Wikipedia:Teahouse: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 07:45, 15 June 2020

Shortcuts

Cassiopeia, a Teahouse host

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

Ask a question

Question forumMeet your hostsArticles to improveBecome a host

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

To read the newest questions, skip to bottom
About the Teahouse

Most recent archives
1206, 1207, 1208, 1209, 1210, 1211, 1212, 1213, 1214, 1215, 1216, 1217, 1218, 1219, 1220, 1221, 1222, 1223, 1224, 1225

How many references needed to satisfy notability guidelines when creating a new article for a novel by a well-known author?

Hi, this is my first article Draft:The Phoenix Code. I sent it off for review and the article was declined. The comment left by the reviewer said that my topic does not meet the notability guidelines. My question is: how many references do I need? Is there a specific number, or is it a subjective judgment? The Phoenix Code is a novel by American author Catherine Asaro. She is famous, but not "very" famous. She is quite prolific and has published over 30 books. The Phoenix Code is one of her lesser known works. Huggykoala68 (talk) 00:30, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Huggykoala68 and welcome to the Teahouse. A good rule of thumb is "at least three high-quality independent sources that devote significant coverage to the topic". But that is subject to some variation. A single book-length study, entirely devoted to the topic, probably establishes notability on its own. And if the sources are a bit marginal in their coverage, four or five might be better than three. Catherine Asaro is still active, and much discussed among SF Fans -- I suspect there might be additional reviews out there, perhaps on tor.com or similar sites. I haven't read The Phoenix Code myself, but I suspect it is notable. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 00:47, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you DESiegel. You answered my question. Huggykoala68 (talk) 01:19, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Huggykoala68. The most important factor by far is the quality and reliability of the cited sources. In your draft, you cite Thomas M. Wagner, a blogger who runs a self-published science fiction review website, and "Mrs Giggles" whose reliability appears to be close to zero by Wikipedia's standards. A reliable source will have professional editorial control and a reputation for accuracy and fact checking. In my opinion, neither of these sources are acceptable for establishing the notability of a book. Not every book needs a freestanding Wikipedia article. Notable books will have been reviewed in publications that are widely seen as high quality and reliable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:18, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Cullen328 for your frank advice. Huggykoala68 (talk) 12:55, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @DESiegel:, it might well be noticeable, but quote stronger sources, there’s this one for example:

https://www.theguardian.com/childrens-books-site/2014/jun/15/review-secret-of-tombs-phoenix-code-helen-moss

Find more like this of a book and you can be sure it remainsFthobe (talk) 11:22, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Huggykoala68. It might be a good idea to try editing some existing articles first. That will give you a feel for what is good in an article. PJvanMill (talk) 18:02, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks PJvanMill. Huggykoala68 (talk) 19:44, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

New Page: Michelle Knudsen (Manager/Producer)

Hello! I am looking to create a page for Michelle Knudsen, the manager/producer from MXN Entertainment whose credits include QUEEN & SLIM and WHEN WE FIRST MET, amongst others (IMDB page: https://pro.imdb.com/name/nm3082630/?ref_=instant_nm_1&q=michelle%20knudsen). I noticed that there is already a Wikipedia page for a book author by the same name, and you are thus immediately directed to her page when searching "Michelle Knudsen". I have been trying for weeks to publish an article on the manager/producer Michelle Knudsen but am having little success with the actual publishing, despite including sources for every piece of information. I am new to editing on Wikipedia and would love any assistance on how I can publish this article! Thank you so much. Emilyafoster95 (talk) 20:31, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Emilyafoster95, hello! Usually, in these situations, you can use the page title "Michelle Knudsen (Producer)" and then a template can be used at the top of the other page to link to the other page (i.e. "this page is about the x, for the y, see ..") Ed6767 talk! 20:33, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Emilyafoster95 and welcome to the Teahouse. The name of the prospective article is the least important aspect of the matter. That can be handled easily enough. The issue is whether Michelle Knudsen the producer is mnotable I suggest that you create a draft, perhaps Draft:Michelle Knudsen (Producer) as Ed676 suggests, and attempt to get sufficient sources cited that the draft can be approved. The approver will handle the final naming if it is promoted to article status. Below are some suggested steps to follow. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 20:48, 11 June 2020 (UTC) @Ed676: DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 20:52, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

First, review our guideline on notability, our policy on Verifiability, and our specific guideline on the notability of film-related topics. Consider whether your subject clearly meets the standards listed there. Also, check if the topic is already covered, perhaps under a different spelling or in a section of an article about a wider topic. You will waste a lot of time, if you create a new article, and then find that the encyclopedia already has an article about that.
Second, read how to create Your First Article and referencing for beginners and again consider if you want to go ahead.
Third, If you have any connection or affiliation with the subject, disclose it in accordance with our guideline on Conflict of interest. If you have been or expect to be paid for making edits, or are making them as part of your job, disclose this according to the strict rules of the Paid-contribution disclosure. This is absolutely required; omitting it can result in you being blocked from further editing.
Fourth, gather sources. You want independent, professionally published, reliable sources with each discussing the subject in some detail. If you can't find several such sources, stop; an article will not be created! Sources do NOT need to be online, or in English, although it is helpful if at least some are. The "independent" part is vital. Wikipedia does not consider as independent sources such as press releases, or news stories based on press releases, or anything published by the subject itself or an affiliate of the subject. Strictly local coverage is also not preferred. Regional or national newspapers or magazines, books published by mainstream publishers (not self-published), or scholarly journals are usually good. So are online equivalents of these. (Additional sources may verify particular statements but not discuss the subject in detail. But those significant detailed sources are needed first.)
Fifth, use the article wizard to create a draft under the articles for creation project. This is always a good idea for an inexperienced editor, but in the case of an editor with a conflict of interest it is essential.
Sixth, use the sources gathered before (and other sources you may find along the way) to write the article. Cite all significant statements to sources. Do not express opinions or judgements, unless they are explicitly attributed to named people or entities, preferably in a direct quotation, and cited to a source. Do not use puffery or marketing-speak. Provide page numbers, dates, authors and titles for sources to the extent these are available. A title is always needed. Submit the draft when you think it is ready for review. Be prepared to wait a while for a review (several weeks or more).
Seventh, when (well perhaps if) your draft is declined, pay attention to the comments of the reviewer, and correct the draft and resubmit it. During this whole process, if you face any unresolvable editing hurdles, or cannot comprehend any editing issue, feel free to post a request here or at the help desk and ask the regulars. Repeat this until the draft passes review.

Congratulations, you have now created a valid Wikipedia article. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 20:51, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DES, the draft already exists, at Draft:Michelle Knudsen (manager/producer). --ColinFine (talk) 20:59, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you ColinFine I missed that. However the advice above about sourcing still stands, Emilyafoster95. I hope this will be helpful. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 21:14, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have commented on the draft's talk page about the sources currently cited, which in my view are not sufficient yet. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 21:36, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Emilyafoster95. It might be a good idea to try editing existing articles first; that way you'll learn naturally. Also, you might want to review the WP:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide. Kind regards from PJvanMill (talk) 18:15, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Emilyafoster95: I agree. Please note: Two of us have commented on your draft here: Draft_talk:Michelle_Knudsen_(manager/producer)#Sourcing. --David Tornheim (talk) 07:44, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please Help!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Why isn't my article getting approved? I have added proper citations and references, though my article has been rejected the second time. Please tell me, what shall I fix exactly in the article? Here is my article:- Raja Oellinger-Guptara

Eagerly waiting for your reply! Thank you very much for your time and attention. Stay Safe!

Best Regards, Gaurav D. Gauravldhande (talk) 16:43, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse Gauravldhande Your draft has no independent sources, Wikipedia requires there to be significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources to show notability. Creating an autobiography is also strongly discouraged. Theroadislong (talk) 16:58, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The draft is also promotional - refs are for his book and his apartment building. David notMD (talk) 17:26, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Gauravldhande. It's a good idea to work on some existing articles first before trying to create new articles. Also, you should review the WP:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide. Kind regards from PJvanMill (talk) 18:30, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Citing multiple authors in visual editing mode

Hi, I'm don't know how to add multiple authors in visual editing mode. Two fields appear, one for last name one for first name.

The help says this: "The surname of the author; don't wikilink, use 'authorlink'; can suffix with a numeral to add additional authors"

Don't know how to add the suffix, trying things like this: Alan Islas (talk) 18:56, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, Alan Islas. To be quite blunt: forget trying! Visual Editor is utterly dire for adding more than one author, or indeed for adding any additional field that's not present in the original form. It's so bad that I always, always switch over to the WP:Source Editor and use the Cite button there, which very simply allows you to add multiple authors to all cite template (little green + button next to the names field). To switch over to the other editor, click the thick black pencil icon next to the blue 'Publish Changes' button on the top right of the page (assuming your not in mobile view, that is). Let us know how you get on, or check WP:ERB for a short video I made on using the Cite button in Source Editor. Nick Moyes (talk) 20:05, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Nick, that was very helpful! To be honest, I hadn't seen that Cite menu in the source editor, only the "Reference" button which just places the tags, that's why I was trying to to this in visual mode. --Alan Islas (talk) 00:49, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For the benefit of anyone reading this who does want to use visual mode, there should be a button at the bottom of the citation dialogue that says Add more information. Hit that and you get extra fields to add like "Last name 2", etc. But I’m glad that the classic source editor suits your needs, Alan. Pelagic ( messages ) Z – (20:15 Sat 13, AEST) 10:15, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Question

I wanted to make an article on a separate au of Undertale which is a fictional game and the article I am writing is also fictional but I have seen wiki pages on things like underfell etc so am I allowed to make a wiki page on my own Undertale au? Undertale AU geek (talk) 00:47, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Undertale AU geek and welcome to the Teahouse. Undertale is not a fictional game, it is a real game with a fictional setting, just as The Lord of the Rings is a real novel with a fictional setting. "Fizbin" is a fictional game, as is Klin-zha. Undertale is notable: It has been publicly released, widely sold, gotten awards, and been written about extensively by independent sources.

