Wikipedia:Teahouse

ColinFine, a Teahouse host

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

Ask a question

Question forumMeet your hostsArticles to improveBecome a host

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

Help

Wikipedia

On Uploading Logos of companies and organizations

Should I recreate a logo/illustration on my own based on the organization's current logo, or that will be a copyright infringement too?  SX3001 (talk) 21:09, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

@SX3001: Welcome to the Teahouse! There's no need to recreate a logo. You can upload it as a non-free file using Wikipedia:File Upload Wizard. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 21:28, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

SX3001, adding to the answer, if a logo is complex enough to be subject to copyright (not all are), then reproducing it by any means is a copyright violation. Threshold of originality is the relevant legal concept.Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:59, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Cullen328 Thank you for prodiving me with the technical term of such a copyright violation. GoingBatty Thank you too; So I can download the logo from a company/organization's website and then use it in a page thanks to the non-free file disclosure without any problem or the image ending up getting deleted? I've uploaded a logo once and it got deleted on this page—I've downloaded the logo from the company's website and I've uploaded it and credited the work and the sources to their website. SX3001 (talk) 00:57, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

SX3001, the Omeros logo was removed from the article because it had an inadequate non-free use rationale. You should use Template:Non-free use rationale logo and complete all of the relevant fields. The file was later deleted because it was no longer being used in an article. An additional clarification: there are many types of pages on Wikipedia, but use of non-free images is limited only to live encyclopedia articles. They cannot be used in draft articles, for example, and should only be added after a draft is moved to the main space, and only in the specific article specified in the rationale. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:36, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi SX3001. Just going to add that non-free use of a file isn't automatic and there are ten criteria that need to be satisfied each time you use a non-free file. Non-free logos are generally OK to use per item 2 of WP:NFCI when they are used for primary identification purposes at the top of or in the main infobox of stand-alone Wikipedia article about whatever the logo represents. So, for example, if you wanted to use the logo of a company in the main infobox of a Wikipedia article about said company, then that's probably OK. Other types of non-free uses or use in other types of articles, however, can be much harder to justify. For example, if you wanted to use an non-free logo for a company in an article about the company's founder, then it would be much harder to justify. In addition, former or historical logos can be particularly hard to justify because they typically are no longer used for primary identification purposes. Generally, such a logo itself needs to have be subjected of sourced critical commentary somehwere within the article as explained here for it to be considered OK to use. It's typically not considered enough just to say an organization changes its branding; rather, there needs to article content specifically corresponding to the change in logo that discusses reasons for the change (e.g. any controversies associated with the change) that not seeing the logo would make the corresponding article content quite hard to understand. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:16, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

The above said, uploading a logo is fairly easy. Start at Wikipedia:File Upload Wizard, chose "Upload a non-free file", > "This is a copyrighted, non-free work, but I believe it is Fair Use." > "This is a logo of an organization, company, brand, etc." and follow the other instructions that appear. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:08, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Marchjuly and Gråbergs Gråa Sång now it is very clear to me, thank you guys for the helpful and guiding comments. SX3001 (talk) 10:24, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Level of technical sophistication of mathematical articles?

A couple of editors and I have had an argument about a reading of WP:TECHNICAL that's come to something of a standstill, and I'd like to make sure I'm taking a reasonable position before I commit to it any more deeply. The disagreement is over whether a given mathematical article should be written entirely at an elementary level, e.g. towards an audience of 10th graders in a U.S. high school, given that the subject is covered in sources at that level. My position is that WP:TECHNICAL implies we should try to balance elementary and specialist material to the extent that they differ in our pool of sources, as the subject is also of interest all the way up to professional mathematicians and is covered in sources as far as that level. Like, the article should be broadly accessible to a general reader, but should include specialist material in addition to more elementary material to the extent that they clash, so that it can be useful to both audiences. WP:TERTIARYUSE also seems to indicate to me that the "gold standard" for sources for any mathematical article would be widely-used textbooks at the undergraduate-to-graduate level, which implies to me that the article should be a survey of material around that level. Do I have the right idea or am I misinterpreting these pages? Mesocarp (talk) 11:34, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

The place for discussion is the talk page of the article, Talk:Polynomial in this case. If you fail to reach consensus there, dispute resolution is an option. You might also discuss at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics if you feel that the concern isn't specific to the one article. --David Biddulph (talk) 11:54, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

I see, so the meaning of policy etc. in that context needs to be hashed out via consensus around the article—like, the larger community doesn't already have some sort of strong guideline to follow in this context? I guess from that angle, my position might be valid, but it depends on consensus there? I think where I'm coming from makes sense, but I am in the minority right now. Mesocarp (talk) 12:12, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

The very general rule is WP:ONEDOWN (a section of WP:TECHNICAL), but of course "write one level below the usual level of education where the topic is studied" can leave place to some interpretation. Take for instance the topic of messenger RNA: most of what can be written about it is highly technical, and if you had asked me in 2019 I would say the target audience should be first-year biology students, for which the current lead is fine (I guess). However, page views have considerably increased, which I guess is due to the apparition of covid19 vaccines based on mRNA delivery - therefore, today, I would say that the lead should be understandable by any adult reader, which it most definitely is not right now.

The problem, of course, is that to write something understandable and that is correct, you need to be an expert of the topic and to be good at pedagogy; either is hard enough that combining the two is taxing. I remember making some edits in articles about thermodynamics that took a good hour to change two short sentences. Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 10:43, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Why was my wiki page rejected?

 InfoMCollinson (talk) 15:14, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Per the log, this page was deleted under reason "G3: Blatant hoax" --Darth Mike^(talk) 15:29, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

InfoMCollinson, as an administrator, I can read your deleted content. It was utterly unacceptable for this encyclopedia, consisting of bizarre nonsensical family lore that appears to have been made up by somebody. That type of content is simply not allowed on Wikipedia. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:10, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

My Wikipedia page is stuck as a draft, how do I publish it?

Hello, I've written my own Wikipedia page. I realise this isn't ideal, but I've ensured that everything I've included is as objective as possible. It's all backed up with references to ensure that it's credible and all the information can be verified easily. How do I now get this moved forward from being a draft and publish it? I'm very happy for it to be checked, peer-reviewed and to make any required changes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Sarah_Hyndman All the best, Sarah Sarahmhyndman (talk) 15:18, 29 August 2021 (UTC) Sarahmhyndman (talk) 15:36, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

@Sarahmhyndman: I placed a submission template in your draft. Submit it for review when you feel it is ready. But I have to tell you it would not get published in its current state. It needs further cleanup, such as putting in a proper infobox. ~Anachronist (talk) 15:39, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

As it's currently a draft all you have to do is click the button "Submit the Draft for review" and it will be put in the queue for another editor to see. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) (Stupidity by me) 15:41, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

@Blaze The Wolf: the submit button is there only because I just now put it there.

