that could be interpreted out of context in a bad way. Many people in Seattle have run for office and failed and many people have contacted city officials to enact change. If all those people were listed that would be fair. I know people who waited in line for hours to address the city council but were not granted that request. The fact that Nikkita got the privilege of meeting with officials and gets the privilege of press coverage is truly unfair. The idea that she has done something notable is not borne out by the facts. My question is- why is Nikkita Oliver listed at all in Wikipedia? How do I nominate someone to be removed from Wikipedia. Ruth Berge 19:21, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Rberge0108, and welcome to the Teahouse. The answer to "Why is there an article about X in Wikipedia" is always "because somebody wrote it and nobody has successfully nominated it for deletion". On the face of it, the article appears to be well sourced, but I haven't looked at the references to see if they are reliable and independent of Oliver. If you are conscientiously persuaded that the subject does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability, then it is open to you, or anybody else, to nominate the article for deletion: see WP:AFD for how the process works. --ColinFine (talk) 19:38, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Rberge0108 Welcome to Tea House! In addition to what @ColinFine said, if you believe an article should exist, as long as you can establish Wikipedia:Notability or subject specific guidelines like Wikipedia:NPOLITICIAN you can create the article. I first checked Sara Nelson which is a disambiguation page, and from there found Sara Nelson (politician) which you are more than encouraged to expand! Also please sign your posts, by using four (not five) tildes; see Wikipedia:4TILDES for extra advice. Happy editing! ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 19:49, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know how to put in reference.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_B._Curtiss I need to know how to put in references to add that certain people who have bio entries on Wikipedia were protectionists, because the bland bios are not saying it. They are not making people see that there was a protection story. Can I please be instructed on how do I reference something so the truth can be known about Americans who were protectionists. CurtissSmith (talk) 10:59, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi CurtissSmith Before you try and add any such content to a Wikipedia article, please take a look at WP:RGW, WP:VNT and WP:UNDUE. In addition, might want to look at WP:BLPSOURCES (if the persons in question are still living), WP:NOTEVERYTHING and WP:CAUTIOUS for reference as well. If the content you’re trying to add is considered contenious by other editors, you may have establish a WP:CONSENSUS to add it through article talk page discussion even if it can be reliably sourced. — Marchjuly (talk) 11:15, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Help:Referencing for beginners on how to. You embed the ref in the text and the ref program automatically numbers it and places the ref in References. I have found that creating a reference in my sandbox until I get the format right, and only then paste it into the article, is a good habit. Also, if there are people who are already the subject of Wikipedia articles, their names within double brackets name creates a link to those articles without the need for a ref. David notMD (talk) 15:02, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Inferring from your comment at User talk:Rotideypoc41352#Question from EzraCyrusmerleCarey (11:53, 8 November 2021): a friendly reminder to please put the names of any other accounts on your userpage and stick to one account. Thank you! Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 15:53, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback confirmation

I was about to ask for the revocation of rollback rights due to having concerns that the lag I am experiencing when using the web browser version of Wikipedia may cause accidental clicks of the rollback function when browsing the history logs of articles. The problem is that, by default, the rollback function is lacking a preview mode/confirmation dialog that would prevent such accidents when there is a lag. Therefore, and until these web browser performance issues are addressed, I am trying to find a solution to this. While reading this page here: [2], it came to my notice that there is a script created exactly for this purpose: [3] and I just followed the instructions and created this here: [4] but, this is unusual for me, I am not sure I did right, or if I have missed something. Does really the Wikipedia Project function that way? By creating new pages just to configure the behavior of a gadget for a certain user? Thank you. - SilentResident (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 03:58, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

common.js (and common.css) are indeed the pages/files that allow users to add many customisations to their MediaWiki experience – you can find out more at Common.js and common.css (which links to more documentation) ClaudineChionh (talkcontribs) 04:09, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fascinating. Thank you! --- SilentResident (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 13:01, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Claims of “original research”

I added the film Legends of the Fall, a movie known to be, and described in the article itself as being “about three brothers and their father,” to the category of Father and son films. A user reverted my edited and wrote on my talk page, “It's not clear to me on what basis you categorized this as a 'father and son' film, especially as I don't see any real discussion of that dynamic in the article.” When I replied that it’s public knowledge the film centers on father and son relationships, the user claimed that my application of film categories based on the plot description and poster rather than any sources qualifies as “original research.” I’ve only been editing articles here for about a year, but does adding a film to a category when the article’s own plot description contains the elements of that category count as “original research”? I don’t place films in categories if they do not fit the described category. If the user is correct, was the addition of the movie Beethoven to the “Films about dogs” category considered “original research”? Spectrallights (talk) 05:16, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I know nothing about this film (other than what I skimread today). Or indeed about most films in Category:Father and son films. But it seems to me that (i) a huge number of films would have, as major characters, fathers and sons (I mean, of each other), and (ii) there really aren't many films in the category. So imaginably the category is (rightly or wrongly) only being used for films that are described as primarily about father–son relationships, and that it's not obvious to at least one editor that this film qualifies. (If so, this surprises me, as categories usually seem to err on the side of inclusiveness.) Well, if the film is known to be “about three brothers and their father”, then presumably you'd be able to cite/quote a review (several of which are linked) that says this. -- Hoary (talk) 07:30, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your help. Can you explain what you mean by those categories are usually inclusive? Does it mean the interpretation of those categories are understood to be broad? It appears that user is very particular about that film and its respective categories, as I have categorized over 100 films in a similar manner and the only “complaint” I have received is from that user for that movie alone. -- Spectrallights (talk) 05:21, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Examination

Hello. Tell me how to submit an article for review? Nikeek (talk) 07:33, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy: Nikeek has created a draft in User:Nikeek/sandbox. David notMD (talk) 07:51, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to Wikipedia! You can read about the steps to create an article, and you are strongly advised to read your first article as well. It's also a very good idea to spend some time on other tasks here before creating a new article, which is one of the more difficult tasks in Wikipedia. ClaudineChionh (talkcontribs) 07:53, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sandbox content copied to Draft:Klepikova Svetlana Arkadyevna and submitted to AfC. David notMD (talk) 15:15, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikeek and David notMD: Moved to Draft:Svetlana Arkadyevna Klepikova and did some light copyediting. Also tagged a section with no references. GoingBatty (talk) 15:31, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How to remove “needs update” on wiki page

Hello i have tried to remove “needs update” on a wiki page but idk how please help. Thank u! 178.22.207.254 (talk) 07:40, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Which article? David notMD (talk) 07:42, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to the Teahouse! If you're referring to the [needs update] in Tetra Pak, I see you recently provided 2021 data without providing a reference for that data, so David notMD reverted your edits. You can remove {{update inline}} when the 2017 data and its reference has been replaced with 2021 information. Thanks for asking, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 15:36, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Urgent Request for Recovery

My teammates and I used Wikipedia for presenting our university article, so that everyone could have access to the content and even they could modify them under the topic of decentralised and distributed archives. Is there anyway to recover it? 188.189.240.163 (talk) 07:45, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This query is the only edit made by IP address 188.189.240.163. Did any of the 'teammates' create an account that shows a history of working on a draft or article? Was it given a name? After working on it, did people click on "Publish"? Because that means Save. David notMD (talk) 07:53, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Are translations fine?

I guess 50 of my articles are just translations from French Wikipedia and rest are mostly stubs I made on my own. Is Wikipedia fine with translations or it discourages it? Excellenc1 (talk) 08:37, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A faithful translation is no better than the original, and an unfortunate fact is that a huge percentage of Wikipedia articles are pretty bad (or really bad). Their problems include mis-citations: confidently implying that such-and-such assertions are presented in this or that source, when in reality they are not. Do you check that the cited sources actually say what they're presented as saying? If the original is good, and you are conscientious, okay; otherwise not. And of course see Wikipedia:Translation. -- Hoary (talk) 08:50, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For me when it comes to translations, I try to find topics and articles that are already decently sourced in other language Wikipedias. That way, I know that when I translate them for English Wikipedia (which has more stringent guidelines on sourcing and notability) that there is a better chance of it staying. Bkissin (talk) 14:23, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Hoary: I mostly do my own research for translations. Just sometimes, if I don't find a source, I rely on the sources in the original article. Excellenc1 (talk) 15:37, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Excellenc1 In short, not only is it absolutely fine, it is very much encouraged!
The more complicated answer is, each language Wikipedia has their own standards for notability of subjects, sourcing etc... for example German Wikipedia has stricter standards than say English Wikipedia. As an editor who may fall upon one of your translated articles, while knowing it is translated may be helpful (and required for licensing), I will solely review/edit it based on what I see inside the enwp (English Wikipedia) namespace. English Wikipedia does allow non english sources, as evident by the thousands of articles in Category:Articles with non-English-language sources. It does make it harder for other editors to review an article, but is often necessary for niche/regionally specific topics. I for one, am a huge fan of connecting intra-language articles and wish I spoke more languages. Happy editing! ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 19:27, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So I think I can conclude that translations are very much accepted till they abide by the guidlines (reliable sources, verified translation etc.) Excellenc1 (talk) 05:41, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How to reply to an editor.

Please tell me how I can reply to comments by an editor. I find this site almost impenetrable.

Liffernet (talk) 08:41, 9 November 2021 (UTC) Liffernet (talk) 08:41, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here I am, replying to you, Liffernet. You asked a question; I answer it (I hope) below, indenting the reply. (I indent by using one more colon to start a line than you used. You used none, so I use one.) If on the other hand you're asking about the content of a reply ... well, please elaborate here a little. And are the comments in an article talk page or on your talk page? These are straightforward; by contrast, comments on a draft do present some complications. -- Hoary (talk) 08:50, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Liffernet At Preferences > Beta features > Discussion tools you can enable a tool that makes it easier. WP:TUTORIAL can be of help. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:57, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Answered on your Talk page. David notMD (talk) 14:44, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Help Me

 LalMalMax (talk) 11:36, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, do you have a question about editing Wikipedia? ClaudineChionh (talkcontribs) 11:40, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What help do you need, LalMalMax. All you seem to have done is add unsourced information about an actor called SobuJ Ahmed to lots of articles, and to attempt to remove the record of Sockpuppet investigation from User:BalPakna2021. By a remarkable coincidence, BalPakna2021 made repeated attempts to create an article about SobuJ Ahmed (with the same weird capitalisation). Are you a sockpuppet of BalPakna2021? --ColinFine (talk) 11:50, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked as sock. David notMD (talk) 19:23, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draft: Oswald George Powe

Hi friends, I'm working on the page below, the biography of a deceased person.

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

I've leaned heavily from two sources that are written by his daughter and his wife. I'm worried about the neutrality of those sources. I don't need them to establish notability, that is already done, but still, have I relied on them too much?

All/any help on this or any other aspect of the draft is welcome.

CT55555 (talk) 13:05, 9 November 2021 (UTC) CT55555 (talk) 13:05, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Removed the subsection titles and reordered content David notMD (talk) 15:11, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

tizen problems

 41.114.159.26 (talk) 13:23, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, is there a question we can answer for you? --Jayron32 13:37, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How to use tools for a post

How do you use the different tools for a post on Wikipedia? MagicalWinx (talk) 15:23, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@MagicalWinx: Welcome to the Teahouse! If you're asking for resources to learn how to edit Wikipedia, I recommend Help:Introduction and The Wikipedia Adventure. If not, please clarify your question. Hope this helps, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 15:49, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What's trending

Is there a Wikipedia page that shows a list of articles most viewed on that particular day? Like the 'trending videos' on YouTube? Excellenc1 (talk) 15:35, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Excellenc1: You may be interested in Wikipedia:Top 25 Report, which is a weekly report. Happy reading! GoingBatty (talk) 15:51, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@GoingBatty: Thank you! Also another question, not related to this: If suppose I edited an article such that its quality is probably increasing, how do I ask someone to review it to change the quality in the talk page? Say for example I improved Departments of France, currently rated C-Class. If I made it a Good Article, how do I know I did; how do I know it's not B-Class? You get me? Excellenc1 (talk) 16:22, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Excellenc1: There's a nomination process before an article can be considered a Good article. Lower assessments are more informal - you can reassess yourself or contact the related WikiProject (e.g. Wikipedia:WikiProject France/Review). Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 16:35, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Refs that prove an entire "section"

Hello! So in my second sandbox I'm currently working on improving the table that's currently on Euro Truck Simulator 2 and I'm not quite sure what I should do with the refs. They're originally there to prove specific parts of the description of the map DLC, however since I'm simplifying it to just show what countries were added/improved I've just been moving the citations to the end of the last country added. Would this be the best thing to do here or is there a better way to do this? ― Blaze The WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 15:37, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you're talking about the table in the "Awards" section, I think that ref is correctly put there. Lightbluerain (Talk | contribs) 17:11, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Lightbluerain: I'm referring to the one under map expansion packs. ― Blaze The WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 18:00, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Lightbluerain: I know the table for rewards is fine, i'm talking about the table under map expansion packs. I'm changing it to just mention what countries were added/improved in the update and I'm unsure if where I"ve moved the refs to in that table is correct. ― Blaze The WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 19:07, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Blaze The Wolf, if I were to make the table, I would put the refs at the "Name" entity itself when the ref proves the entire paragraph in "County" or "Date" entity. Lightbluerain (Talk | contribs) 18:03, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) @Blaze The Wolf: Looking at User:Blaze The Wolf/sandbox 2#Map expansion packs, here are my thoughts:
  • Ref #17 lists an intended release date. I suggest replacing ref #17 with an independent source that states it was actually released on 20 September 2013.
  • I suggest removing ref #18, as it is an announcement of intent and does not show what was actually released.
  • Ref #19 looks to be in the correct place, as the source mentions all 4 countries.
  • Ref #20 appears to be misplaced, as it isn't discussing the 2013 update. I don't know where this belongs.
Is that what you were looking for? GoingBatty (talk) 18:09, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yep that helps! Thanks! ― Blaze The WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 18:50, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also I'm just removing Ref #20 completely as the only place it would belong would be a section I removed per WP:NOTCHANGELOGBlaze The WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 18:53, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confusion of the "Infobox television" template in/on articles