Is your "AU" version of Undertale notable? Has it been publicly released? Has anyone independent written about it in a reliable source? If the answers are no, there cannot be a Wikipedia article about it. If yes, then it depends, but if you are the creator, you have a conflict o9f interest and are not the best person to write about it. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 01:13, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is AU ="alternate universe", Undertale AU geek? You might try searching for sites that specialise in hosting fan fiction. Pelagic ( messages ) Z – (20:24 Sat 13, AEST) 10:24, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

P&S or VP&S on Virginia Apgar ?

Columbia University Vagelos College of Physicians and Surgeons short form given as "VP&S". should i follow it on Virginia Apgar Vishnuvardhan leela (talk) 09:02, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I say No. Apgar was a student and later faculty at Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons many years ago. Only in 2017 was Vagelos added to the name after a LARGE donation from that family. You can use "P&S" as long as it is Wikilinked to the current name of the medical school. David notMD (talk) 09:21, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done hello David notMD i will not change it. Vishnuvardhan leela (talk) 10:38, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Need references

On my page, Draft:Languages of Central Asia, I have 5 references, which is not enough for the size of the page. Do you know any strategies for finding references? Bumsowee (talk) 13:29, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Bumsowee, and welcome to the Teahouse. In your case, I'd check the refs in the WP-articles you are linking to, google books and archive.org (need to register but it's free). In addition, we don't put WP-links in headings (or flags I think), and you should cut down on the External links and See also per WP:EL and WP:SEEALSO. Consider also if it's better to improve Central Asian Languages instead of writing a separate article. Good luck! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:45, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Bumsowee, and thank you for your efforts to contribute to Wikipedia. However, I would like to suggest that you are setting about writing an article in the wrong way. You have created a long draft (based presumably on what you personally have learned over a long period) and are now seeking sources to support what you have already written. Doing it like this makes the task much more difficult than it needs to be.

Instead I suggest that you start again with a blank page, re-read only the Reliable sources that you have already found, and summarise only their content to create the beginnings of your draft with citations of the sources in the appropriate pages.

When you've done this, look for more reliable sources, and add their information to the draft, citing the sources as you do so. All important information in every article should be cited to reliable sources, and even trivial information must be cited to some source. (For example, the current number of a subject Company's employees is often sourced from the company's own website, which is an unreliable source because it isn't independent of the Company.)

You may find this approach a little frustrating, because you personally know a lot more facts about your subject that you have learned over the years and want to include, but you cannot immediately remember exactly where you learned them or find a reliable source that they can be cited to: I often encounter the same problem when answering Ref Desk questions about subjects I've been interested in for 50 years (there are several). Nevertheless, using this method ensures that everything you put into the draft will be properly cited and will likely not be challenged or removed by other participating editors once the draft becomes an article.

While building the draft, it would be perfectly acceptable to include material you haven't found a source for yet, but are sure you will be able to – you can flag such material with the ^{[citation needed]} tag: another editor might even see this, find a citable source for you and add it.

I hope this advice proves helpful. Good luck and happy editing! {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.200.41.14 (talk) 16:29, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Display problem in mobile

Many pages are not displayed properly in mobiles. Sometimes pictures / maps are left-aligned instead of centre.

Sometimes text appear on the left side -- one letter per line.

Suggest that all paragraph should be "justified". ANUPAM DUTTA 14:14, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Anupamdutta73 Both the app and the mobile version of Wikipedia(in a browser) do not have full functionality and do not display things in the same manner as the full version of Wikipedia does; you can view the full version in a browser on your phone, if desired. 331dot (talk) 14:25, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Anupamdutta73: Could you give some links to the articles you’re referring to? I’d be quite interested to take a look myself, thanks. Nick Moyes (talk) 15:12, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How do I post pictures on Wikipedia?

How do I upload a picture onto wikipedia? Like if I have a picture that would look good in a page, how do I get it on? Or if there is a picture on a different page how do I put that picture on another page that it could go with?

Sport.07GamerDet (talk) 15:31, 13 June 2020 (UTC) Sport.07GamerDet (talk) 15:31, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Sport.07GamerDet: you should visit Wikipedia:Images. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:45, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Sport.07GamerDet: See also Wikipedia:File Upload Wizard, but be sure you understand the copyright of the image before you upload it. GoingBatty (talk) 21:22, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am new here

i need someone to help me i have an assignment in which i have to edit an article. i really want to perfect this act. Please help me Funmilolo (talk) 15:42, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Answered by another editor on op's talk page. See also WP:Introduction. Nick Moyes (talk) 15:56, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If by "assignment" you mean from the place you are employed or interning, that is a horse of an entirely different color. See WP:PAID. David notMD (talk) 19:16, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How to upload latest pictures in Wikipedia

Hi! ... first of all, thank u for inviting me in this group,I'm very grateful for this . And I would like ask u a question. Can u teach me how to upload latest pictures in Wikipedia especially the copyright part ( I don't understand that part clearly). I want upload a artwork of Taylor Swift'sLover.

(Tyler Swift Boii) --> }} Tyler Swift Boii (talk) 16:14, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Tyler Swift Boii and welcome to the Teahouse. When someone takes a picture, that picture is (in most cases) automatically protected by copyright at the moment it is made. The copyright will be held by the photographer in most cases, although in some cases it will be held by the photographer's employer, or it may be transferred to an employer or client shortly afterwards. Much the same is true when someone draws, paints, or uses a compute to create art. It is protected by copyright.

In the case of art associated with a commercial song, the copyright is very likely to be owned by the publisher (although it may not be). Such copyrighted images cannot be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, which takes only images free for all to use. Wikipedia does allow limited use of images under a claim of Fair Use. Such images must be uploaded to en.Wikipedia itself, not to commons, and must fulfill all of the requirements at WP:NFCC.

As discussed above in the thread #album cover images policy question, cover art for albums is usually permitted in an article about the album, provided the other criteria are complied with, but other related art is not. Is the art you have in mind in some sense "cover art" for the song, officially distributed with the song? Where did you get it? This makes a significant difference to whether it can be used and the needed steps. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 16:40, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

how to verify my reliable sources

i tried to write an artical about myself but its rejected on not reliable source basis but i have my all certificated issued by Indian government . How may i do submit all documents for verification CA Mukesh Rathi Jodhpur (talk) 16:39, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy link: User:CA Mukesh Rathi Jodhpur/sandbox/CA MUKESH RATHI

Hello, CA Mukesh Rathi Jodhpur. Routine government documents are not reliable, independent sources for the purpose of establishing notability on Wikipedia. Please read about why trying to write an autobiography is a bad idea. Please also read Your first article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:48, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly you should read the advice against Autobiography. Secondly you need to understand that what is needed to demonstrate notability is significant coverage in multiple published reliable sources independent of the subject. Unpublished sources are of no use to Wikipedia, see WP:Verifiability. --David Biddulph (talk) 16:49, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Hello, CA Mukesh Rathi Jodhpur, and welcome to the Teahouse. I am afraid the simple answer is "You don't."

First of all, Wikipedia uses only Published sources, so any source that you would have to "submit" is not acceptable.
Secondly, government documents including certifications are normally primary sources, and for establishing notability, secondary sources are usually needed.
Thirdly, simply being a registered accountant and valuer is not in itself enough to make a person notable, although specific positions might change that.
Fourthly, To establish notability, multiple independent published secondary reliable sources are normally needed, each of which discusses the person in some detail. See our guideline on the notability nof individual people, and our general notability guideline. See also Wikipedia's Golden Rule.
Fifth and lastly, such an article would be an autobiography. our guideline on autobiography strongly discourages writing an autobiography on Wikipedia. Any such author surely has a conflict of interest which should be publicly declared, and which restricts the author. If you are actually notable, someone else, with no connection to you, may well write an article about you in due course.

Please read the various linked policy, guideline, and help pages above, which explain things in more detail. If you go ahead, please also read Your First Article and Referencing for Beginners. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 16:57, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Adding information

If I want to add some information to the page about my own community. Why cant I do it? Susamd29 (talk) 16:52, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Susamd29 The issue is not that it is your community, it is that your edit is not sourced to an independent reliable source. Please discuss your proposed edit on the article talk page. 331dot (talk) 16:56, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Help with red links

Hello, I'd trying to figure out how to create a red link on a name for which several other pages exist (but not for the actual person.) In the Elizabeth Maitland, Duchess of Lauderdale page, I'd like to red link the name of her mother Catherine Bruce, as no page exists for her. How can I do that so it doesn't point to other existing pages? Thanks for your help! Isaksenk (talk) 17:04, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is the Catherine bruce you're talking about this one: Lady Catherine Bruce of Clackmannan? In that case, the article exists and you can make a link to it like so: Catherine Bruce - in wikitext, [[Lady Catherine Bruce of Clackmannan|Catherine Bruce]]. Kind regards from PJvanMill (talk) 18:47, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That can't be the right person, PJvanMill. Look at the dates. Elizabeth Maitland, Duchess of Lauderdale was born in `1626. Thus Lady Catherine Bruce of Clackmannan born in 1696, cannot be her mother. Our article says that Elizabeth Maitland was the daughter of William Murray, 1st Earl of Dysart His wife Catharine Bruce, granddaughter of Sir Robert Bruce of Clackmannan and Margaret Murray of the Tullibardine family is mentioned but not linked. I must conclude that no article about her on Wikipewdi currently exists. You could create an article, Isaksenk but only if you ncould find sufficient sources to establish that she was notable. Remember that simply being the wife of one notable person adn the mother of another does not make a person individually notable, and that if she is not, no article about her can be created. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 19:12, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, that is indeed not her. PJvanMill (talk) 19:15, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, correct definitely not her. I want to create a page about Catherine Bruce as I have access to records which detail her notable activities during the English Civil War. In the meantime, I'd like to red link her. Could anyone help me do that please? (Thanks from a total newbie :-) Isaksenk (talk) 21:21, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Isaksenk: You need a potential unique page name to make a red link. For "Catherine Bruce, Countess of Dysart", it would be [[Catherine Bruce, Countess of Dysart|Catherine Bruce]] to produce Catherine Bruce. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:10, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Back Market

Draft:Back Market/2.