@Sarahmhyndman: After looking it over, your draft relies far too much on sources that originate with you. We need significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of you. See Wikipedia:Golden rule to get an idea of what we expect. ~Anachronist (talk) 15:44, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Yup I realized that after I posted my comment. Thanks. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) (Stupidity by me) 15:45, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank youSarahmhyndman (talk) 16:03, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

@Sarahmhyndman: Good luck! I hope you can find more independent sources with good coverage of you and your works. The subject area of your work has always fascinated me. I often find myself struggling with what typeface I should use for different parts of my blog (headings, prose, tables, figure captions, etc.), for a book I'm writing, and so on. 35 years ago when computers used bitmap fonts, I would design my own typefaces because I wasn't satisfied with the defaults. And that was hard work, especially for proportional-spaced fonts. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:12, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Sarahmhyndman you may be interested in reading Wikipedia:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing Best wishes on all of your Wikipedia projects. Karenthewriter (talk) 01:18, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Sarahmhyndman, an acceptable Wikipedia biography is based on what reliable sources completely independent of that person have written about that person. So your own writings are of no value as references. In the case of an author, in depth reviews of several of their books by professional reviewers are a very good start. If only a single book has in depth reviews, then the article should be about the book, not the author. Since autobiographies are strongly discouraged, expect a heightened level of scrutiny for your efforts. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:20, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

What sources would be good?

Hello! So I've decided that I want to start adding sources to SnowRunner#Gameplay and I'm wanting to know what kind of sources I should be looking for. For example, would a link to the store page for the game be an appropriate source for the mention of DLC. Thanks! Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) (Stupidity by me) 16:13, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Also if this would be more appropriate to ask at WP:RS/N then I'll move my question there. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) (Stupidity by me) 16:36, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

@Blaze The Wolf: WP:VG/S has a list of sources that are considered reliable, and other information about finding and evaluating reliable sources. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 16:38, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Blaze The Wolf, please use terminology that everyone can understand. When I see DLC, I think Democratic Leadership Council but that acronym has dozens of other meanings. Similarly, I am not 100% sure what you mean by "store page", but I am assuming that it is a website that sells the game. If so, the answer is "no". Such a page is written to promote sales of the game, is therefore inherently promotional, and is inappropriate for any evaluative assessments on Wikipedia. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:34, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

DLC is short for "downloadable content". If the DLC is notable, it usually gets mentioned in reputable video game sources. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 06:44, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

It should be spelled out on Wikipedia, Tenryuu, because we do not need to spend money on boxcars of paper and barrels of ink. I live in the Napa Valley, where "CIA" means Culinary Institute of America as commonly as Central Intelligence Agency. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:52, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm fairly sure I had it as downloadable content at one point but someone changed it to just be DLC. But alright, I'll see if I can find sources outside of the store page for the game. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) (Stupidity by me) 13:46, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Nevermind I apparently didn't. That was a fault on my part. I've learned my memory tends to be a bit faulty. I'm working on fixing that now Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) (Stupidity by me) 14:03, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Of course it should be at first mention, Cullen328; I never said it shouldn't. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 14:51, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

To what extent should you disagree with like…anyone…?

I feel like I'm kind of like…twisting myself into knots thinking about this, like it's really getting to me. In some ways it feels like, if everything on the site is decided by consensus with only a few exceptions, and there are equivalently only a few very specific things that are truly rules as opposed to guidelines, it feels a bit absurd to disagree with any group of people larger than one. Like, if it's just you and one other person, there's no consensus at that point; both of your perspectives have equal weight. However, it sort of feels like if you try to do something, and more than one person stops you, you should just immediately leave, regardless of your viewpoint, unless it's one of the few very grave matters that are not subject to consensus.

I know that's not exactly like, true on paper I guess, to the extent that anything here is really true on paper I guess. But it's hard for me to get over the feeling that it's true, like, "in spirit." There's a sense in which it feels like, out of the dispute resolution mechanisms, the only one that seems sort of like, "unsuspicious" is seeking a third opinion. Like, even if on paper, there's some theoretical larger community consensus that would trump a local one, in practice if a local consensus exists, like if there is more than one person with the same perspective, it feels like you're kind of "messing things up" to disagree with them about anything that isn't like, one of the few very serious non-consensus things.

I feel like, lost as far as the extent to which I should give into this feeling. In some ways it feels like the logical conclusion of it is that you should never change anything, because someone else wanted it the way it is already, and your opinion doesn't matter any more than theirs, whether you're changing something or even just adding something. I argued with two other people earlier over something where I was the odd one out and in some ways I feel like, deeply guilty about it, like I feel almost sick even thinking about it and feel kind of afraid to even look at the talk page the more I think about it. I don't know…reading over the various guidelines and essays and things a lot of them seem to encourage you like, very gently, to just drop it in situations like that and go somewhere else, and in some ways I feel like it was wrong of me to even say anything. I feel terribly embarassed even admitting any of this kind of, but my mind just keeps going in loops about it. I would feel a lot better if I had some sort of like, general guidance about any situation like this, thinking about all the different principles at once…but in some ways it feels suspicious to even ask for guidance about, like I'm just looking for people to try to bolster my case or something. I promise I'm not doing that, I really promise, I just feel really kind of like, confused and distressed. Mesocarp (talk) 20:17, 7 September 2021 (UTC) Mesocarp (talk) 20:17, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

You can always invite more people into any discussion. After that you can find yourself in a majority. Ruslik_Zero 20:33, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