Hi Teahouse, Barbie Dreamhouse Adventures is a streaming TV series which thus uses the "Infobox television" template. But I looked across the "last_aired" parameter and it stated that "If such a program has not aired a new episode in 12 months, "present" can be changed to the date the last episode aired, using the "End date" template. Why then do I see "present" on its infobox when the series ended more than the said "12 months" prior/earlier, i.e. on April 12, 2020? The films/movies derived from it (which are stated in this section) are spin-offs from that series. Fooliard (talk) 16:16, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Fooliard, and welcome to the Teahouse. Why does an article contain out of date information? Because you haven't updated it! (and nor has anybody else). If you can find a reliable published source for the last broadcast date, you can edit it and insert the date in place of "present". --ColinFine (talk) 16:36, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@ColinFine:, that's the problem! If it was/were a non-Netflix prodcution or a regular TV production, the source would have been there or provided, but it isn't! Unless, maybe I add that link which is related to that release. I've checked on search engines for it since seeing that "present" and that exact link isn't there! So much for citing/referencing something which has no citation ― even if it is/was archived and/or existed! I also fear an experienced user may link me to an edit of a blocked/banned user because I would edit in a likeable manner like that user ― that WP:BOLD article may force me to leave Wikipedia!! Fooliard (talk) 21:01, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mario Diaz Balart Page

I recently edited Congressman Diaz Balart page to include the fact that he voted against the Infrastructure Bill, that would provide hundreds of millions of dollars to his state of Florida in areas such as roads and bridges repairs, and to bring the Internet to poorer areas. I cited as my source the New York Times that published on November 5, 2021 a roll call of all votes for the Bil. However my Editing was removed and I am being called disruptive . I really do not understand whhy. Chalaju (talk) 16:34, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Chalaju: Welcome to the Teahouse! While one of your edit summaries mentioned the "New York Time", you did not include the information about the specific NYT article in your edit as a footnote. You should not repeat your unsourced edit again and again. If you would like to learn how to add a reference, you may be interested in WP:EASYREFBEGIN. Or, per the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, you may discuss it on the article's talk page: Talk:Mario Díaz-Balart, with the URL of the NYT article or the information about the printed version (e.g. article name, date, author, page number). Thanks, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 16:41, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Hello, Chalaju Your edit to Mario Díaz-Balart was not a neutral summary of what happend, but editorialising in tone, so somebody reverted it. Then instead of discussing the issue, you reapplied your edit: that is called edit warring and is a kind of disruptive editing. It is almost certain that the information you want to add can be added, but you need to reach consensus with other editors about how it is worded. Please read neutral point of view, and WP:BRD. --ColinFine (talk) 16:44, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm new so want to make sure this is not a COI

I work for The Violin Channel, so want to flag this and ensure I am not breaching anything.

We did this video interview with Blake Pouliot and he said in it: "I'm absolutely obsessed with Ella Fitzgerald". I think this is a very interesting fact about his character, with him being an accomplished classical musician, and would like to add it to his article and and cite that point in the video.

Wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blake_Pouliot Youtube video where he says it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=buXFVAASHQQ (at 19 seconds).

The potential conflict is, this is a Violin Channel interview.

Blake does not work for us in any way, or has not, or never will pay us. I am also not doing this as a traffic driving exercise.

I've been updating and fixing many violinist's pages the last few days, but to this point never linked to any of our sources. But our site is referenced hundreds or thousands of times on Wikipedia already by others. Violinchanneljohnjohn (talk) 16:57, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Violinchanneljohnjohn! I really appreciate how careful you're trying to be about this. You've disclosed your conflict of interest on your userpage already, which is great - You can also do that using the template at Template:UserboxCOI. As long as you've done that, you should be totally fine adding that as long as you properly cite it. One thing to be aware of, however, is that one of the reliable source guidelines we have says that websites that mostly have user-generated content, like YouTube, are generally considered unacceptable (WP:UGC). If you can link to an article on your actual site, that would be preferable to linking the YouTube video itself. Happy editing! :) ThadeusOfNazerethTalk to Me! 18:30, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The entry for YouTube at WP:Reliable sources/Perennial sources says, "Content uploaded from a verified official account, such as that of a news organization, may be treated as originating from the uploader and therefore inheriting their level of reliability." Since the YouTube video was posted by The Violin Channel's official account, it should be OK to cite it. Deor (talk) 19:09, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Violinchanneljohnjohn: While it may be OK to cite it, a person with a COI should not add a citation to an associated source. Propose it on the talk page and let others decide. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:32, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Anachronist Are you basing that on WP:COIEDIT's suggestion that editors run all possible COIs through talk? I'm not sure that this meets the criteria, since Violinchanneljohnjohn doesn't have a COI with the article subject, just the source. My initial answer was based on WP:SELFCITE, which indicates that it's acceptable as long as its not given undue weight. ThadeusOfNazerethTalk to Me! 22:22, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@ThadeusOfNazereth: No, I am basing that not on the article subject, but the fact that one can have a COI with a source. Regardless of SELFCITE, citing oneself just looks bad and typically gets reverted as far as I've seen it happen. Proposing your own link on the talk page is just good practice. Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should. There should be no rush for a COI source to be cited. There are no deadlines here. ~Anachronist (talk) 07:03, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Attention

Is there a way to get attention of new page viewers in a draft? BruhOfficial (talk) 17:04, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse! Why do you want to get their attention? Do you need any help? Lightbluerain (Talk | contribs) 17:15, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Lightbluerain: I thought you might want to know that BruhOfficial is a Confirmed block evading sock awaiting a block. Best, M.Bitton (talk) 17:35, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus change

How can I request a consensus change on a talk page? There is this article which I believe has been violating Wikipedia's manual of style; I brought up the issue on its talk page more than two months ago, and after a failure to discuss have sought other alternatives (which ultimately led to no result) and the editor who contested the change has stated that they've taken the article off their watchlist, so no chance of further discussion. It's a pretty complex issue and I would really appreciate some advice. Do let me know if concrete details would be helpful. Coconutyou3 (talk) 17:38, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Coconutyou3. The Request for comment process may be helpful, because it draws uninvolved editors into the discussion. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 17:59, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

sheffield

 2.26.61.32 (talk) 17:56, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello IP! Did you have a question that you wanted to ask us related to editing Sheffield? ― Blaze The WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 17:59, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Attribution

I believe the page Miss International Queen Vietnam is partially or wholly translated from VI Wiki (with at least some copyedits). Should this attributed and, more importantly, how should it be attributed? I’m having difficulty finding this information in what I thought would be relevant policy pages. Thanks! :-) postleft ✍ (Arugula) ☞ say hello! 18:12, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Postleft! Yes, translated material should be attributed. The relevant page is a bit difficult to find since it isn't at WP:TRANSLATION, its at Help:Translation. If you check the first section of that page, called "License Requirements," there's an edit summary template and a template to add to the very top of the page as well. Happy editing! :) ThadeusOfNazerethTalk to Me! 18:21, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thank you!! postleft ✍ (Arugula) ☞ say hello! 18:24, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Postleft @ThadeusOfNazereth That is confusing indeed! I WP:BOLDLY updated WP:TRANSLATION to more conveniently reference Help:Translation and encourage you both to make content changes that would have helped you find it more easily. The two pages possibly could be merged to reduce WP:ASTONISHMENT ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 19:06, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, that is very helpful! postleft ✍ (Arugula) ☞ say hello! 19:38, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sheriff Woody article

Hello there fellow wikipedians, I’ve been working on the article Sheriff Woody a lot recently and I’m just wondering if someone can check over the work I have done to make sure I’m doing things right. I would really like someone to look over the section development specifically. I’ve been looking at the article Elsa (Frozen) to help me with examples on what I should add and get rid of. Kaleeb18 (talk) 18:25, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Kaleeb18 Welcome to Tea House! I looked over your edits and they look like improvements to me! I noticed this was your second question about the article on Tea House, and would encourage you to continue seeking feedback directly on the relevant talk page Talk:Sheriff Woody in this case. I'd also encourage you to read the essay WP:Other Stuff. The available sources, WP:V information will differ for every article. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 18:56, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I was just using Elsa (Frozen) as a guideline of what my writing should somewhat look like I also used WP:DISNEY character guideline. Kaleeb18 (talk) 21:13, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I recently posted the above referenced article. I would like to ask if it is actually considered orphan, given that there exists within numerous links to related Wikipedia articles. The following template message is placed above the article:

"This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page. (Learn how and when to remove these template messages) This article is an orphan, as no other articles link to it. Please introduce links to this page from related articles; try the Find link tool for suggestions." (November 2021) Tonymartin (talk) 18:25, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Tonymartin: hello Tony! The article would still be considered an orphan because it's not linked to by any other articles on Wikipedia. You can use Special:WhatLinksHere/ARTICLENAME to see what pages link to a specific page. The WhatLinksHere for the article you linked (seen in Special:WhatLinksHere/Donald Arthur Hatch) shows a log for the editorial team, your userpage, a subpage of your user page (Which redirects to the article), and the article's own talk page. ― Blaze The WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 18:31, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Tonymartin, hello and welcome to the Teahouse, yes the article was an orphan but it no longer is, as I have de-orphaned it. Furthermore you may want take a look at both WP:REFB & WP:CITE. Celestina007 (talk) 18:38, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Possible Situation

While I have not come across any of these, I believe some may exist. There might be some articles that are old and forgotten (don't ask me how), and the last edit was over years ago. And it might have spelling errors, or maybe you just want to help and improve it. Either way, the page is protected, and you can't edit it to do whatever. So what would you do if this happened? Do you contact an admin or somebody? Do you just wait for the person to respond to you? Or create a new page? 68.50.116.194 (talk) 19:00, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Evert article has a talk page. If you want to edit a protected article, you can post to the talk page of that article and make suggestions for edits. If nobody reacts to your talk page post in a couple of weeks or so, you can always ask here again. --bonadea contributions talk 19:10, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to Tea House! It's always encouraged to solicit feedback/discussion on the talk page, especially on protected articles. You can alert other editors to review your edit requests by using the template {{request edit}}. If you have follow up questions, you can reply here or ask a new question again. Happy editing! ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 19:16, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Many articles talk pages list the WikiProjects that are interested in that article. A posting on the talk page of the Wikiproject can also bring attention to issues with a particular article. Mjroots (talk) 12:50, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Shushugah: Note that {{request edit}} is to be used when the requester has a conflict of interest. The documentation at Template:Request edit states "For edits to a semi-protected page, see Template:Edit semi-protected. For edits to an extended-confirmed protected page, see Template:Edit extended-protected. For edits to a template-protected page, see Template:Edit template-protected. For edits to a fully-protected page, see Template:Edit fully-protected." Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 16:57, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Very new to this

I actually have no experience with computers. I am ready to learn but finding it difficult to get a start. I am actually interested in research and would like to work with wiki with some companies that are affiliated with wiki I think. I don't know I was manic when it came across for me to read. I would like to research child predators and start a project to reach out to children and teens. Teach parents how to promote healing environment for them etc. But I'm guessing if there's already one you can point me in the right direction. I wouldn't mind editing and helping where I can. I've just spent most my life in the search for advancing myself for this purpose, I'd like to work in that arena 😅 Down4it4ever (talk) 20:06, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Down4it4ever: welcome to Wikipedia. I'm afraid Wikipedia is not the place for the kind of project you propose. Wikipedia is not a place for advocacy or to "reach out" to any group of people to help them. However, if you are interested in editing Wikipedia's articles, there are many ways to help out. You'll find some tutorials here. Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 20:15, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Down4it4ever, hello and welcome to the Teahouse, to expound on what my colleague Bonadea already told you, if you are looking to understand what Wikipedia is then please take the Wikipedia WP:ADVENTURE & feel free to read WP:TUTORIAL also. You mentioned also that you do research work, I’m afraid Wikipedia has a policy against original research being on any article. You can contribute to Wikipedia by reading WP:CTW. Furthermore Wikipedia is not a WP:FORUM. Take a look here; WP:NOT to show you what Wikipedia isn’t. Celestina007 (talk) 20:20, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Linking Sources?

How do I link a source about a sentence or paragraph without making a separate area? Lancelincoln214 (talk) 20:08, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Lancelincoln214 You might also like to read WP:REFBEGIN. I'm afraid I'm not quite sure what you mean by "separate area". All inline citations are inserted immediately after the relevant statement, and both appear as a superscript number at the end of the relevant sentence/paragraph, whilst the full details are displayed within a separate area at the bottom of the page, titled 'References'. This requires a special template ({{reflist}}) to be inserted into that section which makes all the inline citations appear together there. Hope this helps. Nick Moyes (talk) 21:42, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Seeking Guidance on Editing Diana Nyad Entry

I would like to help clean up the Diana Nyad WP entry, but I'm not sure where to start or even if I ought to. I'd very much appreciate some guidance.

I have devoted much of the last six years to unearthing information about Nyad's career. Much of what I've found can be unflattering to her. I have lots of opinions about Nyad. However, I have no interest in sharing those opinions in the edits. I'd just like to help get things right. The facts need no help from me.