I have read here@Robert McClenon:: "In this specific case, my opinion is that we should stub the draft on Back Market and accept it, stripped of the promotional material." . Can you explain it, please?. Ready to edit what is needed. On the other hand, I swear I recieve no money and nothing for editing Wikipedia, from Back Market and from no one related to both, directly or indirectly. I am independent, fortunately. BoldLuis (talk) 17:54, 13 June 2020 (UTC) BoldLuis (talk) 17:54, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: BoldLuis added the entire exchange above, including Robert McClenon's post. @BoldLuis: it is difficult to understand what is going on here. First of all, where does that exchange come from? It is not present at Draft:Back Market/2. Secondly, what's the deal with the two alternative drafts, Draft:Back Market and Draft:Back Market/2? I notice that both versions have been rejected, not merely declined. Thirdly, what is your question to the Teahouse volunteers? Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 18:14, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, now I see – this refers back to an old Teahouse discussion, here. --bonadea contributions talk 18:17, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BoldLuis in future, please do not copy old discussions as you did here, but instead link to such an old discussion, so that context is more fully preserved. Thank you. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 18:48, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you a lot for your help. I did not know how to do it. The link: Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive_1063#Draft:Back_Market/2 . I have a doubt: can I edit it there. Or must I put here?. BoldLuis (talk) 19:13, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Technically you can edit there – but you shouldn't, it's an archive. And if you did, likely no-one would see what you wrote. What you can do is to make requests and ask questions here, while referring and linking to that archived discussion. What you should not have done is copy Robert's posting here, with his signature at the end, making it appear that he has posted here when he hasn't. Maproom (talk) 19:41, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Improved. More sources:

BoldLuis (talk) 19:51, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Some comments on the sources listed above.

The first and sixth, in my opinion, may help to establish that Back Market is notable.

The second, third, fourth, and fifth don't. They are all based on statements made by representatives of the company, and so are not independent. The second in particular is so far from independent, I would describe it as nauseatingly promotional. If you include a reference to it, you will reduce the chance of the draft being accepted.

Finally, some advice. There are two rival copies of this draft. That is never helpful, and often causes confusion. You should get rid of one of them. Maproom (talk) 21:13, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Annoyed Comments

What happened twelve days ago is that a paid editor provided two drafts of Draft:Back Market. Then my inference as to what happened is that User:BoldLuis decided to help the paid editor with a gimmick of providing a template asking the reviewer to propose better wording on Back Market. I don't know whether User:BoldLuis is also being paid by Back Market or just sympathizes with paid editors and wants to help them. I Rejected the draft, because I was disgusted at another gimmick intended to get volunteer editors to write an article that both satisfies the corporate client by being positive and satisfies neutral point of view. (I don't know if that exists, or if it is a contradiction.)

So I will now ask User:BoldLuis whether they have a conflict of interest with Back Market. If not, why are they trying so hard in such a clueless and annoying way to help Back Market?

I will say that I think that paid editors often think that they are being treated unfairly because they are not supposed to edit directly and they do not get help in writing an article that is both neutral and promotional. I don't know if an article can be neutral and promotional, meaning that I haven't seen one yet that really is both, and I think it is sort of like a unicorn.

Robert McClenon (talk) 20:50, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

False accusations to honest editor

I say and repeat I am not paid by anyone. Can honest people as me edit Wikipedia?. The phrase: " I don't know whether User:BoldLuis is also being paid by Back Market or just sympathizes with paid editors and wants to help them." is biased. Paid? . What ?. Sympathizes?. False affirmations. I have put in several places and sworn I am not paid or helping to none. This is not important. I usually help people in my city without being paid. Why do you say it?. I only want to see a NPOV article about this topic. Can I see a neutral article in Wikipedia ?. BoldLuis (talk) 21:11, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:BoldLuis - Okay. Please try to understand that some of us are deeply distrustful of paid editors and paid editing, and of aggressive tactics used by paid editors to try to make Wikipedia into an organ for cheap advertising masquerading as neutral coverage. I don't know whether the template was your idea or that of the paid editor. If it was your idea, then you annoyed some of the experienced editors by helping paid editors. If it wasn't your idea, then I apologize for thinking that it was your idea. In the future, if you want to work on an article that also has paid editors, ignore them and work on the article yourself, so that no one thinks you are one of them. Now that it appears that you and other neutral editors are trying to work on a neutral article, I will stay out of the way. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:49, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Robert McClenon:: I am not paid editor or sympathizes with paid editor. Really, I *anti*pathizes with them. The motivation is clear: I work and in the free time afer working, I read Wikipedia and sometimes edits it to correct typos or help to improve it.I apply the same to me as to the others: I do not want false information. And I want to know neutral, well based information. I saw in the Internet information about refurbished electronics and Back Market. I tried to search more information in Wikipedia and found the Draft. I thought it was in draft because it was new information and needed to improve. I deleted what I thought it was for me like-an-advertisement. And this was what I did.12:47, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can you help fix the taxonomic box errors for both Achaenodon and Helohyidae please?

I can't seem to fix these errors so I can't do it sadly. Also, can you add more sources and references for Achaenodon too please? DinosaursRoar (talk) 18:07, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a look, and I've no idea what causes the error messages, what they mean, or what could be done about them. All I can do is suggest you ask at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Mammals. Maproom (talk) 19:31, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, DinosaursRoar. Please see Template:Automatic taxobox/doc#Creating and manipulating. It explains what this means (the relevant template doesn't yet exist) and how to create it. If you don't feel up to that, either try Template talk:Automatic taxobox, or follow Maproom's suggestion. --ColinFine (talk) 20:06, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ColinFine and Maproom:, Being the AfC reviewer for Helohyidae, I will post for help at the above mentioned talk page places. Thank you all. ~ Amkgp 💬 20:18, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Arzamas (website)

Hello, can I request to move this article into the main namespace (at least as a stub)or does it require reviewing first?--DonGuess (talk) 19:18, 13 June 2020 (UTC) DonGuess (talk) 19:18, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It has been submitted to Articles for Creation (AfC - the information at the bottom of the draft), and given that this is your first attempt at an article, I suggest you wait for it to be reviewed. AfC review can take days to weeks, sometimes months before a reviewer decides to review it. David notMD (talk) 19:29, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

creation of a wiki page for a renowned writer

My mother late Mrs Chandra Kiran Sonrexa was a world renowned writer of Hindi fiction. I would like to create a biographical article.

Kartika Sonrexa Houston

Hi @Ksonrexa: and welcome to the Teahouse. I would recommend studying the following article Help:Your_first_article and Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest and the links I left on your user talk page before starting creating this article. If you have any further questions please feel free to ask. CommanderWaterford (talk) 20:07, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This source http://thebookreviewindia.org/22824-2/ should help to establish her notability. & Maproom (talk) 20:26, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can I help someone to appeal a block

My question is that can I help some to appeal his/her block or send him/her up to arbcom. Tbiw (talk) 20:35, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Tbiw - Are you saying that an editor has been blocked and that you would like to help them get unblocked? If, like most blocked editors, they have the use of their talk page, they can post an unblock request, and you can concur with it, on their talk page. Have they been blocked for a short period of time, a long period of time, or indefinitely? If they have been blocked for a short period of time, it may be better to serve out the block. Who is the blocked editor, and for how long were they blocked? Robert McClenon (talk) 22:35, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinitely I don't like it.Tbiw (talk) 11:22, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

is 'universal basic share' notable?

I wanted to start I nice discussion on Reddits political discussion on universal basic share. But i can't find a good resource that collects the different implementation, ideologies and ideas behind it. It's very scattered :-(

Is it noticeable enough so I can write up an article on it? Or a section in the UBI page? Or is it just not something for Wikipedia? Peterklogborg (talk) 20:48, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you have been unable to find a good source, it probably isn't yet notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Maproom (talk) 21:34, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

KKK

Why does your article on the KKK not mention they were democrats? 2600:8803:D000:747:281C:17A5:15C9:7EE9 (talk) 21:33, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The final two paragraphs of Ku_Klux_Klan#First_KKK make it pretty clear that they were Democrats. Maproom (talk) 21:38, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notable Article Help?

I wanted to create an article on a game (Airport CEO; www.airportceo.com) as I could only find mentions (on English Wikipedia) of it as parts of lists, with links that go to nonexistent pages. I have verified that there is no page on the subject, however am unsure as to whether it is 'Notable' in accordance with WP:N, as there are few 'notable' sources. I could only find webpages such as Gamepedia (airportceo.gamepedia.com), Steam (store.steampowered.com/app/Airport_CEO) and various review websites which had non-primary source information on the subject. The largest source by far is the official website and their DevBlogs, but I am not sure if these are sufficient as citations. As for the actual creation of the article, I have read through the Article Creation guidelines thouroughly and had practice with editing and using the Wikipedia Editor, and think that I would be able to handle the creation of the article.