@Teahouse: Welcome to the Teahouse! I can empathize with your feelings, and am sorry you're feeling that way. As Ruslik0 states, sometimes inviting a group to a discussion can be helpful (e.g. posting to a WikiProject talk page asking for people to join in to an article talk page discussion), as long as you recognize that they may not agree with you. It seems to me that it's easier to make multiple small incremental changes than large changes, but even then sometimes collaboration on a talk page is necessary. There are many areas that you can provide valuable impacts to Wikipedia, and hope your next experience goes better. Hope this helps, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 20:53, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Listen close: You do not need to apologize or feel bad about trying to improve Wikipedia. Period. There are plenty of independent editors happy to offer their opinion in a Request for Comment, Noticeboard, or Third Opinion. I recommend presenting your case in an RfC. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 20:55, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Awww, well, thanks for the advice+encouragment y'all, I do feel somewhat better. It's totally okay with me if I really am the odd one out, I'm willing to put my views aside if that's what it takes to keep moving; at the same time it's reassuring to hear from people that it is really okay to seek more input. I might step away for the rest of the day just to like let myself calm down more but maybe tomorrow I'll give one of these approaches a try and see how people feel. Mesocarp (talk) 21:50, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

@Mesocarp: reagarding "only a few very specific things that are truly rules as opposed to guidelines", that is not true. Wikipedia policies are the rules, and Wikipedia guidelines are the best practices that help us comply with the rules. And there are a lot of rules: see Wikipedia:List of policies and Wikipedia:List of guidelines if you want to be overwhelemed. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:45, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

@Mesocarp: You don't realize just how "spot on" you are with your concerns about disputes. The reality is that dispute resolution uses a lot of resources and tends to produce arbitrary results rather than results that are objectively good. It's better described as a disaster than as a useful path to a good resolution. Fabrickator (talk) 07:07, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

@Mesocarp:, people who honestly give a different opinion are valuable. Look at Articles for Deletion debates, where quite often the first person declares "delete, does not meet WP:TENNIS", four copycats say the same thing, and then someone else pops up and says "actually, you do realise this person isn't just an amateur tennis player, they also happen to be a professor with a Nobel prize" and then everyone else looks rather silly. You won't always get your way, but the points you make are probably points someone ought to make - don't feel bad about making them. But for your own mental health, it's a good idea to cultivate a sense of irresponsibility. You are not personally responsible for the final article, for misinformation in WP articles, or anything else on WP, so if you've made your point, and the world chooses to ignore you, walk away with your morals intact. You did your best. Elemimele (talk) 09:47, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

@Elemimele: Thanks for this—I'll try really hard to bear this in mind. It's sort of hard for me to get over the feeling that if a given article is in rather poor shape, especially if it's one many people might read day-to-day, it represents a kind of tragedy for the whole English-speaking world that you almost have a moral responsibility to help with. Same with saving an article you support from deletion as you describe or anything like that. If you fail in any sense, even temporarily, that also feels sort of like a moral failure, like you've fallen in trying to fulfill a responsibility that really ought to be fulfilled. Of course, anyone can feel this regardless of their position, which I'm sure is part of why debates here can get so heated. It does seem good to remember that if you really do believe in your position, you're doing a good thing just to voice it, whatever happens after that. Mesocarp (talk) 02:55, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

@Anachronist: The reason I said that is because, even if in theory what you say is true, in practice it seems like "creative interpretation" can be used to draw practically whatever conclusions you like from the texts of the policies and guidelines, since their meaning is determined by consensus and consensus is established locally in large part. I've already experienced a situation where I've tried to argue what seemed to me like a straightforward conclusion from a guideline and had someone else immediately use the same guideline to back up the opposite conclusion. It's a bit like everyone is both a lawyer and a judge; you can suggest whatever strange interpretation of the "laws" you like and immediately rubber-stamp it with your own approval in a sense. If no one agrees with you, it doesn't matter much, but someone else may agree with you for their own pragmatic reasons even if your interpretation is quite strained (perhaps this is not so different from the real courts in a way…). As such, I get the impression that the in-practice meaning of any of the policies and guidelines could vary widely depending on where you are and who you're talking to, and there's not a responsible way to say what that might be in general to some extent. You could see how I could quickly come to the conclusion that it would be wrong to disagree with any group of people that outnumbers you, no matter how small—whatever they say goes at that point, no matter how strongly you think your arguments might be based in policy or evidence or anything else. Of course, to the extent that other people can always enter the discussion, there are larger norms to a degree, etc., perhaps a fairly straightforward interpretation of the policies and guidelines will win out in any area over time, or at least you might hope. I think I was underestimating the significance of that yesterday which is a big part of why I got kind of panicked that I had done something wrong. At the same time, it does make it quite difficult to actually argue any sort of point, based on policy, evidence, logic, feeling, whatever, when someone else is determined to disagree with you no matter what and it's just your word and theirs, and it seems that this isn't at all an uncommon circumstance looking around—after all, many people will never back down in any argument just out of fear of losing face. I appreciate better now why it might be so hard to get an article to GA/FA status or the like, as it's not always just a matter of everyone merrily gathering their sources and going to work like you might dream of. Mesocarp (talk) 02:55, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

@Mesocarp: In my experience, these disagreements arise for a different reasons. (1) An editor cherry-picks the parts of the policies or guidelines that agree with their viewpoint and ignore the whole. (2) An editor isn't familiar with the applicable policies or guidelines and it's up to others to provide direction. (3) Where the rules are in conflict, consensus is required to determine which rule matters more; for example, there's a proposal right now in Talk:Mahatma Gandhi to rename the article because WP:HONORIFIC prohibits honorifics when referring to subjects in spite of the fact that the guideline specifically calls out "Mahatma" Gandhi as an exception because WP:COMMONNAME overrides WP:HONORIFIC. Finally, if any policy or guideline is unclear, then it should be clarified after discussion on the appropriate talk page. Sadly, few editors bother attempting to get clarifications into the rules. ~Anachronist (talk) 03:24, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

@Anachronist: That makes sense, as far as your experience, I would imagine those scenarios would be the most common. I'll keep that in mind so I can set my expectations well. Thanks for the link to that debate over the name of the Gandhi article too as it was enlightening to read over. I guess like, in any case, in a debate, any given editor isn't obligated to agree with you regardless of what points you might raise, even if you might believe they're cherry-picking or misinformed or such. In the case I was describing above, after the other party put forward the opposite point based on the same guideline, I called attention to other parts of the guideline that I thought didn't harmonize with their position, at which point they suddenly said they wouldn't continue to discuss it with me. I can't really stop them from doing that; in fact someone could even do that at the outset the moment anyone presents a viewpoint that conflicts with theirs. I did try asking for clarification on the guideline here afterwards just to make sure I wasn't totally off my rocker about it, but the only response I got was basically "the place to talk about it is on the talk page." Since there was one other person who took the same opposing position without giving a rationale or taking up my argument, at that point I kind of felt like, "I guess I'm wrong by fiat, even if it does seem to me like I have a good case." I understand now that in situations like this it's okay to see if there are other people who want to weigh in, although I'm still not entirely sure about what you would do afterwards if a larger consensus emerged in your favor. It's hard to imagine having a warm and harmonious working relationship with people you've had an interaction like that with—if anything their desire to stand in my way would just be enhanced out of frustration at being overruled. I would so much rather we all just get along…the idea of having to fight two people tooth and nail over every change you'd like to make to an article is kind of sickening, especially if it's a subject you have a lot of enthusiasm for and you wouldn't exactly say they put kindness at a high premium. I feel anxious about starting an RfC or the like just out of concern for what might happen after it's over, even if my position is bolstered. Mesocarp (talk) 18:36, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