Still, if I edited her page, would that be considered a conflict of interest? Here are my two Nyad sites:

  1. Diana Nyad Fact Check
  2. Diana Nyad Fact Check Annex

Here are a few (but not the only) examples of problems in the introductory paragraph of the Diana Nyad entry:

  1. Citation [3] links to an article that no longer exists on the NY Times site. However, you can still find it at AP News.
  2. "In 2013 . . . she became the first person claiming to have swum."
    Peculiar construction, though I'm not sure how I'd fix it.
  3. [The Cuba-Florida swim] "has not been formally ratified by any recognised swim body."
    This is no longer technically true. In 2019, Steven Munatones, Diana Nyad's main supporter in the marathon swimming community, edited Nyad's Openwaterpedia entry to retroactively ratify her crossing under the auspices of the World Open Water Swimming Association (WOWSA). Munatones founded and remains the driving force behind both Openwaterpedia and WOWSA. The ratification contradicted a statement he made two weeks after the feat: "Diana's swim was . . . off-the-grid, with no organization regulating it. The classification of her record may never be resolved."[1]
  4. "Nyad was also once ranked thirteenth among US women squash players."
    Even if this were verifiable, does it belong in the introduction? And the sole source — Ahead of Their Time: A Biographical Dictionary of Risk-Taking Women — contains multiple conspicuous errors. Other references to Nyad's squash ranking, including two from the dictionary's own Nyad entry, give it as 12th.[2] Others give 14th.[3] Many websites give 30th, though that's probably a mix-up with 13th. I've searched for the actual rankings without success. IMO, any statement that relies solely Ahead of Their Time for verification should be excluded. Examples of other problems with Ahead of Their Time:
    • The first sentence — "For a decade Diana Nyad held the record as the best marathoner in the world for both distance and speed" — would be too vague to be verifiable even if it weren't false.
    • "Her father died when she was an infant." Diana was born in 1949. William Sneed died in 2015. He'd changed his surname to "Blake," though, so this can be confusing.[4] Diana's entry included her biological father's premature demise until December 24, 2013. Ahead of Their Time was the source.
    • "Nyad practiced both sports [swimming and squash] with the hope of competing in the Mexico City Olympics in 1968." As far as I know, Nyad never held a squash racquet until well after 1968.
  5. Reference [4], "Nyad Completes Cuba to Florida Swim," does not address the ratification issue in any way.

 


Two problems from the first paragraph of "Early Life and Education," and then I'll stop.

  1. At some point, an editor added that Nyad's biological father, William L. Sneed Jr., was a stockbroker. The editor gave no source. Ahead of Their Time is the only source I know of for the stockbroker "fact." The reference given at the end of the sentence, the Social Security Death Index, doesn't give Sneed's occupation.
  2. Regarding "Charlotte N. Winslow, the inventor of Mrs Winslow's Soothing Syrup." The question of who concocted the stuff is a fascinating but far-from-settled issue. Not to mention that the given reference only provides the partial name, "Soothing Syrup." The reference says nothing about its inventor. Most sources hedge. For example:

So getting back to my original question: Would it be reasonable for me to begin editing Diana Nyad's entry?

Thanks! Danslos (talk) 20:32, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Danslos Welcome to Tea House! Without having looked in depth at the sources/suggestions you've made, I'd recommend making {{Request edit}} suggestions on the talk page, one edit at a time. You have a strong agenda and your edits are more likely to be well received if you do not edit directly. There are exceptions for example demonstrably false information that violates WP:BLP (she's alive from what I can tell) and blatant vandalism. There are some relevant WikiProjects you could seek feedback from as well, like WP:SWIMMING. Happy editing! ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 21:15, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Danslos to be more direct, yes there is a Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, even if it is not necessarily paid, so as I suggested earlier, make {{request edit}}'s on the talk page. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 21:19, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Shushugah, thanks for your responses. Would this apply even to more benign sorts of edits like repairing the link to the no-longer-existent NY Times article (which lives on at AP News). Danslos (talk) 21:36, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:COIU does say that editors with a conflict of interest may make unambiguously uncontroversial edits such as repairing broken links. I would think you could make this particular change if you are absolutely sure it is the same article – and, looking at the date and aponline in the NY Times article, I suspect it is. ClaudineChionh (talkcontribs) 21:54, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Robertson, Linda (September 18, 2013). "DIANA NYAD: FROM HAVANA TO KEY WEST 'We did it squeaky clean'". Miami Herald. pp. 1, 2. Retrieved November 8, 2021 – via Newspapers.com.
  2. ^ Greenspan, Emily (March 1985). "Out of the Water and Onto the Airwaves: The Obsessions of Diana Nyad". Ms. 13 (9). Internet Archive: 74, 76–78. Retrieved 9 November 2021.
  3. ^ Hummer, Steve (4 June 1978). "Nyad Will Bow Out After 'One More Magnificent Swim'". Fort Lauderdale News and Sun-Sentinel. Retrieved 9 November 2021. She is now the 14th-ranked squash player in the country.
  4. ^ "Nationwide Gravesite Locator". U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. Retrieved 9 November 2021.U.S. Dept. of Veteran's Affairs: National Gravesite Locator https://gravelocator.cem.va.gov/ngl/ngl

Thank you!

To everyone who’s spent time answering my questions and helping me out with my first article, a million thanks! I managed to get my first article accepted thanks to all your feedback and guidance. Elenatina (talk) 21:29, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Elenatina (talk) 17:01, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Elenatina Congratulations. Creating an article (as you've probably now realized) is not an easy task. So, well done. Onwards and upwards! Nick Moyes (talk) 21:33, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Elenatina great work! I'm excited to see what you do in the future. :D Amazing job! WaterflameIsAwesome (talk) 01:58, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Elenatina: Hey no problem! I'm technically not a Teahouse host, however I do occasionally answer questions when I Feel I can give a good and accurate answer. I enjoy making newbies feel welcomed on Wikipedia because it makes Wikipedia seem more friendly and less like a place where everyone is super serious all the time (which isn't always a bad thing, but makes Wikipedia seem a bit... endearing to new users). Also for future reference, using the Template:Ping (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) template will notify users, although I'm not sure if that was what you did here or not since I probably missed this notification.Blaze The WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 15:37, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, @Blaze The Wolf:, you won't have been notified, because Elenatina did not sign the relevant post. See Help:Notifications. --David Biddulph (talk) 15:45, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ah ok. That makes sense, didn't realize that wasn't part of the same post. (although I am curious why sinebot didn't sign it afterwards) ― Blaze The WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 16:54, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Elenatina: I see you just added a signature to the pings. That still won't ping the users as it requires the ping be added along with the signature at the same time. ― Blaze The WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 17:07, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Special thanks to @GoingBatty, @David notMD, @Blaze The Wolf, @Mikehawk10, @Anachronist, @Maproom for your time reviewing and editing the article and all the awesome hosts on the teahouse who make newbies at home in the Wikipedia world. Elenatina (talk) 07:15, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mikehawk10 (talk) 07:22, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That did indeed work for the pings. ― Blaze The WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 14:10, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

how to create a wikipedia page

please friend i need a help in creating my wikipedia page please help me David Osmond (talk) 22:54, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Courtesy link: User:David Osmond/sandbox
What is your connexion with School Boy Husler (talk · contribs)? —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 23:00, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Status: DO's Sandbox Speedy deleted for G11 (promotional) and image at Commons deleted. David notMD (talk) 02:13, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Assistance with verification

Hello, my name is Uma Sori and I am originally from Monrovia and am a direct descendant of Prince Abdulrahman Ibrahim Sori (Prince Sori). I was privileged to meet two of my cousins from the United States at an event honoring my Great Great Grandfather Prince Sori. A reference to this event can be found in the documentary "A Prince Among Slaves". I have tried numerous times to add the names of my cousins Dr. Artumus Gaye the son of the famous football(soccer Player Bourba Gaye and who was also shown in the movie with Karen Chatman. In the year 2018 Gaye and Chatman both met with the leaders of Morocco, Monrovia, and the United States Congressional office stating their claims of Royal lineage. Although no Government such as the US where Chatman is a citizen can demand a Title; she was recognized as an Heir to Prince Sori and as his direct descendent along with Gaye.

My intent was to create individual pages for Gaye and Chatman as they are leading the initiative of informing the world of Prince Sori's story and existence. Black American history is often not documented or committed from the history books. I would like this community to assist me with the correct way to reference both Gaye and Chatman to ensure our family legacy is not lost.

I thank all readers and contributors, it was not my intent to take over or add erroneous facts, but the stories are ours to tell as my family and my US family from Natchez were left behind as Prince Sori sailed to freedom unable to take what he loved most with him.

Please assist me if possible. Uma Sori 2600:1700:FB5:81B0:606D:4611:7EC5:8447 (talk) 01:39, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Abdulrahman Ibrahim Ibn Sori exists. There have been additions and reverts going back more than three years - heated up recently - as to whether Gaye and Chatman, his great-grandchildren, deserve mention in the article. Given that they are not themselves subjects of articles, my opinion is no. (That he left children behind - yes; about their descendants - no.) Other editors may disagree. The proper place to try to reach consensus is the Talk page of the article. There, an editor has requested page protection, which would block people without accounts from editing the article. David notMD (talk) 02:31, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Help with "Lie (NF Song)" page

I am trying to get some info right in the Lie page. The page says it was released on April 17th, 2018, when it's album, Perception, was released on October 6th, 2017! This is very confusing. I'm not really sure how to approach this. Can someone help? WaterflameIsAwesome (talk) 02:06, 10 November 2021 (UTC) WaterflameIsAwesome (talk) 02:06, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Change the sentence in the Lead to "...was released as a single..." Singles are often released after albums. David notMD (talk) 02:33, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@David notMD: But what would be the point of releasing it again if it already was on the album? ??? WaterflameIsAwesome (talk) 02:42, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WaterflameIsAwesome To make more money. Often, an album is released, one or more of the songs rise in the charts, and those are released as singles for people who do not want to purchase the entire album. Sometimes the other way - a single becomes a hit and is then released on an album. These practices make more sense in the era of physical vinyl records. David notMD (talk) 03:02, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@David notMD: oh I see. I had only heard of the second way before so I didn't understand. Thanks! For some reason though, some sources point to it being on a different date, like for instance, Alexa says it was released on October 6th, 2017, for whatever reason. Alexa gets a lot of release dates wrong though, no wonder it's the dumbest among the three smart speakers. A site, rateyourmusic.com, says it was released on March 18th, 2018. And, to make it even more interesting, NF released it on his Soundcloud a day prior to the album, on October 5th 2017. So I'm not really sure what the actual release date it. Hmm... anyways, thanks for your help. WaterflameIsAwesome (talk) 22:46, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My submission has been rejected twice; but to me it meets criteria #1 for notability of musicians

Can someone look at draft:Ichon and explain why it does not meet criteria #1 for notability of musicians? I cite three publications that devote entire pieces to the musician, including one of the largest daily newspapers in Switzerland.

I just don't see where the article falls short -- so your thoughts on how to improve it are welcome. Thanks!

Jayintheusa (talk) 03:45, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Refs 1, 2 and 3 are interviews. Wikipedia does not accept interviews as confirming notability. Ref 4 confirms he performed at an event. Ref 5 is his discography. So, nothing so far. Find more. David notMD (talk) 04:01, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Jayintheusa, and welcome to the Teahouse. Please understand that Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost entirely interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources. --ColinFine (talk) 10:55, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to you both for your explanations!

Jayintheusa (talk) 02:30, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Are online dictionaries reliable sources?

I was going to try to add a source to a page, but I don't know if either Dictionary.com or Wiktionary are reliable. Thanks! Michael.Ringo (talk) 03:25, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It depends – see Primary, secondary and tertiary sources and Dictionaries as sources for some considerations. ClaudineChionh (talkcontribs) 03:36, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wiktionary is not a reliable source, it is user generated content. RudolfRed (talk) 03:56, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Help me! I would like to create a Wikipedia page but I am not a programmer.I need someone to help out

 41.223.76.61 (talk) 07:50, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Try the Article Wizard. ––Formal 🐧 talk 07:51, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm afraid your question is a bit like "I want to build a house but I'm not a builder. I need someone to help out" - except that, where knowledge of building is necessary to build a house, knowledge of programming is not necessary to create a Wikipedia article. What is necessary, however, is a substantial understanding of many of Wikipedia's policies. My advice to any new editor who has the idea of creating an article is to put that project aside for at least six months, and spend the time "learning the trade", by making small improvements to some of our six million exiting articles. That way you can start adding value to Wikipedia straight away, and minimise the disappointment and frustration you experience, by not trying to take big steps before you understand the small ones. Most people who try to create an article before they have an understanding of what that entails have a very frustrating time, and often in the short term put negative value into Wikipedia because of the time that experienced editors have to spend sorting out the problems they unwittingly cause. When you are beginning to understand the requirements for a new article, you can rad your first article. --ColinFine (talk) 16:13, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How do I lock an article?

I just got my first article published and I’ve seen edits to it that aren’t notable and it might lead to vandalism unless someone keeps an eye on it. Also I noticed users removing stuff which is substantiated with references. Either way it’s bad. How do I lock the article? 

 Elenatina (talk) 08:51, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Elenatina you can ask for protection at WP:RfPP. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:27, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång Thank you! Spot on! This was exactly what I was looking for! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elenatina (talkcontribs) 09:38, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Elenatina However, assuming this is about Jonathan Roumie, per a quick look at the edithistory this month, you won't get it at this point. "Worse can happen" is not a reason they'll accept. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:43, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång Well noted! The article just got accepted a few days ago and maybe there needs to be more wrong edits to subsantiate my claim for protection. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elenatina (talkcontribs) 09:48, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Elenatina: yup, and also you'll need to remember that WP is a collaborative encyclopaedia. There is no concept of locking as such; the article you've written will remain, like all WP articles, open for further improvement by other editors, who will add things, take things away, change your wording. If you disagree with a change, you can of course revert it, but you should discuss this at the article's talk page, or at least in edit summaries. If you just undo everything anyone else does without explanation, it will cause friction. Elemimele (talk) 09:56, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Elenatina, please understand that sincere disagreements over content are not deliberate vandalism intended to harm, and that despite your having originated the article, you do not own it, are not the sole arbiter of what should or should not be in it, and should not edit war over other's additions, corrections or deletions to it. Instead, please participate in the standard Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle procedures.
(This mostly reiterates what Elemimele has already said above, but adds links to the relevant Wikipedia policies and procedures, which you should study.) {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.205.225.31 (talk) 11:57, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And chiming in as an administrator regularly working in protection-requests: please have a look at our protection policy. The article wouldn't get protected, because essentially there is not enough disruption. Lectonar (talk) 12:07, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Elenatina: Welcome to the Teahouse! Please use the article's talk page - Talk:Jonathan Roumie - to have discussions with other editors about the content of the article to come to consensus. Thanks, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 20:58, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Promotional vs Facts from a Neutral Viewpoint

I recently wrote my first article. I did not understand notability, encyclopedic style and a lot of other things and after a lot of feedback I managed to develop the article to a point where it got accepted. I noticed that after it got accepted, parts of my article which was already there before the article acceptance was removed by citing promotional fluff. And now I've got a twinkle tag for the article being promotional. (I haven't add anything to it for a long time before I left it to review)

Where do we draw the line between being promotional vs factual? Is there something concrete we can bank on?