Any help on this issue would be greatly appreciated; many thanks in advance. Closingbracket (talk) 21:52, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Closingbracket. Generally when assessing notability, the best place to start is at WP:GNG; however, sometimes it might not be completely clear how WP:GNG applies to some subjects, and in those cases it can be helpful to look for guidance in a more specific notability guideline like WP:NGAME. If then things might not be as clear and in those cases it can help to ask for input from the members of a relevant WikiProject. So, maybe you should try asking about this at WT:VG since the members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games might be able to help. — Marchjuly (talk) 22:28, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Song Venus

2601:C2:C300:8C90:85B0:589F:CD42:DC3B (talk) 21:53, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IP 2601:C2:C300:8C90:85B0:589F:CD42:DC3B. The Teahouse is a place for asking questions about Wikipedia. Do you have a question about editing Wikipedia in general or about editing a specific article? It will be so much easier for a Teahouse host to try and help you if they knew what kind of problem you might be having or what you want to ask. — Marchjuly (talk) 22:33, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Climateactivist in Cizre and Göle

Dear Teahouse, I am asking for a solution for the weather data at Cizre and Göle. Since 2017 an editor is mentioning that the climate data in Cizre and Göle is not correct. Usually he removes the climate data without leaving an edit summary, but since some weeks he communicates with other editors, mainly me. I would like to find a solution, either we just leave the weather as he wants it, but his edit summaries are nonsense. He writes he is against climate data, but if we bring another one he is also against this one. I have noticed that climate data is quite wrong if it refers to to the climate table, but it is correct if it refers to the daily climate data. I have asked Femkemilene and Materialscientist for help, but there was no solution. So what can we do? Paradise Chronicle (talk) 22:49, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Paradise Chronicle. It sounds like your having a content dispute with this other editor, and the best way to try and resolve a content dispute is to follow Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Try starting a discussion about this on the article's talk page (if you already haven't) and invite the other party to discuss things there. Perhaps you can find some middle ground that addresses both of your concerns or one of you will be able to establish a WP:CONSENSUS in favor of yourr position. Once a consensus is established one way or another, the other side will be expected to honor the consensus even if they don't agree with it because not doing so is going to be considered to disruptive or otherwise problematic, and then their behavior may come under some serious scrutiny by other editors.

Sometimes we don't always get things to go our way on Wikipedia, but Wikipedia is not really about winning; the real goal is to try and figure out what's best for Wikipedia. It's OK to disagree on what this may be, but it's not really OK to keep disagreeing and trying get things your way once the Wikipedia community has decided to another way is better. So, assume good faith and try and engage this other editor. Give them a chance to resolve things through discussion; if they refuse to, then try and get others involved as explained in WP:CONTENTDISPUTE. If even at that point the other editor still insists on forcing their version into the article, then that might indicate behavior matter that may require for administrator intervention. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:43, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Back in April, you made a courteous attempt to start a discussion in both Talk:Cizre and Talk:Göle. A quick look in the recent histories of both articles suggests that Atsizat is the sole participant who removes this information and that three or more editors have been restoring it. I invite Atsizat to either to state their case on both talk pages or, better, to state it in just one of the two and briefly refer to it in the other. -- Hoary (talk) 00:23, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Uploading a new entry

Many thanks. I created a new page "Umami (film)" and uploaded it (regarding our Gerard Depardieu film to be released next year). Is there anything extra I need to do to have it go live? I am a main producer of the film and have authority to do it. Loliverfrost (talk) 22:51, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're talking about User:Loliverfrost/sandbox/Umami (film). I hardly know where to start. Please read up on product announcements, conflict of interest and reliable sources. -- Hoary (talk) 23:07, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Hi Loliverfrost. The first thing you need to do is to carefully read through Wikipedia:Conflict of Interest and Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure. Your connection to the film doesn't give you any special authority when it comes to Wikipedia; so, if you fail to comply with relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines, you're going to found yourself running into to lots of problems trying to add or edit content about the film on Wikipedia. I also suggest that you take a look at Wikipedia:Ownership of content and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not for reference as well because nobody associated with the film has any sort of final editorial control over anything written about it on Wikipedia, which means Wikipedia is not really the best place for you to try and promote the film (even indirectly). This doesn't mean that there can never be anything added about the film to Wikipedia; it just means that anyone connected to the film such as yourself might not be the best person to do so.

My suggestion to you would be to bring this up for discussion at WT:FILM to see whether someone from Wikipedia:WikiProject Film might be interested in creating an article about it. The may consideration is going to be whether the film meets WP:NFILM or whether it just might be WP:TOOSOON for any article about it to be added to Wikipedia. Films seem to be quite a popular Wikipedia genre as things go, and there are lots of editors who work on Wikipedia articles about them; so, it shouldn't be too hard to find someone as WikiProject Film to help your figure out what is what.

If you do, however, decide to try and write such an article yourself, you should follow the advice given in WP:DECLARECOI and work on a draft first. When you think the draft is ready to become an article, you should submit it to Wikipedia:Articles for creation for review. An AfC reviewer will look over the draft and see if it meets the basic criteria for articles. If it does, the reviewer will approve the draft and upgrade it to article status; if not, the reviewer will explain why and make suggestions on ways to improve things. For some general reference on writing articles, you might want to look at Help:Your first article and Help:Referencing for beginners. I also suggest looking at Wikipedia:The answer to life, the universe, and everything for a general overview of Wikipedia as well. Good luck to you. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:15, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I will add no references, and IMDb is not acceptable as a ref vis-a-vis establishing notability as Wikipedia defines it. David notMD (talk) 06:49, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Could somebody add a article about a football team to Elswick, Newcastle Upon Tyne?

Elswick Rangers FC were a football club who existed only for about 10 years in the late 1880s, they also competed in the FA Cup 3 times. http://fchd.info/ELSWICKR.HTM http://www.statto.com/football/teams/elswick-rangers/ (this are two links about Elswick Rangers)

Wonder if any editor would add an section about them in the article?Pizza Slayer (talk) 23:09, 13 June 2020 (UTC) Pizza Slayer (talk) 23:09, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pizza Slayer. If you believe the team to be Wikipedia notable (particularly per WP:TEAM and WP:FOOTYN), then you can be WP:BOLD and create such an article yourself. However, if you've never created an article before, my suggestion would be for you to work on a draft instead and then submit it to Wikipedia:Articles for creation for review once you think the draft is ready. You can find some pointers on how to write a Wikipedia article at Help:Your first article and Help:Referencing for beginners. You might also want to take a look at WP:FOOTY#Manual of style for suggestions as well.

Another thing you might want to try is asking for help from the members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Football since that's where you find editors with experience in writing articles about football teams. Just post a message at WT:FOOTY and see if you can find someone to give you some more specific advice. Good luck to you. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:30, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand, Pizza Slayer, perhaps you're simply asking about the addition of a paragraph or more about the team to the existing article Elswick, Tyne and Wear. If so, I suggest that you go ahead and do it, citing your source(s). If you think such an addition would be worthwhile but you don't want to add it yourself, then make the suggestion at Talk:Elswick, Tyne and Wear. -- Hoary (talk) 23:47, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Pizza Slayer: if you can dig up some more sources I'd be happy to create the article. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 12:15, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Move

Hi, can you tell me how to "move by overwriting"? I believe that I once did this a few years ago, but I've since forgotten. Thank you. ◊PRAHLAD^balaji (M•T•A•C) This message was left at 23:59, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Simply, if you're not an administrator, you can't. See this explanation, which tells you where you should go. -- Hoary (talk) 05:59, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is not 100% correct. If the move target is a redirect to the current page and has only one item in the revision history (the redirect) even non-Admins can delete by overwriting (See my user logs for example) Victor Schmidt mobil (talk) 06:27, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Victor Schmidt mobil above; @Hoary: please see LoveMyWikis1234's move log. I believe that I've done this too. Also, extended movers and file movers can move without leaving a redirect. Can somebody tell me how to move by overwriting? ◊PRAHLAD^balaji (M•T•A•C) This message was left at 14:48, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cedrus atlantica glauca

2600:1700:E690:AC30:C5BA:AFB6:82F8:62 (talk) 00:14, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What? ◊PRAHLAD^balaji (M•T•A•C) This message was left at 00:22, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cedrus atlantica (Atlas cedar, a tree species) is an article. Glauca is mentioned as a cultivar; glaucous meaning blue/grey in color. David notMD (talk) 06:54, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Cedar is a redirect to Radar, Anti-Aircraft No. 3 Mk. 7. Most people searching for "blue cedar" would be better served by a redirect to Cedrus atlantica. There may be justification for creating an article on the 'Glauca' variety. Maproom (talk) 08:15, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Technical problem with table

The table for cases and deaths per million in COVID-19 pandemic by country and territory is a mess, even though it should be simple for someone technically competent to fix it. See Talk:COVID-19 pandemic by country and territory#Cases and deaths per million. Can anyone help? Dudley Miles (talk) 08:54, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Dudley Miles, welcome to the Teahouse. Asking the question where you did was far better than here, and it does look like you're now getting responses there. The only other places I could suggest to raise concerns if it doesn't get resolved would be at the Wikiproject for Covid19 see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject COVID-19, and/or the talk page for the template full of that data which is at Template:COVID-19 pandemic data. (It does strike me that a 'date last updated' field might have helped for each country, though it does sound like it is being populated by some automated process), Anyway, I hope this helps a bit. Stay safe. Nick Moyes (talk) 09:56, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1 Newton meter per second squared , what second is measured in squared in this formula

2402:3A80:937:D6B7:8129:60C1:C672:500A (talk) 09:11, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello IP editor. This is an editing help desk for those wanting to improve and contribute to Wikipedia articles. I'm afraid we're not a general Q&A forum. Try looking within Wikipedia for your answers, especially Acceleration and Metre per second squared. And if that fails, search on Google. May the Force be with you! Nick Moyes (talk) 09:47, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Want to edit a page to make it full of information

I'm from Bangladesh and I really want to contribute to Wikipedia. I'm here to know some information. There is a page List of colleges in Bangladesh link:https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_colleges_in_Bangladesh But that page doesn't have much information. It's empty so to say. As I am a student and blogger from Bangladesh i have the list of names of all of the colleges in Bangladesh. And i also have a reference page from official website of "Ministry of education of Bangladesh" which have the list of all of the name of the colleges in Bangladesh. So I'm willing to edit that page and give the list of all of the colleges of Bangladesh. I want to know if it's there any problem doing that work? Md Maruf Parvez (talk) 09:12, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of colleges in Bangladesh is not an article, it's a list. It's not the place to put information about the colleges. If you want to add information about the colleges, you should add it to the articles on the individual colleges. Maproom (talk) 09:35, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You hadn't understood my question. I won't give information about colleges. I will just give a list of all of the colleges in that page. Md Maruf Parvez (talk) 23:26, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Md Maruf Parvez, it appears that you want to use the lists you have to add further entries to the list article List of colleges in Bangladesh. Unfortunately, list article entries are limited to items about which Wikipedia already has an article. I am fairly certain that not all of the colleges on your lists are notable enough to have articles in Wikipedia, meaning that, if they are added to List of colleges in Bangladesh, they are subject to deletion.--Quisqualis (talk) 01:17, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My recent contributions have been undone because they did not appear constructive

My contribution was more than constructive.