@Mesocarp: Here is my counter-example to the practical effectiveness of dispute discussions:

On 12 July 2021, at User_talk:Paradoctor#revert of Liar Paradox edit adding source from archive.org provided by Internet Archive, I raised an issue regarding an editor who was deleting citations that included a link to copyrighted books available on archive.org, which allows access subject to "electronic access control". Essentially, this allows as many people to concurrently access a book based on the number of copies of each such book that archive.org holds. This function had become available in the last couple of years. A court case regarding this was being litigated (and is still ongoing), and the editor claimed that, based on the possibility that this might be determined to violate copyright, the link to such materials through archive.org should be dropped.

My contention was that deleting the link was unnecessarily harmful. The same effect could be achieved by modifying the cite template to suppress the display of such links, avoiding the need to re-add the content if the court declared such use was permissible.

This discussion moved to Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard#Archive.org hosting of copyrighted material, where it continued for another four or five days, generating substantial volumes of text.

But someone would eventually point out that this issue had previously been addressed in a discussion during the period from June 14, 2020 to July 12, 2020 (28 days!), at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 159#Stop InternetArchiveBot from linking books. It turns out the issue had already been decided to leave existing links in place, and to allow further links to be manually added, but not allowing such links to be added by a bot.

I don't have a solution, but a war of exhaustion like this is neither an attractive way to resolve disputes, nor is it particularly likely to provide the "best" result. Though both sides will claim these decisions are a matter of principal, it seems like there needs to be a better way. Fabrickator (talk) 04:14, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

@Fabrickator: I wonder what a better way would be…? In that particular case, it seems kind of strange to even debate—I understand the position that it's a legal question and it would be silly and perhaps reckless for anyone who isn't a lawyer versed in copyright law to weigh in on. You never know if your comments might get cited in a lawsuit down the road—I'll never forget following the Google v. Oracle case and hearing about random employee emails weighing in on copyright questions showing up in court. It would be nice if the WMF could clarify how their legal team sees a phrase like "reason to believe" when it's a matter of a pending court case; as a layperson you could argue that a reason to believe there's infringement doesn't exist until the case has been decided, or you could argue that the possibility that the case could make something definitively infringing qualifies as a reason, but I wouldn't trust myself to say either without legal counsel. Maybe someday we won't have to worry about questions of copyright at all… Mesocarp (talk) 19:32, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

@Mesocarp: On those rare occasions when I find myself getting emotionally stressed about something that happens on Wikipedia, I just walk away. Nothing that goes on here is worth losing sleep. Generally I don't walk, I just assume good faith that those with whom I interact share the goal of improving the encyclopedia, knowing that dispute resolution options are available in the event of an impasse. And I don't mind when I am proven wrong or made aware of a bit of a rule that I hadn't known about; I have no need to be right all the time, but I know that's hard for some people who'd rather just entrench themselves further into their position. My position is, if my voice is heard, and my points are considered, but consensus goes against me, so be it. There are millions of articles here that need work. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:17, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

@Anachronist: I'm glad to hear you say that you rarely feel stressed about things here, that's reassuring—I've been very anxious about my experiences the past few days (which I guess is obvious), to the point that I have woken up prematurely with thoughts about it and things I guess, although this whole thread has been much more pleasant and really rather touching. Sometimes I worry I'm just not like, psychically durable enough to participate much here or something like that, but I also feel very encouraged to keep going by things people have said to me, so I don't want to just slink away. From what you say I hope with experience I'll feel reassured that feeling this way from doing things here isn't the norm day-to-day; I'm sure part of my anxiety just comes from not having enough data to draw on. When I started editing more I think I was kind of hoping it would just be like really fun and pleasant and straightforward, which was maybe a bit naïve, but maybe it is actually like that a lot of the time if you can take the right attitude. Mesocarp (talk) 00:23, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

@Mesocarp: @Anachronist: In the issue of archive.org copyright infringement, the "unsettled" determination of the prior dispute resolution process had already been established, the result being that bots should not add new links, but existing links should be left alone. Presumably unaware of this resolution, somebody comes along and does their own thing, then we wind up re-litigating the original issue. Had these changes not been objected to, the deletions that had been determined to be impermissible would have been allowed to continue. So I am somewhat vindicated for resisting, but to say the effort involved was excessive is an understatement.

FWIW, I feel there is a certain "sleight of hand" in trying to equate a "suspicion" that one set of web sites, offering no plausible explanation for the legality of their providing access to copyrighted material, with a web site that advances a legal theory that is at least arguably valid. This is a distinction with a difference, and thus the interpretation of "suspicion of infringement" suggests that the treatment should not necessarily be the same. Every asserted claim of infringement cannot be a reasonable cause for deleting the existing links. Fabrickator (talk) 00:38, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Where do I begin?

I've learned in class that Wikipedia is not a community of experts on given topics, but anyone can be able to edit. This is reassuring, but I find that I'm still feeling overwhelmed when I think about editing an article. From citations to grammar checks to finding notable information to add... I just don't know a good, comfortable place/way to start editing. Any recommendations? Alabaw25 (talk) 21:50, 7 September 2021 (UTC) Alabaw25 (talk) 21:50, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

@Alabaw25: Welcome to the Teahouse. If you haven't already, try out the The Wikipedia Adventure, which is an interactive tutorial. You may want to check out the community portal, which has lists of maintenance backlogs that you may want to check out. Be bold and start small. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:57, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

@Alabaw25: Welcome to the Teahouse! One thing you can do after the tutorial is start with reading articles about topics you like, whether it's sports or music or history or anything else. As you read, you'll stumble across typos or broken references or outdated information - all opportunities for you to improve an article. It can then help you figure out what you enjoy. Will you want to search for every article with "respecitvely" in it and fix it? Will you want to monitor a maintenance category and help fix those articles? Will you enjoy reading books or journals or the news, and adding to articles? You'll have some success and some stumbles along the way, but eventually you'll figure it out, and we'll be here to help you and encourage you along the way. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 05:15, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

@Alabaw25: In addition to the above info, while your teacher is not entirely wrong in their definition of Wikipedia, there are some Wikipedians who are subject experts. And while it's also true anyone can edit, sometimes you will have to gain certain permissions before your able to edit specific articles (these articles have been protected which simply reduces the amount of vandalism on the page). Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) (Stupidity by me) 17:47, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Reliable sources for pages on notable academics

I’m working on a few academic BLPs. Both people are chaired professors at major academic institutions, so notability should be automatic. However, in many cases, I've been unable to find any sources other than the professors' own CVs to verify their academic work.