Elenatina (talk) 10:03, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations on getting an article accepted, and don't be discouraged; but also note (as mentioned in the previous section) that Wikipedia is a collaborative encyclopedia. This means that everything is a work in progress, nobody owns articles, and subsequent editors may identify concerns that were not identified by the article-for-creation reviewer. If some portions of text or sources are called out for being 'promotional', have a look at Reliable sources, if you haven't done so already. And while we try to be generally encouraging and helpful in the Teahouse, the article's talk page is usually the best place to discuss specific issues. ClaudineChionh (talkcontribs) 10:32, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Elenatina, this edit, which perhaps is one of those that you are referring to, removed a sentence starting "He donned the sandals of the character of Christ for the first time". My guess is that this means no more than "He first played Jesus"; I'm sorry but, whatever the intention, it does rather sound like Variety-speak. It's better to avoid metonymy and the like and instead be concise when writing articles. -- Hoary (talk) 11:19, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Courtesy link: Jonathan Roumie TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 12:40, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain better your sources?

 Sevilha2015 (talk) 12:09, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse Sevilha2015. It's not clear what sources you mean. Are you looking for WP:Reliable sources?--Shantavira|feed me 12:33, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Problem with city (town) name in China; Xiaocao'ezhen or Xiaocao'e, what are the rules?

Dear all, A few days now I have some trouble with a member of this society with a page on this English site, the page is Xiaocao'ezhen (or Xiaocao'e), the name of a town in China. Communication is a problem and I have sugested to talk over the talkpage, but that does not work up till now. What are the rules for naming a city, town or village on this Wikipedia site? Where can I find the real name as prove of authenticity? JCBS (talk) 12:38, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Courtesy link: Xiaocao'e TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 12:42, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Arno Jacobs: From the edit summary, you’ll need a better source than Google Maps, which can be crowdsourced. I suggest if you can find a source, start a discussion on User talk:Yinweiaiqing. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 12:49, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. On the official site of the government of Yuyao stated every time 小曹娥镇 (Xiaocao'ezhen) when they refer to the town, here is the link to the page of their government: http://www.yy.gov.cn/col/col1229143566/index.html , the link is also on the Xiaocao'e(zhen) page. Wouldn't that be not prove enough? What more prove can I get? JCBS (talk) 13:15, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Arno Jacobs welcome to Tea House! Regardless of what article name is decided in the end, having redirects from all the different spelling variations/names makes sense and including the different names. I'd be happy to help with that if you want. In general for article names WP:COMMON applies (commonly used names as opposed to official subject names in English), and a geography specific flavour of this policy is Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names). For an iconic example, see the multi year discussion about Danzig vs Gdansk naming Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2005-02-21/Gdansk or Danzig. Happy editing! ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 15:50, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to Shushugah's comment, doesn't mean "town" or "village"? It's possible that it's not included in English when being translated because of that. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 16:27, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
means town, 小曹娥镇 translation is "Small Cao E town". It can be that the town part does not count in English, I do not know. Small Cao E is a young girl of 13 years old, for me the term "zhen" (town) belongs in the name of the town, you can't apart them. Looks rather silly if you say you are in Small Cao E, there must be a further explanation with town. But I am no debater and will end the discussion and leave the page as he want to have it, without town in the title JCBS (talk) 18:10, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Article for myself

I want to write a article about this person. which is mentioned in below link. if possible then please let me know how I can write it. Kanwarpartap Singh 2409:4055:182:CA21:D1E8:ADC2:2D58:C53 (talk) 12:59, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for asking rather than just trying to do so. You could certainly draft such an article (read WP:YFA and use WP:AfC) but based on the sources I could see in the search engine you linked there is little or no chance the draft would be accepted into the encyclopedia because there is no evidence he is WP:notable in the sense used here. There are over 6 billion people on this planet and most of us are not notable. Hence we use Social Media or sites like Linkedin to communicate. WP:NOT pretty much covers this. Note that autobiography is even less likely to succeed, as it would be difficult to write in the neutral tone required. Why not contribute to some of our existing articles instead? You'll find that's a much more satisfying experience. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:20, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

why is that my article getting deleted?

When I have made sure that the content is reliable and the particular person is notable it is still getting deleted. It is not a article about myslelf. Please be specific while giving the answer. Preethi Mohan Film editor (talk) 14:15, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Preethi Mohan Film editor Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. You say the draft is not about yourself, but your username would suggest otherwise. 331dot (talk) 14:19, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you're talking about Draft:Preethi, the explanation on the draft as to why it was deleted is pretty clear: "Unambiguous advertising or promotion: self written vanity page". - X201 (talk) 14:22, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Courtesy ping to @Jimfbleak: - X201 (talk) 14:24, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
331dot, thanks, I'll post further guidance at her talk page Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:40, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Should I add information about teachers who worked for a school under a 'Controversy' heading?

I'm editing information about Cutler Bay Senior High, a high school in Miami, Florida.

I noticed that there were numerous news articles related to the high school describing two teachers who were faculty at the school being arrested for separate reasons.

  • The case of Bernardo Osorio, a former teacher at Cutler Bay Senior High accused and convicted of sexual assault[1][2]
  • The case of Alphonso Thomas, a former athletic director at Cutler Bay Senior High accused of stealing more than $3,000 from students for at least two years[3]

Should I add information about these cases to the school's Wikipedia page? Cadenrock1 (talk) 14:56, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Cutler Bay Teacher Admits to Sexual Relations With Teen Student". CBS Miami. CBS. CBS Local. February 3rd, 2017. Retrieved November 4, 2021. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  2. ^ [hhttps://www.nbcmiami.com/news/local/ex-cutler-bay-senior-high-teacher-convicted-after-inappropriate-relationship-with-student-denies-being-the-aggressor/131674/&usg=AOvVaw3I-CL-VWdKucwv6m7Dqo2S "Ex-Cutler Bay Senior High Convicted After Inappropriate Relationship With Student; Denies Being the Aggressor"]. NBC. NBC Miami. February 3rd, 2017. Retrieved November 4th, 2021. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |access-date= and |date= (help)
  3. ^ Burke, Peter (October 26th, 2016). "Cutler Bay athletic director accused of stealing from student-athletes". Berkshire Hathaway. Local 10. Retrieved November 4th, 2021. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |access-date= and |date= (help)
As neither of these people have articles on Wikipedia (although there is one on a deceased Alphonse Thomas) I would say "no", because they and their offences are not WP:notable enough. However, other editors here may disagree and the correct place to discuss this is at Talk:Cutler Bay Senior High School, as I see you have started to do. Incidentally, mere allegations of an offence would be unlikely to reach an article about a person, per WP:BLP policy. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:55, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to Tea House @Cadenrock1 @Michael D. Turnbull if there is no conviction, do not include it per WP:BLPCRIME and even if there was a conviction, if it's a one time event Wikipedia:BLP1E may apply as well. Thank you for asking, and happy editing! ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 17:00, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome! Also, you have to think about whether, overall, the article then truly reflects the school. Does inclusion of these create an undue impression that the school is particularly famous for having scandalously bad behaviour on the part of its staff? If it's just a normal school where a few teachers have been convicted of awful things, but this is not a general reflection on the school's history, present and accomplishments, I would not be keen to include much, if anything, on controversies. If the school made major headlines as a hotbed of scandal but is otherwise completely unknown, i.e. the school is notable only for being scandalous, then you must include a section on the controversies. Elemimele (talk) 17:23, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Cadenrock1: Criticism and controversy sections are generally discouraged. The main consideration is WP:NOTNEWS. Most schools have regular controversies of one sort or another, but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia rather than a newspaper, and our goal is to summarize information of historical importance rather than to provide detailed coverage of every controversy. Think about whether or not someone ten or even fifty years in the future would find the level of detail provided on an incident appropriate in a several paragraph—length account of the school's history, and keep it only if so and only at a reasonable length, merged into the overall history section. Hope that helps! Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}}talk 18:05, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rules of this page

are joke questions allowed on this board? since i dont exactly want to vandalize anything, i felt like it might be good to ask first. Apexelite3303 (talk) 15:08, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not that Teahouse hosts have no sense of humor, but the purpose of this page is to reply to queries about how to be better Wikipedia editors. David notMD (talk) 15:16, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In other words, technically yes (They won't be considered vandalism), however it tends to be seen as a waste of time as it takes time for volunteers here to answer your joke question when that time could be used for a new user with a question that is not a joke. ― Blaze The WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 15:20, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Apexelite3303, hello and welcome to the Teahouse, jokes aren’t necessarily disallowed but the problem with “joking” here is that it tends to distract us from the core aim of the Teahouse. The purpose of the Teahouse is to provide assistance for editors who require our aid when in doubt or want to learn something new as stated by my co-host David notMD and joking about here does us a disservice as it takes up valuable time that would have been used for other productive purposes. Celestina007 (talk) 15:29, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting incorrect editing changes

Hello. I've come across edits to my work, deletion of content, in an article that are not called for and seem to reflect in the short explanations of why they were made a lack of in-depth knowledge of the particular subject matter by the editor. I don't mean that unkindly, but the information that is deleted is based on documented and published research that is new to the larger subject matter. I can go through the deletions and Undo them (though the deletions were not accompanied by deletion of related footnotes and the whole reference section is out of sync), but the reasons for my Undos can't be simply explained in short descriptions, nor do they lend themselves to the larger subject matter without taking the article off track.

I can find no way of directly addressing the editor involved, and I suppose that I could just Undo the problem without explanation, but that would invite starting the process all over again.

Advice? Or a method I'm not aware of. I've gone through the deletions and documented the deleted material to be restored for my own purposes, but it's a several page document which I will retain in my file for this article.

Thanks Vabookwriter (talk) 16:32, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Vabookwriter, hello and welcome to the Teahouse, could you be so kind as to express yourself better? That is, can you just ask precisely what it is you want help about in fewer words? Celestina007 (talk) 16:43, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Vabookwriter This seems to be an ideal case for starting a discussion on the talk page. You will have all the space you need there to explain your position, but I highly encourage you to be succinct. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 16:46, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Vabookwriter: is this to do with editing at Commonwealth_War_Graves_Commission, where Labattblueboy (talk · contribs) disagreed with a paragraph you added about how US citizens had been returned to the US for burial? If so, it looks very much like a content dispute between two editors both of whom feel they are well-informed, and who disagree with the other. The correct thing to do in the first instance is to discuss on the article's talk page. If you make sure you use a template that refers to Labattblueboy by name (as I have here), they will be informed that you've mentioned them, and can respond if they choose (you can also post on their talk-page, but this has the enormous disadvantage that any other editor who gets involved in that article will be unaware of the discussion). If you still can't agree, there are various further options, such as seeking a third opinion and requesting expert attention. Elemimele (talk) 17:17, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vabookwriter (talk) 17:24, 10 November 2021 (UTC) Thank you. Succinct: when an editor comes along and deletes content incorrectly, how do you reinstate it without starting the process all over again. In a normal exchange reasons and documentation would be offered, but there seems to be no mechanism for doing that. Now you've given me a method. I'm relatively new here. That's helpful.Vabookwriter (talk) 17:24, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

how make page

How do I make my own page? I want to make something on my own and I don't know how AmongNutBaby3426987523 (talk) 17:37, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(talk) 17:47, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@AmongNutBaby3426987523 Welcome to Tea House! If you're considering writing a brand new article, please read WP:YFA, but know that article creation is one of the hardest things you can do. We usually tell newbies to edit existing articles to gain experience before attempting to create a new article. Wikipedia is also collaborative, so as @Victor Schmidt mobil said, no one has exclusive Wikipedia:Ownership of content. Happy editing! ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 17:49, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
AmongNutBaby3426987523 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Creating a new article (not just a "page") is the hardest thing to do on Wikipedia. It takes much time, effort, and practice. New users sometimes fail in their first attempts and get frustrated and angry that things they don't understand happen to something they spent hours on. This it why it is highly recommended that new users first edit existing articles, to get a feel for how Wikipedia operates and what is expected of article content. Using the new user tutorial will help too.
However, if you still want to create a new article now, please read Your First Article, then go to Articles for creation to create and submit a draft. 331dot (talk) 17:45, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Help

@Shushugah Thank you for elaborating. Could you inform me about other information? All I want to do is write an article about a small game and explain how it works, the items, etc. I'd appreciate it if you could help me more. I joined yesterday, and I thank you for your hospitality.

 AmongNutBaby3426987523 (talk) 18:06, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AmongNutBaby3426987523 What you have described here is exactly what Wikipedia is not. Creating information based on what we know is considered original research, and is forbidden. All content needs to be referenced. If you intend an article about a computer game, look at existing articles as examples. David notMD (talk) 18:19, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

David notMD So essentially, you just take information from the internet and put it on Wikipedia? Also, I have already searched for the game in question and have found nothing.

Absolutely not, AmongNutBaby3426987523: you take information from reliably published sources. These may be, but do not have to be, on the internet; but they must have been published by somebody with a reputation for editorial control and fact checking: not blogs, personal websites, wikis, iMDB. Material published by the subject or someone very close to them can sometimes be used to support uncontroversial factual information (see PRIMARY) but the bulk of the sources should be wholly unconnected with the subject. If there is little or no such reliably published independent material, then the subject does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability, and no article is possible. --ColinFine (talk) 18:28, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not press releases by the company that created the game, not interviews with the programmers who wrote the code, etc., etc. David notMD (talk) 19:19, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Wikipedia is not a place to just tell about something. 331dot (talk) 20:37, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AmongNutBaby3426987523 (talk) it may help you to read Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not in order to learn about what is (and is not) a good Wikipedia article. Karenthewriter (talk) 22:14, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Circular citation

Help!