Wiki’s entry For typographic points is written: “In digital type, letters of a font are designed around an imaginary space called an em square. When a point size of a font is specified, the font is scaled so that its em square has a side length of that particular length in points.”

If the font is to be scaled to the specified point size of a font, it can’t be “imaginary”.

So, I edited the first sentence to;

In digital type, letters of a font are designed in a space representing the vertical distance any typesetter will move with no additional line spacing, also known as leading. The square of that vertical distance is called an em square.

So then; When a point size of a font is specified, the font is scaled so that its em square has a side length of that particular length in points.

Makes more sense.

How is that not constructive? 2601:18E:8200:6919:7950:34D:47D5:DE64 (talk) 10:30, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. If you truly feel that your edit was needed, you should start a discussion on the article talk page to explain why, and/or ask the other editor directly as to why they feel that way. 331dot (talk) 10:44, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Should I keep writing the draft

Hello, I started Draft:Arzamas (website) and some people except me have participated too, but it was declined because it looks like an advertisement, with I agree with and it’s my fault, but the problem is that it looks like there are only three English-language sources about Arzamas so it could be impossible to write a proper article. What should I do? DonGuess (talk) 11:59, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DonGuess. Sources used for Wikipedia only need to be reliable, published and reasonably accessable; they're not required to be in English as explained in WP:NONENGLISH and they're not required to be online as explained in WP:SAYWHERE. So, if you believe there are non-English sources which satisfy English Wikipedia's definition of a "reliable sources", then you can cite them in articles. However, please understand since this is English Wikipedia and articles are expected to be written in English, sources written in languages other than English might be a bit harder to verify. So, you can help out by providing as much information about the source as possible when you cite them. There's a way to cite non-English sourcing using templates such as {{cite web}} and {{cite book}}, etc. that involves using parameters like |language=, |quote=, |trans-work= and |trans-title=, etc. If you're going to cite a non-English source, it's going to be assumed that you've got sufficient language ability yourself to understand what the source is saying; however, the AfC reviewer reviewing the draft might not have the same ability. So, you might be able to help clarify the source if you can provide a rough translation/summary of it on the draft's talk page or possibly a link to an online translation of it (perhaps using something like Google Translate). Machine-based translations are not really considered good enough for content added to an article, but a machine translation of the the source might make it easier for reviewers to assess the source. You might be able to add a link to an online English translation of the source (if you can find one) to the actual citation syntax using the | parameter. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:20, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What's wrong with this article?

Hello everyone, I spent 3 weeks to source for sources to create this article- Draft:Tiwalola Olanubi in main space and has been there waiting for review for about 10 days but just discovered that this article has been moved to draft space and the reason provided by the mover is that the article is "under sourced". This article has 12 sources. Of the 12 sources 4 are from printed newspapers with 2 ISSN while the other two printed newspapers do not print their ISSN but Vol & No which I included in the citations. I work in a newspaper section of a library where we file newspaper pages based on their coverage, for instance political stories, business, oil and gas etc to make it easy for researchers. This makes it easy for me to have access to offline sources for this article I created.

But I'm so surprised that this article is moved to draft space. I know that to create an article you must provide at least 3 sources. If this article has issues why was it not flagged for those issues? If the editor that moved this article to draft space felt that the subject does not meet Wikipedia notability guideline why did he not flag it for notability issue? But I know that the subject is notable because it has independent media coverage. I spent days reading about Wikipedia general notability guideline before moving to create this article. So I think I have a little understanding of Wikipedia notability guideline.

I have checked through the edit history of the editor that moved this article to draft space and discovered that he has moved hundreds of articles with at least 7 sources each to draft space for "under sourced". But I'm baffled that most of the articles this editor created have average of five sources. Why is he moving articles with higher number of sources than his own articles to draft space?

The editor that performed this action describes himself as "deletionist" and he is truly deleting articles. This editor wrote on his userpage that he is disappointed in the editors that "ignore common sense in place of process". This clearly shows that this editor does not observe Wikipedia editorial policies but uses his own common sense. But if everyone here uses 'commom sense' Wikipedia will become a lawless place where people behave the way they want. And the result? Wikipedia will lose his reputation. If this editor continues this way a lot of new editors will turn away. Maybe this editor alone made Wikipedia what it is today. I urge you all to address this issue. Best regards. Maco Paco (talk) 12:46, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever the editor (Lapablo) calls himself, he hasn't deleted your article. (But "Maybe [Lapablo] alone made Wikipedia what it is today" -- we should erect a statue!) I looked at the draft. It's very short. Your biographee is a businessman, but I have trouble discerning his notability. I clicked on one of the many sources: this one. It's really lightweight stuff, with a total of three sentences about your man. He works in advertising and he seems to be successful; but just what he's done remains a mystery to me. -- Hoary (talk) 13:04, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @Hoary:. This is an issue of policy. The notability guideline says independent media coverage of the subject and the subject of the article has same. Why did he not flag the article for notability concern? Does moving it to draft space confer notability on the article? Of the 12 sources cited you draw your conclusion from a single source? Did you look at these: [1] [2] [3]. You said that the article is too short but if I wrote more about him you would say it is promotional. He has won a reputable award, the company he founded has won awards too. Is notability no longer established by independent media coverage? Or the subject must be a governor, federal lawmaker to be notable? Maco Paco (talk) 15:11, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Hoary, Maco Paco, and Lapablo: This is not the best sourced article that I have ever seen. But I think that it has sufficient sourcing that it would survive at an AfD, which is the standard for an AfC approval. Specifically:

news-af.feednews.com's "Meet Social Media Strategist, Tiwalola Olanubi" has several paragraphs about Olanubi and seems to be an independent source, although it is hard to be sure, it could be based on a press release.
The Nigerian Pilot article is not linked to, but seems to be about Olanubi winning a significant award.
The BellaNaija article has more marketing Buzz-speak than I like, but devotes six (short) paragraphs to Olanubi , and I think must count as significant coverage
The article "Three Individuals Reshaping The Future" from Guardfian Nigeria is not really in-depth coverage, but is more than a passing mention. I would count as 1/2 of a solid source for notability purposes. Saying that his company is ... arguably the foremost social media marketing company in Nigeria. is not trivial.
The article "Disrupting the future" from Guardian Nigeria devotes 9 paragraphs to Olanubi . This is significant coverage by an independent and reliable source, IMO.
The Business Day NG article "DottsMediaHouse CEO bags Future Awards nomination" devotes 5 full paragraphs to Olanubi, one of which is a quote. This is the same award the Nigerian Pilot article was apparently about. This describes the award as Recognized by Forbes as the “Most important awards for outstanding young Africans”. which suggests that this is not a trivial award, and contributes to notability. This article also seems to me to be solid coverage.
Two other sources are about this same award, but the "12 outstanding youth nominated for Future Awards". article from Vanguard Allure includes four paragraphs devoted to Olanubi, and is IMO significant coverage.

All together I think this would be more than enough to support a Keep view at an AfD, so draftification was neither needed nor warranted. A maintenance tag requesting additional sources might have been justified. But draftication should mean that the alternative is speedy deletion, or at least an AfD where deletion is expected. Newither of thesae is in my view the case here. Therefore I intend to move thiws back to mainspace as it stands. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 16:17, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @DESiegel: for taking time to review the sources of the article and more importantly your action on the article. I'm now encouraged to continue contributing while learning here. I hope that this article will go live. Once again thank you. Maco Paco (talk) 19:04, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maco Paco, the article is now live, that is what being in the main article space means. It is as live as any article on Wikipedia is. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 22:57, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

how is a title edited?

Palisades1 (talk) 14:17, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Palisades1, see WP:MOVE. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:39, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What steps should I take in merging and formatting an article?

I am a relative newcomer to Wikipedia, but I am jumping in the deep end in my planned first major edit of merging Cosmetic surgery in Australia to Plastic Surgery. My major concern is about formatting guidelines for this kind of a topic. I like the way that the procedures under "Types of Cosmetic Surgery Available" are formatted in the Australia article, but am not sure how I can properly replicate it in the general Plastic Surgery article, or even if such formatting is appropriate for this section? I don't know if it would make the article too lengthy or complicated. (I don't think so.... but also I'm so new that this is all very daunting!)

Honestly, I envision "Cosmetic Surgery" as its own separate article that outlines the history of cosmetic surgery (as distinct from reconstructive plastic surgery) in modern times. This article, similar to the "Cosmetic Surgery in Australia" article would have lists of procedures, a brief description of their history and layman's explanation of the procedure, as well as indications, benefits, and complications of the procedure (cited from various PubMed articles and plastic surgery textbooks). The procedures may or may not link to individual articles about the procedure depending on if they already exist on Wikipedia and the information available about the the specific procedure. However, in the meantime as simply merging is daunting enough, I do not plan on doing this until I have a more robust list.

I suppose I have several questions.

1) What is the preferred formatting for a section of an article that is primarily a list and a brief descriptor? Should I use a bulleted list such as in the general Plastic Surgery article, or one with bolded subheaders (if that's the appropriate term) from the Cosmetic Surgery in Australia article?