What's the preferred solution to this problem? Should I omit unverifiable content entirely, leave the page as a stub? Or do something else?

PS: I've read through several talk threads about this question, all of which have been unhelpful. There appears to be no consensus. I just need to know what specific actions I need to take in order to get these pages published. Calvin Reed (talk) 22:52, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Calvin Reed Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Even if a subject meets the definition of notability, they still must receive significant coverage in independent reliable sources in order to merit an article, as that is primarily what articles are supposed to summarize. If a potential subject does not receive significant coverage in independent sources, they would not merit a Wikipedia article at this time. A CV is not an independent source. 331dot (talk) 22:56, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Most academics who'll be remembered will be best remembered, and of most interest, not for the posts they held (no matter how much time they spent/wasted on these, or how great their effect was) but for what they published. If what they published rose above the humdrum, it will be commented on, in book reviews in academic journals and elsewhere, the introductory chapters to festschrifts, and the like. (Or of course in obituaries, though of course your subjects won't have these.) Summarize what these say. -- Hoary (talk) 23:04, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

331dot and :Hoary Thank you for the reply, but it seems to contradict the guidelines on this page, which say that any academic who holds a chaired position is automatically eligible for a Wikipedia page. Also, both professors have authored many papers/studies and been cited extensively—that's all verifiable through various independent sources. The main section I'm having trouble with is their work history, which is hard or impossible to independently verify. There seems to be no feasible way to verify that person X worked at university Y in year Z. Does this clarify my question? Calvin Reed (talk) 23:12, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Calvin Reed I would correct you in that Wikipedia has articles, not mere pages. This is a subtle but important distinction. As I said, a person can meet the definition of a notable academic, but if no independent sources write about them, they do not merit an article even if they meet that notability definition. Notability is a test for a topic meriting an article, not a guarantee that an article can exist for anyone that meets notability. Independent reliable sources must still write about them, so the article can summarize them. Articles do not merely list what people have done. 331dot (talk) 23:18, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

331dot I see, thank you for clarifying. Calvin Reed (talk) 23:24, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Calvin Reed, both professors have [...] been cited extensively—that's all verifiable through various independent sources. Good. Then in your place what I'd do is concentrate on this aspect of both, worrying little about their employment/"affiliation". If university X has a page about one, saying that she was previously at university Y, then I believe it's not at all problematic to cite this, as it's unlikely that the university (or prof) would make a mistake, and almost inconceivable that it (or the prof) would knowingly deceive. The resulting article would be disappointingly uninformative about the academic's professional history, but it wouldn't misrepresent her. Later, more events and more detail will be published in reliable, independent sources; and when this happens, the Wikipedia article may be fleshed out accordingly. -- Hoary (talk) 00:04, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Calvin Reed, I agree with 331dot most of the time but not this time. Most special notability guidelines are based on the assumption that someone who meets the SNG will also meet the general notability guideline. The notability guideline for academics is an explicit exception to the GNG that exists alongside of it but completely independent of it. The notability of academics is determined by their academic accomplishments which includes prestigious academic positions and especially, how often their peer reviewed research is cited in the published research by other academics. There is no need to rely on "People magazine" style profiles for academics. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:04, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Calvin Reed If you had to choose someone's advice to go by, I absolutely would say Cullen328 over myself, as he has greater experience than I do. I think that my comment was based on the fact that you said you were simply going by a CV and what Cullen said was in the back of my mind as an assumption but I didn't put that into words- and failing to put that down was a poor decision on my part, for which I apologize. 331dot (talk) 09:07, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

I think both the literal text of 331dot’s reply and Cullen328’s reply are correct, in that (a) NACADEMIC is an explicit exception to notability guidelines, yet (b) notability is a necessary but not sufficient condition for an article, one needs to be able to write a non-empty article while sourcing it reliably. (b) is rarely a problem because GNG guarantees it, but it comes up in some rare cases. Another example of above-GNG guideline is WP:NGEO.

I remember vaguely a long-ish discussion at AfD about some mythical event in India that was mentioned in various sources, but with different descriptions every time. Consensus finally decided against an article on WP:V grounds; the alternative was a stub "X was an eartquake or a flood or a fire somewhere in India at some point in time" and it did not look very attractive.

In the precise case of an academic, I expect you should be able to write a stub based on university pages (i.e. "X is a [title] at [university] and works on [general topic]"). Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 10:11, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

I think some of the discussions at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Mathematics will be helpful. i.e. It will be helpful to read the AfD discussion.--SilverMatsu (talk) 21:22, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Request for removal of - in marriage and partnership status post

Request for removal of - in marriage/partnership/relationships status post.

I've seen a number of posts of ongoing partnerships/marriages start on example the year 2000 and have a succeeding dash(-).