The main source for the first two sections ("Divisions" and "Subdivisions") of the article "Great chain of being" is

Baofu, Peter (2012). The Future of Post-Human History: A Preface to a New Theory of Universality and Relativity. Cambridge Scholars Publishing. pp. 211–212. ISBN 978-1-4438-3836-8. which in turn cites "WK 2011"

Unfortunately, said "WK 2011", from which both article and book quote liberally and literally, turns out to be the selfsame article "Great chain of being", in its 2011 incarnation (eg [5]). Worse, the vast majority of the material there isn't directly attributed. So this snake is swallowing its own tail with a vengeance.

Generally, the main source for that version seems to be

Arthur O. Lovejoy (1964) [First published 1936], The Great Chain of Being: A Study of the History of an Idea, Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, ISBN 0-674-36153-9

To see whether the material originates there, I picked the sentence "In the family, the father is head of the household; below him, his wife; below her, their children" and tried fulltext searches in that work for the whole thing and then for each of the nouns, "family", "father", "head", "household", "wife", "children", to no avail at all.

Now what?

- 89.183.221.36 (talk) 18:11, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this is a very interesting problem - Oftentimes when there's problems with self-referential citing, its obvious (a Wikipedia article directly citing Wikipedia), but this is hidden in legitimate academic literature. Kudos to you for finding this! Ideally, the best thing to do is to try and verify the existing information before removing it. It's likely that there are plenty of other sources out there discussing the idea of a "Great chain of being," so hopefully some of that literature will support what's in the article as-is. If it doesn't, then we would want to remove the unverifiable material. Because the book with the circular citation may still have useful information on the source, Template:Failed verification will be useful here to get the attention of editors who focus on this issue as well. I've taken the liberty of adding this - Please add more if I missed anything! ThadeusOfNazerethTalk to Me! 22:04, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And a quick note here - While the source "verifies" the information, because it's looping back to Wikipedia itself, my understanding is that WP:CIRCULAR kicks in and we should attempt to find something else. ThadeusOfNazerethTalk to Me! 22:07, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Legitimate academic literature" is what a company name like "Cambridge Scholars Publishing" superficially suggests, anyway. The content of the work wasn't really up to scratch, however - the portion I looked at, at any rate, pretty much consisted of a bunch of long passages lifted from Wikipedia, held together by the bare minimum of original connective tissue. AFAIK, that would be considered unacceptable in a school essay, which makes me think that none of the labels "legitimate", "academic", and "literature" may actually apply here.
The article on the company isn't too complimentary, either. Plus, I tried a Wikipedia search for the author, "Peter Baofu", in the meantime, and apparently he published an entire series of works with that "future of this, new theory of that" theme.
And alas, in at least one other case, the pattern I spotted above repeats: The article "Connotation" contains the claim that "in logic and semantics, connotation is roughly synonymous with intension", which was originally unattributed, then tagged as needing an attribution, then attributed to "The Future of Post-Human Semantics: A Preface to a New Theory of Internality" (titles courtesy of Postmodernism Generator, surely), which contains not just that claim but the complete paragraph and points straight back to the article.
It occurred to me that this might be akin to product placement, with someone connected to the author or publisher adding these circular cites to the articles in order to draw attention to their books. After tracking down the edits responsible for the first handful of hits, though, it's different editors in each case, so it doesn't look like it's quite as dodgy as that.
Still, quite the tangle!
- 89.183.221.36 (talk) 00:01, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Film Forum

Hi Happy TeaHousers! Could someone please point me in the direction of the Film Forum here at WP? I just wrote my first film (stub) article and I'm running up against a few obstacles that I didn't think I was going to run up against and wondered if there may be a WP film editor that may assist me in a few pointers - or - if there is an editor here that has edited articles on films, maybe they could take a quick jaunt on over to the page and lend a few pearls of advice. Voices (1995 film) Thanks! Maineartists (talk) 18:38, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Maineartists: You might want to check out Wikipedia:WikiProject Film and see if there are any interested editors in that WikiProject willing to take up your request. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 18:51, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Tenryuu Hey! Thanks a lot! I'll give it a try! Maineartists (talk) 19:10, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Creating an artist page for a Singer Songwriter

How does one create a wiki-page of a living musician? 72.89.201.156 (talk) 18:55, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

By first looking for newspaper, news magazine, or music magazine articles (from outlets with strong editorial oversight that fact-checks, discloses, and retracts if need be) that have no direct connexion to the subject or their surrogates. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 19:05, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:YFA guides the process in general, and Wikipedia:Notability (music) specific for musicians, but as just pointed out, reliable source references for all content is critical. If you cannot find refs, no amount of writing craft will succeed. David notMD (talk) 19:16, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Need help getting a page created and approved

I have sent in multiple drafts for a page I want created. After the last submission was declined on September 21st I submitted the article again with additional sources. Many of these sources are big publications with articles specifically about the subject. I have still not heard back.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Charlie_Dixon_(television_executive) Chaseklein7790 (talk) 19:50, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You just need to be patient. Lots of pending reviews, and few reviewers. "This may take 2 months or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 2,101 pending submissions waiting for review. " RudolfRed (talk) 19:54, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) @Chaseklein7790, hello and welcome to the Teahouse, following the comment left by the afc reviewers it appears the problem is the article doesn’t meet WP:SIGCOV. What you want to do is to be patient, there isn’t any deadline to submit an article, for now just keep gathering sources and including them in the article. If you want, after adding sources to the article you can leave a message on my own talk page asking me to review it for you and I would accordingly. Celestina007 (talk) 19:57, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How do I create a page for a topic of interest

How do I write a wikipedia page for a topic I am interested in? Ericp 300 (talk) 20:33, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ericp 300 ello and welcome to the Teahouse. Creating a new article (not just a "page") is the hardest thing to do on Wikipedia. It takes much time, effort, and practice. New users sometimes fail in their first attempts and get frustrated and angry that things they don't understand happen to something they spent hours on. This it why it is highly recommended that new users first edit existing articles, to get a feel for how Wikipedia operates and what is expected of article content. Using the new user tutorial will help too.
However, if you still want to create a new article now, please read Your First Article, then go to Articles for creation to create and submit a draft. 331dot (talk) 20:38, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How do you correctly format a collage for an article

So my collages for articles like Walsall and Barnsley got reverted by @David Biddulph: who said I formatted and added a wrong caption and reverted them. Can someone on here please take the time to show me how to correctly format a collage and it's table with the photos used etc.

Thank you DragonofBatley (talk) 20:45, 10 November 2021 (UTC) DragonofBatley (talk) 20:45, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding for traditional use is one photo in the Info box, and then a gallery inserted elsewhere in the article if more images are warranted. David notMD (talk) 23:22, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
David notMD, the article Paris (for example) has what might be called a collage in its infobox, and I doubt that people would complain about it (although they might of course disagree on which photographs it should include). Lower down in the article Omsk (as another example) we see a couple of what are called galleries (cf the name of the relevant tag). I don't think that collages are galleries, or vice versa. (I leave it to somebody else to respond to the original request.) -- Hoary (talk) 23:36, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
DragonofBatley - MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE states "Images must be significant and relevant in the topic's context, not primarily decorative." You've been doing this for some time (adding - or seeking to add - montages) and, ferinstance, at your home town's article in February 2021 placed conventionally within prose (the edit summary stuck with me). I think this revision was/is overkill (I haven't looked for a long time), also see WP:NOTGUIDE - not a travel guide. For clarity, I am not a Teahouse volunteeer.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 23:48, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am corrected. Not just Paris, but also London, Moscow, Washington DC, Buenos Aires... have multiple photos in Infobox. David notMD (talk) 01:38, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The way to "correctly format" a collage is to be acccurate, to identify the images in the correct order and avoid typos in the caption, and to check and re-check ones edits. PamD 21:23, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, question do you know how to request name change of article? Birhanu Zerihun should be Berhanu Zerihun as most sources indicate, and how the name Berhanu usually are spelled for people from Gondar. Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 21:40, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Dawit S Gondaria, hello and welcome to the Teahouse, can you show me sources that refer to the subject by the latter name? Secondly, has the article been moved from a different name to another in the past? If so then it has become controversial and you might want to go to TP of the article, notify major contributors to the article and try and reach a consensus there, if that fails then you might want to go to WP:RM and initiate a conversation there. but if it wouldn’t be considered a controversial move, then you can even move it yourself using the move function insofar as you have reliable sources that show the latter to be his WP:COMMONNAME. Celestina007 (talk) 22:16, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Dawit S Gondaria The wikidata item links to Berhanu here and this Google search shows almost all the references are to Berhanu Zerihun, so this seems uncontroversial. I'll therefore make the move in a few minutes. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:16, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Done thanks for pointing this out, Dawit. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:25, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you!! @Mike Turnbull Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 22:47, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Adding that a reference is in a different language

I'd like to know how to add the note that says that the source is in a different language (for example: (In German.), (In Spanish.), (In Swedish.)) when you hover over it. I've been experimenting a bit trying to get it to work but it's late and I'm tired and I can't seem to work it out. Any help with this would be appreciated, thanks. TylerBurden (talk) 22:21, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sure! Use the appropriate citation template, and add language= followed by the two-letter language code or the language name, and (if possible) trans-title= followed by the title translated to English. ClaudineChionh (talkcontribs) 22:29, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot! I'll be sure to save this so I can use it later. --TylerBurden (talk) 22:39, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to help! There are so many types and options for citation templates, it can be quite overwhelming. ClaudineChionh (talkcontribs) 22:53, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is the topic "Autism in China" notable?

Dear Wikipedian community:

I've just joined Wikipedia and I wish to write a separate article on "Autism in China".

I wish to do this because on Wikipedia, there's only a few sentences of information about the situation of autistic people in China, and Asia in general (check the section "Asia" in the article "Global perceptions of autism"" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_perceptions_of_autism)

Therefore, I think it will be beneficial for others if I start an article. But I wonder about the community perspective if it's a notable topic to warrant a separate article before going. Thanks!

thumb Ha.susulat (talk) 23:14, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ha.susulat, you raise two important points. One of them is: Are there reliable sources that discuss it in depth? (If you're not sure, then try listing what you consider are the best three.) The other is that you appear to have no experience of working on existing articles. Doing so is relatively straightforward. With no experience such as this, you're likely to find creation of a new article very difficult. So first choose an article or two that seems deficient in some way and about which you have reliable sources, and improve these. -- Hoary (talk) 23:28, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Ha.susulat Off the top of my head, it would be strange if you couldn't find WP:RS about "Autism in China" to satisfy the demands of WP:GNG. Since the topic is human health, the sources need to be high quality, see WP:MEDRS. From what I can see at Category:Autism by country, for some reason there are no country specific articles. You may want to ask for input at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Autism. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 23:31, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Your draft Draft:Autism in China looks quite promising. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:58, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]


@Gråbergs Gråa Sång Hi! I'm not sure if you are able to see this message. Thanks for your reply, those are very helpful! I have been making the draft since last night. Would you like to go over it? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Autism_in_China — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ha.susulat (talkcontribs) 20:09, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

how to remove a notice at the top

Hi. I'm new to wikipedia. I was wondering - how does one remove a template message on the top of an article, once the problem is solved. thanks! YHC-Fan (talk) 00:10, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@YHC-Fan: Welcome to the Teahouse. If you're in source mode, you can delete the code (it'll be a word or phrase enclosed in double curly brackets like {{example}}); in visual editor mode, you can just click on the templated message and press Del on your keyboard. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 01:24, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@YHC-Fan: - but be sure to address the issues before deleting the template. If you think the template shouldn't be there, delete it, but post an explanation on the article's talk page. Mjroots (talk) 12:57, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay thank you so much! — Preceding unsigned comment added by YHC-Fan (talkcontribs) 22:32, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

About using a tool

Hello. How can I use this tool? I've installed this. But it doesn't work! Thank you. Richard M William (talk) 02:43, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Richard M William: The MOSNUM dates script becomes active when you go to edit an article – the links will then appear in the sidebar under Tools, as seen in the screenshot. Did you try editing an article with this script installed? ClaudineChionh (talkcontribs) 02:53, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@ClaudineChionh: Yeah. I've tried in an article. But didn't work. Richard M William (talk) 03:26, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Richard M William: First, be sure you bypassed your cache. Next, go to the article and click the "Edit source" tab. Then click the "DATES to dmy" or "DATES to mdy" link. Then you should see your changes, which you should carefully review before clicking "Publish changes". The official place for bug reports is Wikipedia:Date formattings/script/MOSNUM dates/bugs. When filing a bug report, it would be helpful to provide the name of the article you tried to edit, and what you saw when it didn't work. Hope this helps, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 03:43, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unsure what the next step would be

Hi! I was trying to do some simple edits for practice and was looking to add some links to an underlinked article. I came across the article Menlo Report and on reading through just the first couple of paragraphs thought that the language used was a bit off. I noticed the use of "we expect" in one sentence, which made me suspect it had been copied & pasted from somewhere. When I copy and pasted that sentence into Google, it came up with the actual Menlo Report[6], and I noticed that someone had indeed copied & pasted directly from the Executive Summary of this report in their construction of the intro to this Wiki article.

So, my question is, what would my next step in correcting this be? Or how do I indicate my suspicions to a more experienced editor (other than in here, I suppose, but I suspect that there's a dedicated space for this)? Pteridaceae (talk) 04:42, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey - me again. Just wanted to add that I also noticed that several edits to this article were made by a user named ICTEthics, whose only contribs[[7]] are on this article. The Menlo Report involves ICT (Information & Communication Technologies) Ethics.. and this seems to suspicious to not be a COI in some way. Again, I'd ask what to do in such situations! Thanks :) Pteridaceae (talk) 04:48, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for helping out! WP:COPYVIO suggests adding the {{copypaste}} template to the article, bringing it up on the article's talk page, and maybe also reporting it to WP:COPYPROB. ClaudineChionh (talkcontribs) 05:11, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! ClaudineChionh! To report it to WP:COPYPROB - do I just add the article to the list of the corresponding date? Pteridaceae (talk) 08:17, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CPI (on the same page) has the instructions and templates for reporting a suspected violation – you will need the article name and the URL that you suspect it was copied from. I've never reported a copyright issue myself so I'm just reading the instructions. ClaudineChionh (talkcontribs) 09:23, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much for your help! I'm still finding some of these aspects of Wikipedia a little overwhelming so I truly appreciate the guidance. Take care ClaudineChionh. Pteridaceae (talk) 10:57, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome! It really can be overwhelming but we're here to help. ClaudineChionh (talkcontribs) 11:09, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Renee Victor

Hello:

I am a seasoned professional editor, but have only once made a contribution to over six years ago and it was a very brief addition to an existing article. I am now trying to turn a stub into a fully realized profile of over 2,000 words and while trying to do this on the fly in the midst of my efforts, I was directed to a lengthy troubling and complicated notices.