2) How can I easily replicate this formatting when I merge an article? Are there templates available that I should use?

3) What steps should I take in merging an article with a section that will likely need to be split off in the future? Should I merge and then split? Or create a new article and then merge information from the two articles I have mentioned into it? Is my thought process appropriate for why Cosmetic Surgery should be its own article?

Thank you all in advance for the help. Marcia Barnett (talk) 14:47, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Marcia Barnett: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. As you are a new editor with only 21 edits so far, it's not really a good idea to attempt something as complicated as a merge in your first couple weeks of editing. Merging larger articles is also something that should probably be discussed with other editors first, in order to gain consensus on the merge. What I would do if I were you is propose the merge on the talk page of the article to be merged. This way you can get feedback on your idea, get suggestions from other editors on how to execute it, and gain a little more editing experience as well. You can see details on how to do this at WP:MERGING. Hope this helps. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 18:57, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ThatMontrealIP: Thanks for your reply. I appreciate and share your hesitancy. I have also discussed the merge on the talk page though it's not particularly active (last update in April), which is why I have decided to jump in the deep end and learn by doing. Currently I have a draft page of the Plastic Surgery Article where I am slowly rearranging the content to be merged and attempting to make the article as a whole better. I do not intend to publish any final changes until gaining more consensus. (I hope this the right way to use a Draft article.) I agree that I should probably get more experience as well--I am learning about WikiProjects and WikiAdventure. Would appreciate any other resources you can point me to. Thanks. --- Marcia Barnett (talk) 01:31, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Marcia Barnett: I would suggest picking a section in one of the articles you are interested in, and working on that to start and gain experience. The current Plastic surgery article had about 5,000 edits over the past fourteen years; this is how Wikipedia articles are generally built: bit by bit. If you are planning on replacing that with your article that would need some consensus and would likely bring lots of editors out of the woodwork. It's generally a mistake to write up a large article until you have gained some more experience. I'm not sure what you will do with the draft, as these are generally destined for article space, and in this case there is already an article in the space where your draft would go. Going slowly,a small chunk at a time, generally draws fewer objections than large scale changes to a page. It's a process. That said, WP:BEBOLD is thing on Wikipedia: you should be bold and just change things. But be ready for some pushback if those changes aren't accepted by others; that is where WP:BRD comes in. (yes we have lots of contradictory policies). Hope that helps. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 03:26, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ThatMontrealIP: Thanks for your very thorough reply. What you said makes sense. I am in no rush and want to take my time, hence the draft. I was planning on using the draft as a way to save my work in the planned merge process and as a place for me to make mistakes with formatting and content organization before ultimately copy/pasting it over to the Plastic surgery article, deleting the draft, and formally completing the merge process. (Should I do this in the Sandbox or in another format instead?) Thanks again--I will spend more time practicing and learning with other articles while I work on my merge draft. Hopefully some discussion about this merge will arise in the meantime. --- Marcia Barnett (talk) 03:45, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Draft space" (we have user space, draft space, article space, and so on...) is just fine. It;s not the usual place, but it will work. If you would like to improve the likelihood of discussion, then pasting the merge template into the article you want to eliminate via merge is the way to go. That lets people know what you are thinking. You could also go through the article histories and find the names of the most active editors of the page, then use the WP:PING template to get their attention. Being bold is often very effective at getting people's attention! You will generally draw lots of attention if there are many page watchers. You can see how many people are watching a page by clicking "page information" in the left hand panel on any page. Cosmetic surgery in Australia currently has less than 30 watchers; Plastic surgery has 266 watchers, and 26 of those have visited recent edits to check them over! If you have any editing questions drop me a line on my talk page. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 03:55, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Trump And racism

The article on Donald Trump and racism TRUTH is best served first instead of errors of attitudes. So why isn't what Donald Trump has said and proven about himself printed first? And those who follow slander of Hillary Clinton and the media as exactly that of lies slander, opinion maglignancy to try to win a presidential race. There is no truth to this. An encyclopedia is supposed to give facts. 2600:1700:5D10:9B0:201B:FB00:5E6C:9DDE (talk) 16:46, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TRUTH Victor Schmidt (talk) 16:49, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Ellipzys (talk) 16:47, 14 June 2020 (UTC) hi[reply]

@Ellipzys: Welcome to Wikipedia! Victor Schmidt (talk) 16:49, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How to upload an write up

Actually, the article which i published yesterday based on my research and investigation. its very useful information for the petroleum engineers. Finding free gas at pump intake using CFD & Sub pump software. Please support me if you can upload the date if possible Ellipzys (talk) 16:50, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No. Sorry, but Wikipedia does not publish original research - please see the policy at Wikipedia:OR. --CiaPan (talk) 16:58, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot to ping: Ellipzys. --CiaPan (talk) 17:00, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

not, Oringinal researche completely with me. THis is just a hint for understanings. Ellipzys (talk) 17:40, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ellipzys: On your talk page you wrote actaulyy i shared my thesis, which is why it was deleted. Please read WP:OR again. Our encyclopedia articles summarize what reliable, secondary sources (e.g., newspapers, books, peer-reviewed journals) have written about a subject that Wikipedia considers to be notable, according to WP:N. The article must have inline citations to those sources for any non-trivial statements. What was on your user page was apparently considered by a nominating user and an administrator to be unambiguous advertising, promotion, or your own research, which is not allowed. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 21:59, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Facebook photo use

I am working on the Columbia Daily Tribune article and wanted to add a newer front page image. The Tribune no longer posts PDFs of front pages on its website, but it does post them as images on Facebook. And the Tribune Facebook page allows photo downloads.

Can this be added to Wikipedia? Gangskew (talk) 17:57, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Gangskew, and welcome to the Teahouse. The current front page image on Columbia Daily Tribune is used under a claim of fair use. Any current issue would have to be under a similar claim, and satisfy all the conditions of WP:NFCC. Has the layout or appearance of the typical front page of that paper changed significantly since the current image was created? If not, I see no reason to update. If it has, an update is probably reasonable, but you would have to jump though the fair-use hoops. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 18:21, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Gangskew. Good question. I think it could, the argument would be that the frontpage has changed in 13 years. If you check File:Columbia Daily Tribune front page.gif you see it speaks of "fair use" etc, and a newer image should be possible per the same reasons. How to actually do it, I'm not sure. Pinging Marchjuly if they wish to comment. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:24, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gangskew. I think the points made by DES and Gråbergs Gråa Sång above are good ones. The infobox image is typically supposed to be a representative image for primary identification purposes; so, if the formatting/layout of the front page has undergone some major changes recently so it looks quite different from how it appeared at the time the current image was uploaded, then it might make sense to update or replace the image infobox image with a new one.

Perhaps the thing to do would be to see what some others think at about this at Talk:Columbia Daily Tribune. You're not required to do such a thing and can be WP:BOLD, but non-free content is required to be used in at least one article per non-free content use criterion #7; so, the minute you replace the current image with a new one, it will become eligible for speedy deletion per speedy deletion criterion #F5. Someone who might disagree with your change and who reverts it will then make the file you uploaded eligible for speedy deletion for the same reason. Since this type of back and forth trying to stop one of the files from being speedily deleted is not really helpful or to Wikipedia's benefit at all, it might be better to be a bit WP:CAUTIOUS here to see if others agree with changing the image.

One thing you should try and avoid regardless is simply overwriting the existing file with a new one except if you're just creating an "improved version" (a resizing, straightening, etc.) of the existing file; if the file is significantly different (i.e. a completely different front page), you should upload it as a new file instead.

Finally, Wikipedia's non-free content use policy is quite restrictive and limiting; so, while the use of a non-free file for primary identification purposes at the top of or in the main infobox of an article is often allowed, using the same file in other articles or in other ways can be much harder to justify. Using multiple non-free images in the same article is not expressly prohibited, but using one is already considered sort of an exception which means using more than one is not always warranted and needs to be a really exceptional case. So, don't automatically assume that moving the current image to some other part of the article and then adding a new one to the infobox is going to satisfy relevant Wikipedia policy. It may be the case that the use of only a one of the two images can be justified per relevant policy and the other one will need to be deleted. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:03, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all for your advice, Marchjuly, DES and Gråbergs Gråa Sång! I definitely will bring up on Talk:Columbia Daily Tribune. Gangskew (talk) 23:44, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hard to tell if this extremely large number of edits is constructive

Special:Contributions/24.159.60.138 has been making a very large number of edits on home video article to the point that it's really hard to keep track of what they've added. The first one I saw was unconstructive but I can't tell about most of them. Could I get a second opinion on that? Green Dragon Pride (talk) 18:16, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why I cannot edit a page?

Why I cannot edit my NGO page? I am the new president of LSRS and still after trying a few times to change some information on the page, I got a notification saying it is disruptive editing.

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

https://ro.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liga_Studen%C8%9Bilor_Rom%C3%A2ni_din_Str%C4%83in%C4%83tate

How can I prove that my information is relevant? Stredie (talk) 18:43, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Stredie: You need to provide a citation for any changes that you are requesting. Since you are connected to the organization, you should place your suggested change on the article's talk page along with {{edit request}} and an uninvolved editor will evaluate it. RudolfRed (talk) 19:20, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stredie, you do not have a page here, nor does the organization you've named. There is an encyclopedia article about the organization here, but it isn't yours. You have absolutely no control over what it says. As Rudolph told you, the extent of participation you should have regarding your organization is to make suggestions on the article's talk page. Please familiarize yourself with both WP:PAID, WP:OWN and WP:COI. Wikipedia is not part of your organization's "social media portfolio". John from Idegon (talk) 20:37, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Account confirmation

Hi everyone - I noticed that semi-protected pages cannot be edited by new users unless their account is auto-confirmed or confirmed. I have made 10 edits and I have confirmed my account via the email confirmation, yet I still cannot edit semi-protected articles. Do I have to be a member for four days despite meeting the other two criteria? I have some primary source information to add to the Battle of Bunker Hill. (TomRidley (talk) 19:18, 14 June 2020 (UTC))[reply]

@TomRidley: According to WP:SEMI the account must be autoconfirmed before edited an semi-protected page, so you will just need to wait. RudolfRed (talk) 19:22, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@TomRidley: Yes, the account must be four days old. Autoconfirmation is not related to email confirmation. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:48, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

TomRidley, you can make an edit request at Talk: Battle of Bunker Hill. Please read Wikipedia:Edit requests for details. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:56, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all! (TomRidley (talk) 20:35, 14 June 2020 (UTC))[reply]

Why am I not allowed to translate articles?