This dash(-) usually insinuates that the partnerships/marriages won't last long and are expected to end in divorce or prematurely or to end due to unforeseen circumstances

I'm proposing that all marriages/partnerships/relationships have a year without the succeeding -

I'm happy to share more info with you if required. Mseroney88 (talk) 02:41, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

@Mseroney88: Welcome to the Teahouse! Feel free to share some examples if you like. You can also be bold and update the format accordingly. I suggest births be handled the same way - you would write "Joe Smith (born 2000)", not "Joe Smith (2000-)". Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 05:29, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Mseroney88, I'm not aware of any guideline that says such info should come with a dash. As for the notion that the dash "usually insinuates that the partnerships/marriages won't last long and are expected to end in divorce or prematurely or to end due to unforeseen circumstances", my own reaction was "Huh? It does? Really? It doesn't to me." I suppose that some people could take it that way ... but then some people can be found to take many things in various ways. I don't think that we need to worry about the less likely implicatures -- though of course you are free to argue that we should, or that this isn't "less likely". Your suggestion looks at first glance like a suggestion for the "Manual of Style" (MoS), but if you suggest it in the MoS talk page you're likely to be countered by arguments that ending with a dash is a widely accepted convention, or that what you're proposing is "instruction creep". If you really think that this is an important matter, I suggest that you bring it up at Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab). (NB Imprecision reduces persuasiveness; "-" is not a dash but a hyphen; the dash that you don't want is "–".) -- Hoary (talk) 05:45, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Mseroney88, to many people (me included) having a dash after a year suggests the relationship is ongoing. Nothing more. If we removed the dash, some people would interpret that as meaning the relationship both started and ended in that single year. Neiltonks (talk) 12:13, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

An emdash or an endash? ― Qwerfjkltalk 20:54, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Will Vishal Bhujbal be deleted?

I had created the page Vishal Bhujbal because he is well notable figure. Will this be deleted again? I'm feared. JamesAlfa (talk) 08:13, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

What is it that causes you to worry about possible deletion, JamesAlfa? -- Hoary (talk) 08:44, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Hoary because it has been deleted before because it was created by a Banned user. JamesAlfa (talk) 08:47, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

The previous history is not part of this version, which you created on 8 September. As you moved it from draft to article in mainspace without submitting to Articles for Creation for a review, it is possible that New Pages Review may decide it is not ready for mainspace, and convert it back to a draft for more work (or even delete it as not notable). You will have to wait and see. My personal opinion is that holding a non-elected committee position does not make him notable. David notMD (talk) 11:17, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

The account has been blocked as a sockpuppet of User:Arshifakhan61, an LTA who has been globally banned by the WMF. JavaHurricane 16:14, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

HAKONE HOT SPRING (Ver 2): Pre-Formatting Content Check

Many thanks for several Teahouse members for their kind feedback on my 1st edit of the "Hakone Hot Spring" entry at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:TNewfields/sandbox. I appreciate the advice and added 28 footnotes. A number of minor grammar and spelling mistakes have also been corrected. The result is no longer an English translation of the Japanese Wikipedia text at https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/箱根温泉 . . . it has become a different article that relies on many parts of the Japanese text.

Before formatting the article, I wanted to get your feedback on the current content. Do I need to make any further changes? After the content looks okay, I will proceed with many formatting issues. Thanks in advance for any feedback! TNewfields (talk) 09:10, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Obviously, all of your footnotes need to become inline references. David notMD (talk) 11:22, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

TNewfields, what David notMD said; also, the standard reading of 足柄下 is Ashigarashimo. Go easy on "famous", "splendid", and the like, even if these (or their Japanese near-equivalents) are in your cited sources. The historical aspect of any article on anywhere in Japan that has been any kind of resort -- and of course this is a prime example -- is likely to benefit from a look in A Handbook for Travellers in Japan, by the indefatigable Chamberlain and Mason; your institution's library may well have a copy. -- Hoary (talk) 12:48, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

On that last, English Wikipedia has a high standard for NPOV (neutral point of view), so avoid promotional-sounding adjectives. David notMD (talk) 13:46, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Adding Logo to company page

Hi, I am tyring to add a company logo to our company page. Unfortunately, "Do not have permission to upload this file. Limited to users "Autoconfirmed users, Administrators, Confirmed users."

Please kindly assist. Thank you! Winnie.Yeo (talk) 09:22, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Winnie.Yeo Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I will note that Wikipedia has articles, not mere "pages". You may request help with this by going to Files for Upload(which you must do as logos are non-free images). 331dot (talk) 09:32, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

(1) If you work for the company, you have a conflict of interest, so you probably shouldn't be editing the company's article anyway. Instead, you should ask on the article's talk-page that someone else carry out the edit for you. If the company's logo is readily available online, they will be able to upload (you could provide a link to a suitable image). BUT (2), and this is a huge BUT, Wikipedia's normal copyright arrangements on images permit anyone, anywhere, to use the image for any purpose, including for-profit. In effect, had you successfully uploaded your company's logo, you might have found you had, on behalf of your employer, given up all rights on the logo, which probably wasn't the intention. Fortunately, low-resolution versions of company logos can be used under fair use terms, but since this is a bit complicated, asking on article's talk-page might again be the easiest option. Here's information about a request-edit template that you can use. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Request_edit Elemimele (talk) 09:35, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Wanna make friends

Is there other teenagers who are in Wikipedia? HighStone06 (talk) 09:39, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

@HighStone06 Hello, this is the TeaHouse for asking questions about directly editing Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a social networking space, though communication and collaboration can sometimes lead to friendships. If you want to chat with like minded Wikipedians, Wikipedia:Discord may be an option. Happy editing! ~ Shushugah (he/him • talk) 09:58, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

@HighStone06: To elaborate a bit more, while there are most likely other teens who edit Wikipedia (such as myself), Shushugah makes a very good point in that Wikipedia is not a social network. Wikipedia's Discord (which Shushugah linked above) is a better option for finding teens who are Wikipedians. In fact, if you do end up using Wikipedia's Discord, you are more than welcome to message me (just please make sure to tell me who you are first). However if you don't want to use Discord then you can definitely make friends on Wikipedia (although if you want to talk about things not related to Wikipedia it would be in your best interest to go elsewhere for that). Hope this helped clarify things! Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) (Stupidity by me) 17:44, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Jorge Washington de Queiroz

I published a small bio of Jorge Washington de Queiroz, a prominent Brazilian Norwegian crisis expert and fighter against corruption and fraud who is also an advanced cancer survivor, who has had five major high risk cancer related medical interventions in 3 years, two of which this year alone. It was taken out by Wikipedia and I would like to add it again since he is a notable man whose contributions to societies have been quite significant. Thank you. PEDERSENBJORNAA (talk) 10:17, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

PEDERSENBJORNAA Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. You have not yet submitted your draft for review, but if you were to do so, it would be rejected quickly, as you have no independent reliable sources to support its content. A Wikipedia article must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about a person, showing how they meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable person. Please see this page for more information. 331dot (talk) 10:25, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Welcome to the Tea House @PEDERSENBJORNAA! The article was moved to Drafts, where you can continue to work on it. Currently it has zero references and is written in a Wikipedia:Promotional tone. Writing Help:Your first article can be one of the hardest things you do, so please take the advice seriously. You can find the Draft here: Draft:Jorge Washington de Queiroz. Happy editing! ~ Shushugah (he/him • talk) 10:28, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Template request

Is there a way to request the creation of a simple template? particularly a template for referencing EU judgements. There is already templates for EU laws but not for judgements.
thnx in advance Chefs-kiss (talk) 12:37, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Requested templates. Kleinpecan (talk) 13:19, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Vivien Saunders OBE 'Convicted'

Publishing on a living person.