To wit: 1) Please do not draft new articles here—to do that, create a userspace draft. This is your user page, a place to introduce yourself to other editors to help them understand your contributions. It is not a personal website, and may be deleted if used inappropriately. Please be mindful of your privacy when deciding what to share here. 2) Wikipedia does not have a user page with this exact title. In general, this page should be created and edited by User:Mikehmac1949. To start a page called User:Mikehmac1949, type in the box below. When you are done, preview the page to check for errors and then publish it. 3) A page with this title has previously been moved or deleted. If you are creating a new page with different content, please continue. If you are recreating a page similar to the previously deleted page, or are unsure, please first contact the user(s) who performed the action(s) listed below. 04:44, 6 November 2021 Fastily talk contribs deleted page User:Mikehmac1949 (U5: Misuse of Wikipedia as a web host) (thank)

I’m flummoxed troubled and don’t know what to do. I've hit a brick wall. These messages have an accusatory tone as if I’m trying to do break some rules. Please help.

I need to get these changes made yesterday!

Thank you. Michael McCla Mikehmac1949 (talk) 04:50, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Mikehmac1949, you already have a draft at User:Mikehmac1949/sandbox on the same topic. It is too promotional and will likely be deleted if you try to add that material to Renée Victor. If you are being paid to expand the article (which is not the actor's profile, as you call it), you must declare your conflict of interest as instructed at WP:PAID. Then, you should make edit requests on Talk:Renée Victor proposing well-sourced changes (I recommend small incremental changes; I would expect an inexperienced editor to never be able to propose acceptable large-scale changes on articles they've been paid to beef up). You should also publicly declare all your past accounts that have worked on this topic; User:Mikehmac49 appears to be one. Finally, you should optimistically expect it to take months to expand the article as changes will have to be reviewed by volunteers on their own schedule. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 05:12, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Mikehmac1949, judging from the first sentence of User:Mikehmac1949/sandbox, you have difficulty writing in the neutral, factual style expected of Wikipedia articles. If you need to promote the subject by yesterday, you should use some other platform, such as Facebook. (and no, you're not trying to break some rules, you're just blundering about and breaking them anyway – hence the warning messages.) Maproom (talk) 10:17, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Eternals is in RealD 3D and 4DX like 100% of all Disney MCU movies. Can someone please edit it in?

 StarHakimi (talk) 05:07, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The best place for this question is the talk page of the relevant article/s. ClaudineChionh (talkcontribs) 05:22, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why can't I upload my picture?

 – Added section heading – ClaudineChionh (talkcontribs)

 Hero Hasan (talk) 05:21, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hero Hasan, where or how did you obtain your picture? Where did you try to upload it? Maproom (talk) 12:07, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hero Hasan Welcome to the Teahouse. Looking at your user page I think you would find it helpful to read Wikipedia:User pages Wikipedia:Autobiography and Wikipedia:Images.--Shantavira|feed me 12:14, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Hero Hasan: your upload was blocked by an automated filter. You tried to upload a small resolution (720x960) JPG file as a new user. Since such images are often copyright violations this was prevented. MKFI (talk) 13:56, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

About Expanding Articles

Hi! I am quite a newcomer to Wikipedia, and I would like to know the opinion of experienced editors on this topic. When you are working on expanding an article that has little to non-accurate information, what is better, do a large edit at once, or add information on shorter edits for tracking the changes easily? Thank you Mvcervi (talk) 05:32, 11 November 2021 (UTC) Mvcervi (talk) 05:32, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Mvcervi: It doesn't matter. Some like to do a lot at once to not break their train of thought; others like to do many small edits to not lose their work. What ultimately matters is the quality of your resulting content.  Ganbaruby! (talk) 08:59, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Mvcervi Welcome to Tea House! Policy wise, both are acceptable. I think the more controversial or widely edited an article is, the more preferable it is to make smaller edits, so other editors can review them in isolation and revert specific edits without undoing the positive contributions of other edits. Happy editing! ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 10:21, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notes?

What is the difference between using letter noting like [a] and number noting like [note 1]? is there any? The Tips of Apmh (talk) 05:46, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's useful but not mandatory to group notes for citing sources and explanatory notes in different note groups. ClaudineChionh (talkcontribs) 06:02, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@The Tips of Apmh Welcome to Tea House, maybe I misunderstood your question, but they're different styling and can be changed in Template:Refn by specifying the group option. Happy editing! ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 10:26, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@The Tips of Apmh: notes and references are used for different things. Notes generally give supplemental information. See Bourn Windmill for an example. Mjroots (talk) 12:54, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An information gap is left behind now that the article List of Sony A-mount lenses is deleted

Basically all notable 1st party system camera lenses are listed in a table somewhere on Wikipedia. This is true for List of Minolta A-mount lenses, List of Sony E-mount lenses, Canon EF lens mount#List of EF lenses, etc, but (archived) List of Sony A-mount lenses was apparently deleted after just a week of deletion review without saving the list elsewhere. Furthermore the pathway to asking questions about the deletion is a long rabbit hole that ends in either asking the wikipedian that proposed the deletion on their talk page (which seems to discourage discussions about previous deletions on their talk page), the wikipedian which performed the actual deletion (who just followed apparent consensus) or taking it directly to WP:DRV. Neither of which seems like good options for what should be a trivial issue? Furthermore the talk page for List of Sony A-mount lenses has been deleted twice since the article was deleted, but there's no record of what the discussion was, even on archive.org . Now all pages which used to refer to the list instead refers to the archived page which in practice makes it impossible to improve the article.

What's the proper thing to do here, and is it supposed to be this overwhelming to figure out where to discuss the deletion? From what I can tell the archived version of the article was fairly well written and I can sort of understand the argument that it was poorly sourced, but since Wikipedia more or less forbids primary sources it's a bit of a paradox when the primary goal is a complete list of official lenses? The deletion also appears to be motivated by WP:NOTCATALOG but I think the introduction of the article had some good qualities and as noted above we already have lists of lenses for many other lens mounts.

The reason I went looking for the list in the first place was to see if there were any particularly interesting A-mount lenses, so I'd argue that if the article somehow ends up back on Wikipedia it could be improved with another few tables containing notable unofficial 3rd party lenses, like those made by Sigma and Tamron. In my opinion the A-mount was notable in many regards, since during its brief lifetime under Sony it got many features like a lens-integrated autofocus motor and AF-D (AFAIK it means using both the traditional small autofocus sensor and the imaging sensor to track focus). Sort of like a playground to see what was worth implementing in the E-mount, which at the time was under development for the upcoming mirrorless cameras. An alternative could be to add the lenses into the article about Sony α but that article is pretty long already.

At the very least I can't be the only one who finds the situation a bit awkward, right? MrPorpoise (talk) 07:05, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MrPorpoise. The administrator who closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Sony A-mount lenses was Premeditated Chaos and you can always post a message at User talk:Premeditated Chaos if you have a question about the close as explained in WP:CLOSECHALLENGE. Premeditated Chaos should be able to advise you on what your options might be in this case. She might also be able to send you a copy of the relevant content via email in case you want to use it somewhere other than Wikipedia. As for the fact that other similar articles about this kind of thing exist, the only thing I can say is to suggest you take a look at Wikipedia:Other Stuff Exists. There lots of articles on Wikipedia that probably shouldn't exist but they've just gone unnoticed for the most part since someone created them. I can't say whether that's the case here, but generally trying to argue that an article should be kept because other similar articles exist almost never gets a person very far. You're better off focusing on showing that the deleted article meets Wikipedia:Notability on its own merits if you're going to try and get it undeleted. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:28, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to undelete it. I've already gone over the lack of notability on my talk page with another user (it's archived but they can be searched), and unless there's been a significant change in sourcing since then, I still feel the same. However MrPorpoise I'm happy to send an email with the content to you if you want. ♠PMC(talk) 07:32, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the reply. Sourcing is a bit of a catch 22 since the current article can't be edited. I think I've seen a draft function somewhere so maybe it can be restored as a draft while I collect and add sources for it? The list itself is notable enough for an archived version of it to be linked in other articles, so I think that implies enough notability for it to be reconsidered. MrPorpoise (talk) 15:22, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the reply. I'm not arguing it should be restored on the basis of Wikipedia:Other Stuff Exists and I'm sorry if it came across that way, I was arguing we should have one regardless of whether it's the restored article, a cleaned up version, or a new one created from scratch. MrPorpoise (talk) 15:22, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)@MrPorpoise: Here's a link to the 2020 discussion. I can't find a second discussion. I do see articles that are List of Sony E-mount lenses, so I don't think that it would be entirely out of the question to re-create the A-mount article in some way (provided there are sources). It's unclear to me if the number of people in that discussion was so small so as to be softly deleted; you could make a request at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion to restore the article if this is the case. I'll ping Premeditated Chaos, the administrator who closed that discussion, to allow them to comment on if their intent was to softly delete the article. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 07:30, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Marchjuly already pinged me. No, my intent was not to soft delete; I would have closed it as such. Please see my above comment for notes about the sourcing, which based on a previous discussion with another user is inadequate. ♠PMC(talk) 07:33, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a product catalog. This deleted article included the sentence Of those, most lenses are optically, mechanically and electrically identical to their Minolta predecessors and differ only in their outer appearance. The deletion, in my view, was correct. We do not need lists of unnotable products offered by various corporations. If many of these lenses are independently notable, prove it, and then create a list. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:50, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the reply. I think that quote was a bit outdated, it was certainly true right after Sony bought Minolta and updated the branding on the lenses, but AFAICT Sony used the A-mount platform to test the waters with new features, some of which disappeared when they launched E-mount. Like the AF-D autofocus mode, which was impractical to carry over to E-mount since there was no space for a second sensor anymore. In fact the adapters Sony developed for backwards compatibility with A-mount for E-mount had versions with and without that second sensor for autofocus. Please look at the "Comment" column in the archived list and you'll see what I mean. Most of the lenses which had been released by the time A-mount was discontinued were either heavily modified Minolta lenses or Sony designs altogether. MrPorpoise (talk) 15:22, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the reply. I meant the talk page for the article itself, Talk:List_of_Sony_A-mount_lenses. Unless I'm reading the logs wrong it seems to have been deleted twice, right? MrPorpoise (talk) 15:22, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can I create the Wikipedia Page of Dr. Deepak Agrawal?

AgVa_Ventilator is reinvented by Diwakar_Vaish and Dr. Deepak Agrawal, but unfortunately Dr. Deepak Agrawal is not in wikipedia.

Dr Deepak Agrawal with His work published on

My Questions: Can I create the Wikipedia Page of Dr. Deepak Agrawal, I found this, Please help me how can I do that or What name should I choose? SomnathHealth (talk) 07:26, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@SomnathHealth: Hello. Welcome to Teahouse!

You created Draft:Dr. Deepak Agrawal on 4 September 2021. But after submitting for review on the same day, it was declined; didn't accepted. The draft was declined because this articles doesn't meet with WP:NBIO guideline. People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published[1] secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other,[2] and independent of the subject.

Some of the sources you mentioned are reliable, secondary, independent, but not in significant coverage.

You can create this article if it meets with the above criteria. Otherwise not.

And your username may not comply with Wikipedia's username policy. So you should request a change of username by completing the form at Special:GlobalRenameRequest, choosing a username that complies with Wikipedia's username policy. Otherwise you may be blocked from wikipedia. And you've already been warned by Drm310.

Thank you. Richard M William (talk) 08:30, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ What constitutes a "published work" is deliberately broad.
  2. ^ Sources that are pure derivatives of an original source can be used as references, but do not contribute toward establishing the notability of a subject. "Intellectual independence" requires not only that the content of sources be non-identical, but also that the entirety of content in a published work not be derived from (or based in) another work (partial derivations are acceptable). For example, a speech by a politician about a particular person contributes toward establishing the notability of that person, but multiple reproductions of the transcript of that speech by different news outlets do not. A biography written about a person contributes toward establishing their notability, but a summary of that biography lacking an original intellectual contribution does not.

RE: (1) Outdated Notices and (2) Moving an Article to the Main Page

Dear Wikipedians,

When I first published my 2nd Wikipedia article, I forgot to link the English page to the Japanese text and also the categories cited at the end of the article. Hence this notice appeared -

>This article is an orphan, as no other articles link to it. >Please introduce links to this page from related articles; try the Find link tool for suggestions. >(November 2021)

I have rectified the problems mentioned over a week ago, but lack authorization to remove this nag message. How can that nag message be removed? (I understand the value of the message, but do not know how to delete the message after the request has been fulfilled.)

Also, for my 4th Wikipedia article, I tried to move the article from the Sandbox to the Wikipedia Main Article page, but the article got stuck here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mother_Farm

How can the article be moved from "en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mother_Farm" directly to "en.wikipedia.org/Mother_Farm"? (After it is in the Main Article page I will add the links to the Japanese page and the relevant categories.)