I have created this account many years ago in the Spanish Wikipedia and recently moved it to the English Wikipedia. I am willing to translate content, in particular topics regarding Latin American literature, which is my academic background. Although I have already activated the translation feature in the "Contributions" section, I am not allowed to translate anything as I always find an "issue" that says: "Your translation cannot be published because publishing is only allowed to more experienced editors on this wiki." Could anyone please help me to solve this problem? Regards. WhisperingValley (talk) 20:02, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Currently only extended confirmed users have access to the content translation tool. Ruslik_Zero 20:17, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WhisperingValley, honestly said I do not understand why you do want to make use of this tool - why not using Deepl for example (IMHO much better) and translating via copy and paste!? CommanderWaterford (talk) 20:41, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why you'd want to use any translation tool at all. Your mother tongue is Spanish, and you've shown above that you can write good English. Maproom (talk) 22:41, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, please recall that machine translations are not allowed. See WP:TRANSLATE for guidance. RudolfRed (talk) 23:56, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@WhisperingValley: The content translation tool has been kneecapped compared to how it functioned years ago. Because they were so often misused, machine translation features (at least into English) were turned off. I actually liked the old tool--it wasn't quite as good at translating as other machine translators, but it automatically created appropriate Wikipedia links, which was a big plus. Contrary to others' comments above, I think machine translation is handy to save time as a starting point even if you're a competent translator, assuming it is reasonably accurate so you're not spending tons of time fixing it. Anyways... long story short, even when you have more edits and get access to the tool, the tool will likely be worthless to you (even if you liked it before). Calliopejen1 (talk) 07:09, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can I create my Personal Information profile?

I want to create my personal information profile in Wikipedia. I not want to create my profile for any self-promotional purpose or business purpose. I have a account on Wikipedia, If someone search me on google, so that he can find me and know about my self. For this I want to create my information profile on Wikipedia.

Thank you. Iftekhar Alam Murad Iftekhar Alam Murad (talk) 21:35, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Iftekhar Alam Murad: hello and wekcome to the Teahouse. The short answer is no: you cannot create a profile page here as you would on Social media. Wikipedia is for notable topics (see WP:N) and it cannot be user for WP:SELFPROMOTION. Hope this helps. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 21:46, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Iftekhar Alam Murad: If you want people to be able to find you and know about you because of a page they found here on Google, that's self-promotion. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:33, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Iftekhar Alam Murad: Not meaning to come across as rude, I think you can easily achieve that goal in better ways. I would recommend Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, Blogger, Wordpress and a host of other sites that al you to tell the world about yourself. These are all free sites which can help you make your presence felt on the internet when someone searches for your name. Unfortunately Wikipedia is not here for that purpose. On that basis would you be agreeable to me deleting Draft:Iftekhar Alam Murad? Kind regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 22:51, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Citation keeps getting removed

Hello, and thank you for reading my question. I feel a certain Wikipedia user continually accuses my edits of being unconstructive and disruptive regardless of the content of the edit. The article in question is Blockbuster LLC in regards to the third paragraph of the lead. Over the course of a year, numerous edits by more than one user have continually skewed the factual accuracy of a sentence in this paragraph.

As you may know, Blockbuster LLC closed its corporate locations in 2014 but certain franchise-owned locations continued operating. The number of open franchise-owned locations decreased until early 2019, when the only one remained. The lead was continually changed to inaccurate dates following up to my edits which are actually unconstructive and disruptive.

I did not see the Wikipedia user in question talk to any of the users who made these erroneous edits. I tried correcting these edits by adding more accurate wording and including the source that originally reported the information. Less than a day later my edit was removed by this user, who I feel is watching my edits just to target me. I do not see why, in this wording, the edit need be removed or called unconstructive and disruptive. The citation was disputed approximately three years ago when it was used to support the factual claim being made in the article through a secondary source, since it is the only secondary source that was being continually updated and maintained. I feel personally targeted by this user and feel I cannot make any edits, even unrelated, in fear of reversal by them. KevinTheGuy (talk) 21:38, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, KevinTheGuy. Welcome to the Teahouse, and thanks for coming here with your question. At a quick look, I am sure you were editing in good faith. However, when you say your 'citation keeps getting removed', I can't actually see in this diff any evidence that you ever added a citation. What you appear to have done is change a statement which was supported by a citation, and left it as a different factual statement, unsupported by the original citation, and with nothing added that does support it. If I am correct in that interpretation, the reverting editor would have felt it was also unhelpful (i.e. unconstructive) to change content without supporting it with a new, valid citation.

Having got this far in my reply, I went to the article talk page and see you've tried - at great length, and over a long timeframe - to persuade other editors to include links to a 'Blockbuster Fan Club' page and that the consensus and other discussions elsewhere went against you. I also see you've raised it there again, but to no avail. I couldn't even find a functional link to any online fan club (and neither could I access the official Blockbuster website in External links - so I assume both are now defunct) But, either way, I hope you see that adding unsupported statements is itself not OK (especially if the source is a user-generated fan-run website), and that when consensus goes against you, sometimes you simply have to accept it if your attempts at changing opinion have failed. The transition from good faith editing to 'unconstructive' happens when someone continues to try to get their way against that prior consensus, and keeps on attempting to make the same edits. Sorry I can't be more supportive here. Nick Moyes (talk) 22:47, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Nick Moyes:, Thank you for replying. The Blockbuster Fan Page is not defunct and can be found at the same link that was originally disputed. Blockbuster's official webpage is still up as well and shows factually inaccurate information on some pages. I apologize if I did not follow some Wikipedia protocols in properly citing the source in my edit, however, I feel the user's targets against me could never allow it to be used despite there being nothing wrong with the factual accuracy of the wording used. KevinTheGuy (talk) 23:02, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@KevinTheGuy: I'm sorry, mate, but http://cybernight.elementfx.com/buster.html isn't a Fan Page - it's a one man band webpage built in a few minutes in a basement, and I can see why we wouldn't allow it! I've never seen anything like it if it's really a 'Fan Page'. I presume you created it? I'm really sorry, but that'd never, ever get accepted here, nor can you use content from it. Whilst what little content there is there might well be 100% factual and accurate, I would also never be willing to regard it as an acceptable Reliable Source. I'm still unable to get anything to display at http://blockbuster.com/, so that looks like a dead domain to me, too. Regards Nick Moyes (talk) 23:55, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Nick Moyes: The Blockbuster Fan Page has existed for four years and has had numerous continual updates in regards to the number of franchise-owned Blockbuster stores. There are captures available from the Internet Archive Wayback Machine. I did not create it and in no way maintain it. And like I said before, Blockbuster's official webpage is in fact up and running, and still shows factually inaccurate information. KevinTheGuy (talk) 00:11, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@KevinTheGuy and Nick Moyes: That blockbuster.com/franchise.html page has a modified date in 2014. If you try using https to access it, you get a certificate domain complaint because the cert is registered to dish.com (who apparently absorbed the Blockbuster brand in 2011), who didn't bother spending a few bucks for a separate cert. I don't think there is any value in 6+-year-old information about a defunct company, and would object to its use as a source. The elementfx.com fan page is obviously not a WP:RS. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 00:12, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@KevinTheGuy: Being archived on Wayback Machine doesn't mean that a grotty webpage suddenly becomes a reliable source. All the pages I sampled there still looks like a cheap and nasty webpage to me, written by one solitary fan. Sorry to be blunt, but I think you should WP:DROPTHESTICK with this one. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:20, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Nick Moyes: You are literally judging a book by its cover. "Being archived on Wayback Machine doesn't mean that a grotty webpage suddenly becomes a reliable source." You're right, but you obviously don't see the point of the webpage. Whether or not information is artistic does not matter in terms of sourcing references. The Blockbuster Fan Page tracked the number of open franchise-owned locations and included an interactive map. There is only one location remaining, so the interactive map has been removed. I didn't make that choice. KevinTheGuy (talk) 00:29, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@KevinTheGuy: I am indeed judging the book, yes, but by its self-published url, its obvious one-man-band nature, and lack of anything that resembles a reliably-published source with editorial oversight. The content might be correct, but such a site has no place here. If you don't have better sources for this information, then the information can't be added. As I said above, it is now time for you to concede you are not going to get that source added and to WP:DROPTHESTICK. Continuing to try to do so will now be deemed as disruptive editing. Nick Moyes (talk) 07:45, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Inviting Editors to Talk Page?