<text deleted>

Can I go ahead or is there someone out there that could do this for me.

The court reference for this is the Case No 35NT1319220 as supplied by the criminal justice system. Theboss246 (talk) 13:07, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Courtesy Vivien Saunders. First, do you have a personal interest in this new information? I ask because you wrote "...to publish on my behalf on her page." That would be considered a conflict of interest (see WP:COI), meaning that you should not edit the article, but rather propose new content on the Talk page of the article, with a reference. Second, a court reference is not an accepted reference. It needs a publication in a newspaper. David notMD (talk) 13:51, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

I have removed your accusation per our BLP policy. You must provide a reliable source for such a statement. Also since you are talking about a minor offence I would question whether it is appropriate to include in the article.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 13:51, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Infobox problems

Hi, can someone help me to fix the infobox in 2021-22 NIFL Championship? I fixed some ref parameters, but couldn't find the cause of "Expression error: Unrecognized word "n"" after the "Goals Scored" template in infobox. Thanks in advance. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 13:31, 8 September 2021 (UTC) ZaniGiovanni (talk) 13:31, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi ZaniGiovanni it looks like the infobox didn't like that the matches parameter was set to N/A, because it's using the number of matches to calculate the goals per matchm, and so it got confused because N/A is not a number. I changed the matches parameter from N/A to blank, and the error has gone now. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:40, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Joseph2302 thank you very much. Have a nice day! ZaniGiovanni (talk) 14:01, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Can I post random short paragraphs on my user page?

 Excellenc1 (talk) 14:06, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Unless they break Wikipedia regulations, you can't. _Signed,Pichemist ^(Talk) 15:08, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

I think Pichemist means "Unless they break Wikipedia regulations, you can", Excellenc1. --ColinFine (talk) 15:18, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

That's what I meant. My mistake. _Signed,Pichemist ^(Talk) 16:26, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

@Excellenc1: See WP:UPYES for examples of what is allowed on your user page. Further down there will also be examples of what you cannot have on your user page. Hope that helps. RudolfRed (talk) 15:32, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Since it allows "non-article Wikipedia material such as reasonable Wikipedia humor, essays and perspectives, personal philosophy, comments on Wikipedia matters", I guess I can. Thank you. Excellenc1 (talk) 17:34, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Making a living

How do i get paid wikipedia 41.116.11.167 (talk) 15:04, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

You don't. PRAXIDICAE🌈 15:05, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Totally unrelated but Prax!!! O...M...G... I love, love, love your signature! lol Be that beautiful rainbow of colors.🌈 Ok, I'm good now. Very astute response. --ARoseWolf 18:42, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

_{@ARoseWolf: This probably would've been better to tell them on their talk page. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) (Stupidity by me) 18:46, 8 September 2021 (UTC)}

_{Yeah, you are probably right. Oh well, I make mistakes too. Thanks for pointing it out. --ARoseWolf 19:01, 8 September 2021 (UTC)}

Spot on. Every editor here is a volunteer, and does it for the satisfaction of building a fantastic, free online encyclopaedia that helps educate and inform the world about notable topics. Nick Moyes (talk) 15:34, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Expanding on Praxidicae's answer, Wikipedia is a volunteer-driven project, so no one here gets paid for editing or maintaining Wikipedia. The parent nonprofit organisation that oversees the project, the Wikimedia Organization, has workers that are paid, but they're much less involved with Wikipedia than us volunteers. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 15:35, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

We might as well establish our very own information spreading website such as the one of this magnitude which will enable people to get paid for any useful content they post, i already have an idea of my own. Anyway thanks

There are websites that pay for content creation. This is not one of those. David notMD (talk) 17:04, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

• You might take a look at our article about Citizendium. Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 11:51, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Editing with A Firsthand Source

Hi, I was hoping to edit the article about the village I live in to include the annual festival we hold celebrating our founding, however, my village has nothing I'd be able to cite about this. Is there a way to just include the fact that I live here and it's a thing that happens? KreshieBoBeshie (talk) 15:08, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

KreshieBoBeshie Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources state; this is necessary for verification purposes. It isn't a place to just list things. Is this festival not written about in any local media? 331dot (talk) 15:16, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm afraid not. If anything it would be wise too look for village and home directories based in your country. _Signed,Pichemist ^(Talk) 15:32, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, I found local newspaper writings about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KreshieBoBeshie (talk • contribs) 15:22, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

@KreshieBoBeshie: Welcome! Please note that Wikipedia has criteria for inclusion, called "notability", to determine if a topic is suitable. For festivals, see Wikipedia:Notability (events). Thanks and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 19:59, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Template:Commons category or Template:Sister project auto

as a general rule or practice, if there are image files on commons wiki, is it okay to add Template:Sister project auto or should we add only Template:Commons category on Lisa Roet? চামুণ্ডা^{[আলাপ]} 15:16, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

references

 Courtesy link: Self-care
Hi, I've been editing a page and just learned that it was archived because "I didn't provide a reliable source'. I've been pasting in references instead of using the 'add a reference' box. Is that not OK? And, how do I get all my work back from the archive to allow me to keep working on the page. I feel quite disheartened to have 2 days of work removed. Sad. ICSCR90 (talk) 15:26, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

@ICSCR90 Welcome to the Teahouse. Fret not - none of your work is permanently lost! You can find it in the 'View History' tab of the article on Self care that you were editing. Here they all are in one block, showing what you changed. You can also find any edit you have made to an article (including any that have subsequently been removed for some reason) by looking at your own 'User Contributions' via the links on the left side of the page in desktop 9non-mobile) view.