Thank you for your kind advice about these two questions

TNewfields (talk) 09:41, 11 November 2021 (UTC)TNewfields TNewfields (talk) 09:41, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@TNewfields Welcome to Tea House! I moved Wikipedia:Mother Farm to Mother Farm where it is now. The Wikipedia namespace is for Wikipedia editor coordination, including this Wikipedia:Teahouse/Guests whereas what you wanted is called the Article namespace. I know it's quite confusing! Thank you for seeking help and your contributions! Happy editing! ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 10:32, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@TNewfields Additionally I checked Special:WhatLinksHere/Aiseki Shokudō and there are no other Articles on English Wikipedia linking to it so unless someone searches for the exact name, they're unlikely to find the article by clicking around. Once you find some relevant/possible links, the orphan tag will be automatically removed. It is unrelated to being being linked with Japanese or other language Wikipedias, although that is very much welcomed/encouraged. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 10:36, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Shushugah: Unless something has changed that I don't know about, the orphan tag isn't removed automatically, but it can be removed by an editor when it no longer applies. --David Biddulph (talk) 14:27, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct, it has to be removed manually. ― Blaze The WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 14:30, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@David Biddulph and Blaze The Wolf: My bot BattyBot will remove the {{orphan}} tag from articles with more than two incoming links, and I run the task a couple times a month. GoingBatty (talk) 16:05, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ah interesting. So it will be removed automatically, just only when you run the bot, correct? ― Blaze The WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 16:06, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can I request other contributors to start a page?

Hello, Can other contributors on Wikipedia help me in writing about Pixel Pictures Private Limited, a media company based out of Bangalore. This will not be a promotional page but will be a consolidated page to showcase the shows Pixel has produced. Prabel83 (talk) 11:27, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Prabel83 Hello and welcome. You may make a request at Requested Articles, but the backlog there is so severe it will be a long time, if ever, before it is (if possible) acted on. The best way to see an article created is to do it yourself- but I assume that you are asking because you have an association with this company. If so, please review conflict of interest and paid editing for information on required formal disclosures. Note that Wikipedia is not a place to merely tell about a company and what it does, and that Wikipedia is not a directory of companies where merely existing merits a company an article. An article about a company must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about a company, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. Wikipedia is not interested in what a company says about itself- such as on its own website, through interviews with staff, brief mentions in media, announcements of routine activities, and other primary sources- only in what others completely unconnected with the company choose on their own to say about it.
We usually advise that new or inexperienced users first gain experience by editing existing articles in areas that interest them before attempting to create a new article- the hardest thing to do on Wikipedia. However, if you wish to do so now, please use the new user tutorial, review Your First Article, and use Articles for Creation to create and submit a draft. 331dot (talk) 11:35, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In addition I would point out that Wikipedia articles should not be used to "showcase" anything, as you put it. That would be considered promotional.--Shantavira|feed me 12:19, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

how can I help get my american dr friend out of taji? its not safe there for him

 2601:204:CF01:DB30:EC4A:42A3:4A85:6265 (talk) 12:15, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, that's not really something we can help you with. This page is for asking questions about using Wikipedia. 331dot (talk) 12:32, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Citations

When citing a source for what someone said about something, but you don’t want to put the entire thing they said do you do it like this ... ? For example Sioux City Journal says at the beginning of their article, “You can’t find a better friend than Sheriff Woody.” Than later at the end of their article is says, “ The ultimate toy? That’s Woody – loyal, dependable, trustworthy and steadfast.” So would I put it like this, “You can’t find a better friend than Sheriff Woody... The ultimate toy? That’s Woody – loyal, dependable, trustworthy and steadfast.”

Second question is Sioux City Journal considered a Journal or News when adding a citation for it. Kaleeb18 (talk) 13:59, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I can answer the second: It counts as news. ("journal" explicitly means research journals such as The Lancet.) —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 14:09, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Jéské Couriano: Thank your for your answer to my second question. Also when it says put in URL access date does that mean the day I found the article, which would be today, November 11, 2021? Kaleeb18 (talk) 14:26, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Kaleeb18 yes exactly! And if you don't fill that in, a bot will automatically take care of that. The most important thing is the title, url, and if known, the author(s). ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 14:31, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Shushugah: - Again a feature of which I wasn't aware. Which bot automatically fills in the access date? --David Biddulph (talk) 15:01, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, Shushugah, the important thing is bibliographic information that enables a reader to find the source: title, date, author, publication. A URL is a convenience for the reader, but unless the resource is only online, it is not essential. --ColinFine (talk) 15:31, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank You @Shushugah:Kaleeb18 (talk) 15:35, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@David Biddulph keeping me honest! I appreciate that! I believe I've seen it when Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser users patrol a page, which isn't exactly a pure bot. The accessed-at attribute is populated with their present time, instead of the initial edit I suppose. I will try to read more carefully before giving false information about bot behaviours. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 18:43, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Now can someone also answer my first question? Kaleeb18 (talk) 15:37, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Kaleeb18. You might find the answer in WP:Quotations. --ColinFine (talk) 16:08, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Kaleeb18: Please see MOS:ELLIPSIS. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 16:10, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@TheTechnician27: I see when it uses the ellipsis in MOS:ELLIPSIS it has nbsp in brackets why do they have that and what does it do? Kaleeb18 (talk) 16:27, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Kaleeb18: That's code to call for a non-breaking space, which prevents the two words that sandwich it from appearing on different lines. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 16:51, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh ok. Kaleeb18 (talk) 18:00, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The edit appears to have already been undone. You may have attempted to undo a page move, protection action or import action; these cannot be undone this way. Any autoconfirmed user can move the page back to its previous location, and any administrator can modify or remove protection.

Hello. If I undo vandalisms and if it have already been undone by another user, "The edit appears to have already been undone. You may have attempted to undo a page move, protection action or import action; these cannot be undone this way. Any autoconfirmed user can move the page back to its previous location, and any administrator can modify or remove protection." is coming in the top of the undo page. But why? I haven't attempted to undo a page move, protection action or import action. Though I've moved a page today. Please help me. Thank you. Richard M William (talk) 16:23, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is normal, you're getting a generic error message saying that the change you're trying to make cannot be done. In your case it cannot be done because it's already been done! But the situation could also arise for various other reasons, much rarer reasons, explained in the message. Don't worry about it! It's also much better to take your time checking that the vandalism really is vandalism, than rush in hopes you get the kudos of being the person who zapped the vandalism. There will, unfortunately, always be more to zap. Thank you for your efforts in keeping WP vandalism-free. Elemimele (talk) 16:35, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Elemimele: Thank you for your help and encouraging me! Richard M William (talk) 16:39, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

south korean girlgroup aespa member WINTER

hello, im a admin of a fanbase on twitter for south korean girlgroup aespa member WINTER and im trying to create and publish a informative page for her. I never used wikipedia as "writer" before... could you please help me exactly what i have to do? I know, reliable sources, references. I will definitely try to gain all korean websites and gather them into the references box... but, here are sooo many different pages and so much text - isnt there a easy methode to exactly guide me in a "wikipedia page writing for dummys" or something? Im 17 years old.

kind regards and stay healthy dear admin :) haru4sooya Haru4sooya (talk) 16:31, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Haru4sooya: you can see H:FIRST. Richard M William (talk) 16:36, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Haru4sooya Welcome to the Teahouse. I see that the girlgroup Aespa already has a page about them. I should point out that for an individual group member to have a page about them would require that person to meet our notability criteria in their own right. This would either be WP:NMUSIC or WP:NBLP. So do read those pages to help you understand the level of detail that we would need. Note too that Jungkook only got a page to himself after he had released a hit single, separate from BTS. Regards from the uk, Nick Moyes (talk) 17:19, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

self-citation

I have spent several hours going through the various policy, pump, practices, etc. pages of the Wikipedia editor universe without success in getting close to an answer to this question: are there rules, mores, active discussions that can be used as guides for the citation by authors of their own traditionally published books written to academic standards and accepted as authoritative by their readership. My reading of it is that there are not, which would be in keeping with the “there are no rules” and “good faith” sentiments I saw on one of the Wikipedia guide pages I came across today. That was the answer when I asked the question of this good group several months ago. But in my experience as an editor and originator on Wikipedia and an active book author since then something more concrete is needed. I would very much appreciate any direction on how to get to, or initiate, firm guidance on the topic. Thank you.

Vabookwriter (talk) 16:57, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My google search brought up the excellent advice: "Citing oneself is allowed on Wikipedia, but may represent a conflict of interest. Contributors should be careful not to place undue weight on their own work, and are discouraged from excessive self-citation." If in doubt, I would write my intention on the article's talk-page, and wait a few days to see if anyone comments, before inserting the citation. It is hard to assess the position of ones own work in the greater scheme of things, and useful to get an external viewpoint. Elemimele (talk) 17:01, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So yes, if someone asks you, you could point them to WP's Confict-of-interest help at Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest#Citing_yourself Elemimele (talk) 17:03, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The relevant guidelines are at Wikipedia:Spam#Citation_spam and Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest#Citing_yourself. What is 'excessive' is up to interpretation, but a good rule of thumb (in my opinion) is that you should be citing others at least as often as you cite yourself, and you should be sure not to cite yourself on every Wikipedia article you edit. MrOllie (talk) 17:08, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Removing a similar archived post

Can I remove an archived post which is similar, with a few grammar changes, to another archived post? I created both posts and two of them do not need to be archived, correct? Thank you! 73.167.238.120 (talk) 17:54, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello ip user! Welcome to Teahouse! I don't think you can as per as the above template of the archived discussion page. Thank you. Richard M William (talk) 17:59, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not even for extenuating circumstances? I do not see the point of one of the posts still being in the archived section. 73.167.238.120 (talk) 19:20, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draft updated with reference to Ichon's appearance on the cover of GQ France, as well as other new citations

Hello, I recently learned that Ichon was featured on the cover of the print version of GQ France in February 2021. I've added text and a citation to this effect, and added other citations as well, bringing the total number of citations to 11. Is the being on the cover of GQ France, along with the the new citations, enough to meet the notability standards and get my article over the top? Thanks!

Jayintheusa (talk) 18:51, 11 November 2021 (UTC) Jayintheusa (talk) 18:51, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Jayintheusa: I think you're very close. See if you can add any info from this one [[8]]. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 19:31, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tim, thanks very much for the additional citation. I added it as reference #3 and cited it in two places. I'm hoping that this will help get the article over the top! Thanks again for your assistance,

Jayintheusa (talk) 22:48, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is it ok to have other users help me with a draft article that I want to get done quicker?

I know that you say that you would usually want to have users work on drafts solitary, but what if I want an article to be looked at from different angles of different users? What if I want more help on editing (I'm asking this because I don't want to ask one question about editing, and then all of a sudden have another one, etc.)? What could I do to be helped by other users? Is this ok or no? If no then sorry. :/ Also, here's the draft: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Waterflame (P.S.: I'm confused. It says it had a declined submission, but I didn't send it. Can you tell me why this happened?)[User:WaterflameIsAwesome|WaterflameIsAwesome]] (talk) 19:03, 11 November 2021 (UTC) WaterflameIsAwesome (talk) 19:03, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@WaterflameIsAwesome: You can see in the edit history that it was submitted on November 9 by @AssumeGoodWraith:. Since Draft:Waterflame was declined, it was premature. The sourcing is insufficient - the only sources are New Grounds, which seems to be a user generated platform. You need reliable third party (i.e. independent) sources to demonstrate notability. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 19:24, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yeah, also I know he is notable, but the only problem is that there isn't many online articles about him or anything, so I tried everything, from YouTube links to WF's bio on Genius.com. But pretty much all of those are "blacklisted links" or whatever you call them. So NG links and Spotify albums are all I could find. The only reason I pretty much started the draft was because I myself am an expert on the subject. I could name like 200+ songs by him in one sitting. (:O moment) And once I found out that WP wants online sources to provide knowledge, not us users to provide knowledge, I was stuck. If I, the best source I know on the subject, can't make up the majority of the article, WHAT CAN? So basically this is my problem. WaterflameIsAwesome (talk) 19:41, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Timtempleton: oh I didn't know other users could send it. Why did they send it though? I wasn't nearly finished with it. Hmm... Oh, and also what about my first question?

@WaterflameIsAwesome: You can invite others to collaborate, as you've done here - it's a shared editing platform. I pinged AssumeGoodWraith earlier and assume he/she will comment about the submission. It might have been inadvertent. Also, you should indent your responses by putting in an extra ":" in front of the text. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 19:36, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ok thanks. Also sorry. I'll indent stuff from now on. WaterflameIsAwesome (talk) 19:43, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@WaterflameIsAwesome: In addition to the Teahouse, you can also ask for input on the talk page of Wikiprojects that are relevant – Wikipedia:WikiProject Musicians and maybe Wikipedia:WikiProject Electronic music (though the latter doesn't look like it is very active). And another thing: sources do not need to be online, the important thing is that they meet the criteria for reliable sources. To show notability, there has to be reliable sources that are independent. It looks like you may be right, that there aren't any independent sources online (I couldn't find anything in English or Norwegian), but again, people who are active in the relevant Wikiprojects might have a better idea of how to find good sources. --bonadea contributions talk 20:20, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I submitted the draft for feedback. - AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 03:57, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@WaterflameIsAwesome: I fixed reference #1 in this edit. Could you please review Template:Cite web and my edit and fix the other references? Also, since you know he is notable, could you please specify which of the notability criteria for musicians he meets? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 04:31, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How to left align in visual editor

How do I left align, or center align in the visual editor? Whenever I try to edit the contents of a table, it defaults to right-align and I can do nothing to fix that. RedStorm1368 (talk) 19:07, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@RedStorm1368, that's unfortunately a limitation of VisualEditor. There's no way to do it until this technical ticket is resolved. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 21:43, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Recreating an article changed to a redirect.