Greetings. How does one invite other editors to a talk page discussion without invoking WP:CAN? I've recently opened a discussion on the Famke Janssen talk page regarding including/excluding rowspans but I fear that discussion may have hit a roadblock already due to a similar issue being brought up in 2017 and no consensus was reached, likely due to a low number of editors on the article. Armegon (talk) 21:45, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Armegon, did you check the WP:APPNOTE section? Here's [4] an example. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 22:00, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Querry how to publish

I have put up certain material in my sandbox which has been edited 17 times. I hv tried to publish it after 10 edits. But i dont know wether it is published and avaialable in open source. How do check wether my document is open to people? If not what are the reasons? And how can i overcome it? Prachi.chopade (talk) 01:06, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Prachi.chopade, I cannot tell that you have ever tried to publish it. No one else has made edits to User:Prachi.chopade/sandbox. If you want to move that forward toward article space, the first thing you will have to do is--OK more than one thing--a. tone down the promotion (the membership, the projects, the whole "Prof. Bhagwat had a vast knowledge"), b. add secondary sources to prove that this person meets WP:PROF. Right now this looks like a kind of resume, like a tenure folder. Good luck, Drmies (talk) 01:12, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Prachi.chopade: Welcome to Wikipedia. What you have written at User:Prachi.chopade/sandbox reads to me like a resume/CV and not an encyclopedia article. Check out WP:YFA for how to create an article draft and submit it for review. RudolfRed (talk) 01:14, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Something

which are verified link as reference?

how to check whether a reference link is verified or not to add on a wikipedia page ?? Thanks Tipx20 (talk) 01:07, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Tipx20: Welcome to Wikipedia and thanks for wanting to check the sources. Please see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources for how to identify reliable sources you can use for citation in Wikipedia articles. RudolfRed (talk) 01:10, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Need help with a draft

Draft:People's Initiative for Technology Tipx20 (talk) 01:12, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On the draft it tells you (twice, as you seem to have submitted it twice): "Review waiting, please be patient. This may take 5 weeks or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 1,869 pending submissions waiting for review."

One of the things which you can usefully do is to read the WP:Manual of Style. One obvious problem is that you have many misplaced external links. You can address these problems while you are waiting for the review. --David Biddulph (talk) 04:02, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalization

F Is for Family. Attempts have been made to rename / move the title for this page to the correct capitalization of the word "is" in keeping with the show's title. When I went to move it, I received this dialogue box: "The page could not be moved, for the following reason: The page could not be moved: a page of that name already exists, or the name you have chosen is not valid. Please choose another name, or use Requested moves to ask for the page to be moved. Do not manually move the article by copying and pasting it; the page history must be moved along with the article text." There is a consensus on the Page to correct the title; but I'm not sure how to by-pass the now redirect page that has been created for the title is for Family. Any advice? Maineartists (talk) 01:14, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Maineartists: Welcome to the Teahouse! It's hard to see on the red background, but the instructions "use Requested moves to ask for the page to be moved" has a link to Wikipedia:Requested moves, where you can request the technical move. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 01:21, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note the suggestion (correct, IMO) is to move the article to the lower-case "is". (I originally mis-read it as wanting upper-case). —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 01:39, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done I have done the move. There was just enough history in the redirect to require an admin or page mover to do this. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 01:45, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Querry: what r a green/ red numbers point beside my edit

Querry: what r a green/ red numbers /point beside my each edits. Is it some kind of rating? Prachi.chopade (talk) 01:48, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Prachi.chopade: It is the number of characters added or deleted with the edit. It is not a rating. RudolfRed (talk) 01:52, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Article getting plastered by flood of events

It is List of monuments and memorials removed during the George Floyd protests, which has spawned Actions against memorials in the United Kingdom during the George Floyd protests. See Talk:List of monuments and memorials removed during the George Floyd protests. I and others have stopped trying to keep the table updated, as it has become technically complicated at the same time the list wobbles around typographically, conceptually, and organizationally.

This was where it was a week ago: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_monuments_and_memorials_removed_during_the_George_Floyd_protests&oldid=961244155

I don't know to fix it or get it fixed. Maybe someone here knows.@CaroleHenson: @Another Believer: deisenbe (talk) 02:24, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ellipyzs request

can you send me any sample file ,which i can follow to make a new write up. Ellipzys (talk) 02:31, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what you're asking for. It is much more complicated than writing up the descriotion of a file. deisenbe (talk) 02:34, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Deisenbe: This appears to have been accidentally added without a new section header. I think it's a vague request for help of some kind. Calliopejen1 (talk) 06:48, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ellipzys: I'm not really sure what you're requesting. The contents of your user page were deleted on the grounds that you were using Wikipedia as a free webhost. I'm not sure I would have deleted the page myself, but it was not really an appropriate beginning to a Wikipedia article. It was more of a how-to guide. I'd look at existing articles in the categories Category:Petroleum engineering and Category:Petroleum technology to see what existing articles in this field look like. Calliopejen1 (talk) 06:54, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wording

There is this company (FIITJEE) that terms itself as a "coaching institute for competitive exams", but Reuters calls the whole industry a "cram school" without pinpointing the term at the specific company. Should the company be termed as a coaching institute or a cram school in its article? I’m asking this because the article is itself somewhat biased against the industry (despite Reuters being reputed), but another editor insists on keeping it. RedBulbBlueBlood9911Talk 05:06, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Casual Wikipedia editing

Hi! I don't want to edit "controversial" articles and get in fights, but want to contribute to the site, so I was thinking if there's something like a bot generated list of articles with bad grammar or ones in need of simple source verification, or anything similar to that. Like cleanup work? Or small things looking for consensus by regular editors? Or anything casual really that any new user can participate in without drama. Julia Domna Ba'al (talk) 05:16, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Julia Domna Ba'al.

That is an excellent question. Pleasectake a close look at Wikipedia:Community portal which is a place that exists to direct you to articles (mostly uncontroversial) that need the kind of attention that you are describing. Happy editing! Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:23, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, thanks. Julia Domna Ba'al (talk) 05:30, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like you want to be a Wikignome, Julia Domna Ba'al. Welcome to the club. There are lots of things you can do to help in totally uncontroversial ways. Many broad groups of articles will contain common statistics that need periodic updates (besides the obvious sports articles, settlement articles need population demographic updates, school articles need enrollment updates, countries need GNP updated, etc etc etc. The nice thing about that kind of gnome work is that you can familiarize yourself with the workings of one source and from it, update thousands of articles. Everyone wants to write articles. But we've got most of the articles we need already. Gnoming is very important, and it's great to hear from someone that likes to do it. Welcome! John from Idegon (talk) 07:16, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can non-administrators give block warnings on talk pages?

I recently made an edit on Mount San Antonio changing the elevation from 10,046 to 10,064. I did this because most other articles referring to it said it was 10,064. However, I forgot to add a source next to it. The source on the original that stated 10,046 was from over 30 years ago, so I trusted the other articles on Wikipedia. In the future, I will remember to always find a good source beforehand and not use other Wikipedia articles as sources.

However, a user who does not appear to be an administrator (did not appear on the list of 1,141 admins) placed the 3rd-level Template:Uw-disruptive3 warning template on my talk page that I could be blocked due to disruptive editing. I did not intend for said edit to be disruptive, but I naturally am worried that I could be blocked. Even though only admin can technically block you, are non-admins permitted to leave warning templates on others' talk pages? Thanks. Rubberducky785 (talk) 05:51, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rubberducky785, and welcome to the Teahouse. To answer your first question, yes, non-admins can leave warnings. ~~However, your edit surely would not warrant a level-3 warning.~~ Most people use a level-3 warning only if it is obviously meant to mess up articles and is bad enough. However, you must remember to ensure that you do edits properly, using appropriate sources, and leave nothing that would make it look like vandalism. RedBulbBlueBlood9911Talk 06:07, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Repinging Rubberducky785 as something happened. :-p RedBulbBlueBlood9911Talk 06:10, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Rubberducky785: welcome to the Teahouse. Your previous warning for adding unsourced content was a level 2 caution, and that caution was followed by your discussing the issue with the editor who'd placed it on your talk page. Given that you then changed sourced information in a different article into information contradicting the existing source, a level 3 warning was appropriate – and as RBBB9911 says, any editor who reverts an edit can (and often should) place an appropriate warning at the other editor's talk page. Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 06:43, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~RedBulbBlueBlood9911~~ Rubberducky785, I just read through your talk page and saw the phrase "I've observed..." multiple times. Perhaps you need to look closer at WP:SYNTH and WP:OR as the editor who left you the templated (and completely proper) warnings took the time to point out to you beyond the text of the templated message. I'll be blunt. We don't care what you have observed. Paraphrase your content from reliable secondary sources and cite them. You'll get much fewer warnings. Thanks. John from Idegon (talk) 06:56, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

John from Idegon, did you mean to ping me or Rubberducky785? RedBulbBlueBlood9911Talk 07:04, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rubberducky785. Oops. Sorry. John from Idegon (talk) 07:21, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiproject History

Hi, I want to know how to be a member of Wikiproject History. Thanks

Heyday to you Heyday to you (talk) 07:33, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 525: / Line 525: @@
 ::::{{Re|KevinTheGuy}} Being archived on Wayback Machine doesn't mean that a grotty webpage suddenly becomes a reliable source. All the pages I sampled there still looks like a cheap and nasty webpage to me, written by one solitary fan. Sorry to be blunt, but I think you should [[WP:DROPTHESTICK]] with this one. [[User:Nick Moyes|Nick Moyes]] ([[User talk:Nick Moyes|talk]]) 00:20, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 :::::{{reply to|Nick Moyes}} You are literally judging a book by its cover. "''Being archived on Wayback Machine doesn't mean that a grotty webpage suddenly becomes a reliable source.''" You're right, but you obviously don't see the point of the webpage. Whether or not information is artistic does not matter in terms of sourcing references. The Blockbuster Fan Page tracked the number of open franchise-owned locations and included an interactive map. There is only one location remaining, so the interactive map has been removed. I didn't make that choice. [[User:KevinTheGuy|KevinTheGuy]] ([[User talk:KevinTheGuy|talk]]) 00:29, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
+::::::{{re|KevinTheGuy}} I am indeed judging the book, yes, but by its self-published url, its obvious one-man-band nature, and lack of anything that resembles a reliably-published source with editorial oversight. The content might be correct, but such a site has no place here. If you don't have better sources for this information, then the information can't be added. As I said above, it is now time for you to concede you are not going to get that source added and to [[WP:DROPTHESTICK]]. Continuing to try to do so will now be deemed as disruptive editing. [[User:Nick Moyes|Nick Moyes]] ([[User talk:Nick Moyes|talk]]) 07:45, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 == Inviting Editors to Talk Page? ==