The article on Clarks Landing, New Jersey, was recently changed to a redirect to the municipality containing it on the basis that there isn't a town there now, as the article previously claimed. I have found several sources ([9] is the only one of these available online) which describe it as a town that used to exist but was abandoned near the end of the 18th century. Can I recreate the article based on these sources immediately, or do I need to first go through some process to argue that it should be un-deleted? LaetusStudiis (talk) 19:10, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@LaetusStudiis: I'd just edit the redirect. You could start it as "Clarks Landing was a former town in New Jersey." and incorporate the info from the other source as well. You could also ping the person who did the redirect, as a courtesy. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 19:19, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Primary Source Editing

Hi, I need to edit the page for https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nature_(TV_program) - mainly some inaccuracies in the side bar and intro. However, I don't necessarily have written sources for this - I work for Nature and that's my connection. Will that be okay? Trying to go about this the right way. Thanks! Naturepbs (talk) 19:34, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Naturepbs: Unfortunately we can't take your word - we need sources for any information that you want to add. You can put in a connected edit request on the article talk page to see if others can help. See Wikipedia:Simple conflict of interest edit request. You'll also need to change your user name - it can't represent the company. See WP:ORGNAME. Lastly, you'll need to declare your connection to the company on your user page. See WP:DISCLOSE. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 19:40, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Removing "stub" tag on talk pages

My question is prompted by looking at the talk page here [10], which shows that the article is "stub class". It sure doesn't look like a stub to me. An editor recently filled out this article and their edit comment indicates they removed the stub designation (from the article itself, I assume), but it's still listed as a stub on the talk page under various WikiProjects. I'm not sure whether I should remove that in this case and similar cases, following the assumption that it wasn't done before simply because the other editor forgot to, or whether articles are supposed to keep these tags until someone from the relevant WikiProject has come around to check on them. asilvering (talk) 19:58, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the article can be assigned to either 'Start' or 'C' class of the quality scale. You can do this yourself. Ruslik_Zero 20:30, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Unrelated question: your reply didn't give me a notification. I didn't add the page to my watchlist, because I thought that a reply would go directly to my inbox anyway. Is there something I need to enable somewhere? I do have "mentions" enabled in Preferences. asilvering (talk) 21:27, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Asilvering, Ruslik's reply above didn't include a mention of your username (we sometimes forget haha), so it didn't generate a ping. If you go to Preferences -> Beta features -> Discussion tools and turn that on, a [ subscribe ] option will appear next to sections that you can click to get notified whenever there's a reply. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}}talk 21:33, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Asilvering, you're correct that that article has definitely developed beyond a stub! A semi-automated rater tool predicts that it's C-class. You're welcome to change the assessment by changing |class=stub to |class=start or |class=C in each of the talk page project tags. Article assessments are unfortunately quite often out of date, so feel free to change them anytime you think it's warranted (GA-class and FA-class are the only exceptions, since they have their own processes). Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}}talk 21:30, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent, thanks for these replies, @Ruslik0 and @Sdkb! asilvering (talk) 21:38, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Asilvering This is just a hasty, drive by comment: I have frequently changed article quality assessments using the automated tool RATER, only to find the page is still listed as a stub after I'm done. This is because the article page itself contains a template, indicating its in a Category of 'stub' for that particular topic and its WP:WIKIPROJECT. It's important to remove that template if you upgrade the assessment. It's always right down at the bottom of the page. Nick Moyes (talk) 01:11, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

unfinished article

Hello. i am a new editor. can anyone tell me what to insert in the article if i haven't finished writing it but want to save my contribution? thank you in advance! Nia chelidze3 (talk) 20:18, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Nia chelidze3: If you're talking about saving your edit you simply just press the publish button which on Wikipedia saves your work and puts it onto the live article. ― Blaze The WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 20:35, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Nia chelidze3 Welcome to the Teahouse - it's great to have you here. Whilst what Blaze says above is correct, what I think you're asking is what do you do if you suddenly have to stop work whilst making an edit and don't yet want to put those half-finished changes into the main encyclopaedia article. What I do when that happens is either to copy my text and drop it into a Word document on my own computer or - more often - I'd simply paste it into my personal sandbox, so I can retrieve it later. I realise that, as a new user, the idea of a 'sandbox' is probably a bit confusing (sorry), but everyone can have one or more userpages like this for working on Wikipedia content without it being in the main encyclopaedia. You can find yours via a red link at the top of any page your editing on a desktop. Or simply go to User:Nia_chelidze3/sandbox, click Create source, paste in your half-done text, then click the blue Publish page button. Once that page is created, from now on the link to your sandbox page will appear in blue, not red. I hope this helps. Nick Moyes (talk) 21:42, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot. Well, I have an experience in Georgian Wikipedia and there we are able to insert special Wiki markup in the article and delay our editing. That's why i asked. Thanks for welcoming. --Nia chelidze3 (talk) 04:55, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Plea

 I will not edit (talk) 22:44, 11 November 2021 (UTC) Can I be welcomed on my talk page[reply]

People who seem to be willing to contribute are welcome(d). -- Hoary (talk) 23:06, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked indefinitely. -- Hoary (talk) 04:08, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

como trabalho no wikipedia pra gahar dinheiro?

 45.181.9.227 (talk) 23:58, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's impossible. If you want to make money, please go elsewhere. -- Hoary (talk) 00:07, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well there are ways. You can apply for a job at the Wikimedia Foundation. Or you can create an account and declare yourself a paid editor, as long as you are extremely knowledgeable about Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and disciplined about working within them. Most paid editors, however, don't last long. And undeclared paid editors are found and blocked forever until the end of time. ~Anachronist (talk) 00:38, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Question about Citation Needed

Hello! This is kind of broad, but I was looking through an article and noticed that a sentence was marked as citation needed. I tried to find a source from both the ones used in the article and online, but couldn't find anything. Does that mean the sentence should be deleted or reworded? Sorry if this is too broad or confusing. 65.128.132.127 (talk) 00:21, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on the article. If it's a biography of a living person, the sentence should probably be deleted, per WP:BLP policy. If it's some other topic and the sentence is plausible, then it simply needs a source and the sentence can remain with the tag until a source is found. If you cannot find a source, or if the sentence is implausible, then you can delete it because it cannot be verified. In some cases, however, especially for topics that pre-date the internet, there may be sources avaialble but not online. Just because an online source cannot be found doesn't mean a source doesn't exist.
What is the article? ~Anachronist (talk) 00:33, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How to get participation on a talk page

Hello, I'm wondering if there is a tag or something I can add to talk pages to encourage other editors to review and add to a discussion. I've seen a lot of articles with issues that require other editors to review so I'd like to get these discussions started but not sure how to encourage other people to join. As a secondary question, whats the proper way to tag another editor so that they get notified on a page? Thanks in advance for your help! WyldEys (talk) 01:02, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

hi @WyldEys: for your second question, you may use templates such as {{ping}} like i did here, or really just link to their userpage (like Melecie [[User:Melecie|Melecie]]) to notify someone through messages, as long as you make sure to sign your post. happy editing!   melecie   t 01:17, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You can notify relevant editors using {{ping}}, and you can start a discussion about the article on the talk pages for any relevant WikiProjects. What is the article? ClaudineChionh (talkcontribs) 01:16, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@WyldEys: I think you're looking for Wikipedia:Requests for comment, where you can ping random editors who signed up for the Wikipedia:Feedback request service. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 01:33, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Timtempleton: Oh, great thank you! That looks more like what I was looking for. Appreciate the quick help from everyone! WyldEys (talk) 01:57, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you @Melecie: and @ClaudineChionh: (hope that worked!). The first one I started was for the Black Cube article. I realize now that the article might be borderline controversial, but my question is the same for other articles too. I will check out Wiki Projects. Do you know if there are Wiki Projects for this type of thing where articles need to be reviewed for specific issues? Seems like there should be a way to notify a group of people about articles ready to be reviewed, but I'm sure there are a crazy number of articles in that category. Thanks! WyldEys (talk) 01:32, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User Went on an AfD Spree, Subsequently Blocked for Being Sockpuppet

Hi, so a user User:VladimirBoys went on a bit of an AfD spree by nominating several articles of Filipino entertainment personalities for deletion. However, their account has since been blocked for being a sockpuppet. I am wondering whether their nominations must still stand or is there a way to "cancel" them since they were initiated by an account that was in contravention of Wiki rules? Here's a link to most of the nominations: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Philippines

Thanks for the help. Koikefan (talk) 01:03, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Koikefan: I have mass-deleted the AFD nominations that nobody commented on yet and removed the nominations from the articles, per WP:DENY. ~Anachronist (talk) 01:33, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Koikefan, all those that are listed in Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Philippines have been speedily kept. You say that these are most of the nominations; can you point to any others? -- Hoary (talk) 01:34, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Hoary and Anachronist. Hoary, that should be all of them. I'll let you know if I find others. Thanks again! Koikefan (talk) 01:51, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Close Connection Message Issue / Resolution

Hello, I am new to the Teahouse. An article on Byron Adams for which I was a major contributor has been flagged as potentially having a non-neutral point of view. The only thing I could see in the article that may have flagged this was the description of his professor rank, which is called distinguished professor. I have edited this for clarity. Other phrases I have used, such as "Equally appreciated for his work as a musicologist" I believed were supported by the referenced and cited honors, awards, and offices Adams has held. Could an editor have a look at this article to see if any issues have been rectified, or point to any outstanding issues that should be resolved? I would like the article to be improved so that the template can be removed. Thank you in advance for any assistance. Vivwest (talk) 01:10, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Vivwest: The tag on the article is COI, not NPOV. The question you must answer is, what is your association with Byron Adams? You need to disclose that publicly, preferably on your user page. You have already claimed to be his photographer in the image file, so there is an association. A conflict of interest (COI) must be declared. And editors with a COI should generally avoid editing articles on topics with which they have a COI, if the article is in article space (in Draft space, it's fine). ~Anachronist (talk) 01:35, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Anachronist: Thank you for your reply. The image file must be tagged incorrectly, as I was not the photographer. I'm not sure how to change this but I will look into it. I do know Mr. Adams; I contributed to the already existing article as it lacked a significant amount of information and performed all of the research to properly cite the information. I will look up how to declare this on my user page. Please feel free to advise further, I appreciate your assistance. Vivwest (talk) 03:46, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Vivwest: The page File:Byron Adams.png says the source is "own work". It also says the author is Byron Adams. It can't be both, and I suspect it's neither, because it seems unlikely that Byron Adams is the photographer. It doesn't look like a selfie. Generally the subject of a photograph doesn't own the copyright, the photographer owns it. Either the photograph must be deleted or the copyright holder (the photographer, not Byron Adams) must release the photo to the Wikimedia Foundation under an acceptable free license. See WP:CONSENT to learn what communication needs to happen. If the photographer transferred the copyright to Byron Adams, then Byron Adams would need to furnish documentation.
To declare a conflict of interest, simply write a sentence or two on User:Vivwest describing your association. If you are being paid to write or maintain that article, see WP:PAID for disclosure instructions (particularly if you are being paid, the disclosure is mandatory as you entered into a legally binding agreement to disclose any paid editing when you created your account on Wikipedia). ~Anachronist (talk) 04:04, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Articles

Hi there, Im noticing there are a bunch of articles about wikipedia like WP:MOS that I need to read to help me with editing. Can yall suggest some articles like that to me (definitely some citation/reference one). Kaleeb18 (talk) 03:20, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Kaleeb18: Thanks for asking! I would start with WP:MOS, WP:CITE, WP:RS, WP:V, and maybe WP:PG. That's a lot of reading, so take it easy and don't overwhelm yourself! ClaudineChionh (talkcontribs) 03:32, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@ClaudineChionh: thank you for the suggestion and Ill try not to overwhelm myself. Kaleeb18 (talk) 03:38, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
hi Kaleeb18 and welcome to the teahouse! along with the above articles, feel free to read Help:Referencing for beginners to start with referencing, an easier to digest version of WP:CITE. if you need help, also feel free to ask questions here. happy editing! (edit conflict)   melecie   t 03:35, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Melecie: Thank you! Kaleeb18 (talk) 03:39, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:NumFOCUS , Organization Notability

Draft:NumFOCUS Draft, Organization Notability


Hey folks, the NumFOCUS draft was removed despite what I feel is overwhelming evidence of notability and significance. I am interested to get advice on how to push this forward. NumFOCUS projects are the foundation of science and computing, so it is important the organization is represented here. Logankilpatrick (talk) 04:32, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It has been "draftified", Logankilpatrick. I have trouble finding independent sources that discuss the subject at length or in depth. This, for example, looks promising at first glance, but reads like a PR release and turns out to have been written by Numfocus. Which would you say are the best three sources? -- Hoary (talk) 04:46, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hoary I am not an expert at this stuff, but here are three I like. I will note that in my opinion, there aren't any massive articles about NF. No NYT, Wall street journal, etc. That is the nature of open source, it is often out of the spotlight. With that said, the organization is mentioned and talked about in all of the articles I shared in the draft. The combination of the small articles seems to me at least to be convincing of notability.
1. https://mitsloan.mit.edu/press/jump-a-modeling-language-roots-mit-sloan-achieves-a-new-milestone-open-source-community-its-acceptance-a-numfocus-sponsored-project
2. https://cmse.msu.edu/news-events/news/general-news/tardis-joins-numfocus-as-a-sponsored-project/
3. https://www.yahoo.com/now/anaconda-launches-anaconda-dividend-program-140000512.html
Logankilpatrick (talk) 04:55, 12 November 2021 (UTC)Logan Kilpatrick[reply]
@Logankilpatrick: All three of these are press releases from NumFOCUS sponsored projects, and #2 and #3 appear to be co-written with NumFOCUS. What are your best independent sources? GoingBatty (talk) 05:12, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Beginner's Query

Hi. I'm completely new to the world of Wikipedia (although I have been watching it with a somewhat passive interest) and I wanted to ask a question based on an 'if'. If I were to create an article and I make sure that it's notable, will it get rejected or accepted? or is there any other policy (There are seemingly a lot of them) that I might not uphold

I will appreciate all ResponsesGuyForceOne (talk) 04:50, 12 November 2021 (UTC). GuyForceOne (talk) 04:41, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You mean, if the subject were notable, GuyForceOne? No, that wouldn't guarantee acceptance. Please see Help:YFA. -- Hoary (talk) 04:46, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response, Hoary.GuyForceOne (talk) 04:51, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Hi! My question is that after reading the queries on Teahouse, I want to know how do I find the 'substandard' articles. Do I have to manually search for them, or is there another way?( I know this question sounds silly, but responses are appreciated GuyForceOne (talk) 05:24, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]