Whilst it is disheartening to have your work removed, it normally means that another, usually very experienced editor has felt your changes added uncited, promotional or personal opinions. We work collaboratively, so it's fine to ask that editor for a clear rationale for any 'revert' they have made. Starting out on Wikipedia is quite a learning curve, but well done for working through The Wikipedia Adventure, which is a great way to learn. Nick Moyes (talk) 15:42, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

@ICSCR90: Welcome to the Teahouse. Your changes have been reverted. You may want to use the {{In use}} template to let others know the article is being worked on. I would, however, add the references as you're adding content so that it doesn't come off as appearing unsourced to others. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 15:44, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

However, ICSCR90, please be careful when you edit so as not to add claims that are only relevant in one part of the world, and don't add inappropriate external links such as self-care-measures.com. --bonadea contributions talk 15:49, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

How can I spread the Good News of Jesus to my Catholic family?

How can I spread the Good News of Jesus to my Catholic family? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:582:8600:6a80:2dec:5253:d295:68a2 (talk) 10:43, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. Did you have a question about using or editing Wikipedia? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 15:44, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Editor not accepting a govt. report

So I have an issue with another editor. It’s on a controversial topic so I am not hugely surprised. The details are on the Provisional Irish Republican Army Talk page.

The other editor is refusing to accept the findings of the latest government report on whether the organisation has retained weaponry, (the latest report says they do still have weaponry) on the grounds that the report could be false. He will accept a historical report (that states in essence that they only “may”).

There is a bias in this editors submissions on Northern Irish history that has resulted in beliefs being stated as fact. It almost seems as if he has appointed himself the guardian of all Troubles related pages. I would welcome the guidance of any admins who could look at this as I suspect that as I read further into the troubles related articles I will find more examples.

I am attempting to discuss the subject on the talk page with the editor in question but he is rebutting my arguments( which I believe are valid) with throw away statements which do not address my concerns. Fletcherchristian101 (talk) 15:50, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Fletcherchristian101 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. If discussion fails to resolve a dispute, there are dispute resolution channels available. I can say that government documents are usually considered primary sources. It is better to have an independent reliable source that discusses the content of the report, as we can't analyze it ourselves because that is original research. It is not relevant if the independent reliable source has analyzed the report correctly- which is a judgement call- as any reference to it in an article would (or should) state conclusions are those of those of the source itself. 331dot (talk) 15:56, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the invite

Thank you so much for the invite, much appreciated. Together we would build a strong community of active contributors to the WiKi world  Indoitaly (talk) 16:20, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Welcome to The Teahouse and to Wikipedia! Thanks for taking part and see you around. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 16:30, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Hello

I've just been invited to this Teahouse by Hostbot. Just thought I'd say hello.Loymc1 (talk) 16:50, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Hello! Did you have an actual question or were you just shooting the breeze? If so please refrain from doing so as it draws the volunteers away from people who actually have questions. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) (Stupidity by me) 17:33, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Loymc1 Blaze - that was a bit too pointed. One of the standard Welcome to Wikipedia templates invites newbies to TeaHouse ("The Teahouse is a friendly space..."). Also, "don't bite the newbies." David notMD (talk) 21:10, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you

 Gctyler (talk) 16:51, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

@Gctyler: Hello! Might I ask what you are saying "thank you" for? It doesn't appear that you've asked any other questions on the Teahouse. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) (Stupidity by me) 18:23, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

@Gctyler: From Talk pages and contributions, you are clearly editing as User:Gctyler and User:Cgfarren, and with neither account making any useful contributions to Wikipedia. Strongly suggest you continue with only one account, stop the Talk page nonsense, and try to make edits that are not reverted. Elsewise, expect to be indefinitely blocked. David notMD (talk) 21:19, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Multiple infoboxes

Hello Teahouse, I know I've found the answer before, but I need clarification on how to embed/combine two infoboxes. Not looking for a merger of any sorts, just looking for anything to look at when building infoboxes. Specifically trying to combine the Template:infobox football official and Template:infobox person per Byron Moreno. Thanks! --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 17:30, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

@PerpetuityGrat, welcome to the TeaHouse, you can try using embedded infobox, see my example here User:Shushugah/documentation#Nested infoboxes ~ Shushugah (he/him • talk) 17:38, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

@Shushugah: doesn't look like those work with the Template:infobox football official, as the template doesn't recognize the module parameter. Any other suggestions? I randomly stumbled across the article and want to try to fix it, and others I run into in the future. Thanks! --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 18:02, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

PerpetuityGrat the order matters. Infobox person does allow embedding, see the example I included below (displayed to the right) and modify as needed. Feel free to tag me on specific talk pages for further assistance or post in the WP:Village Pump (Technical) for further assistance. ~ Shushugah (he/him • talk) 18:16, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Someone famous
Refereeing career Domestic Years League Role 1988–1991 Serie C2 Referee

Shushugah this totally worked, thanks for the clarification! --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 22:21, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

how can I send a private message to α wikipedia user

 Moviebuff000 (talk) 17:38, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

@Moviebuff000 Welcome to TeaHouse! In some cases the only way to contact a user is by posting on their public talk pages, and given the collaborative nature of Wikipedia content, that's usually preferable. Have a look at Wikipedia:Emailing users ~ Shushugah (he/him • talk) 17:40, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Moviebuff000 (talk) 20:26, 8 September 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moviebuff000 (talk • contribs)

Problems with reliable references

I made an article about a new game with proper refrences, but it got denied. The reason they gave was that it didnt gave any reliable sources in refrences even though i gave the refrences to every refrence i can find and most of them were made by the creator of the game! But still it got denied. I dont know what to do now. Please help. 2405:201:9008:C013:D3C:A712:8D77:E7A4 (talk) 18:10, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse and thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. The creator of the game is not an independent source. Sources should be secondary, independent sources that show significant coverage in the media. Does that make sense? Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 18:17, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Hello IP! What article are you talking about? You haven't made any other edits besides you asking this question on this account. Could you please give us the link to it by adding [[ ]] around the name of the article (along with the addition of Draft: if it's a draft). Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) (Stupidity by me) 18:27, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi there! You might enjoy reviewing Wikipedia:Notability (video games) to ensure the game meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, called "notability". Hope this helps, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 20:04, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Waiting for a review

My article still hasn’t been looked upon. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Di_Moze?markasread=227385247&markasreadwiki=enwiki

I made a draft yesterday and I still am waiting on a review. Usually my drafts don’t take that long to be reviewed, with the latest being a couple hours so I am making sure. Thanks Visibledurante612 (talk) 21:17, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Visibledurante612 (talk) 21:17, 8 September 2021 (UTC)Visibledurante612 Visibledurante612 (talk) 21:17, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Di Moze does not appear to have been submitted. And from your Contributions, does not appear that you have ever submitted a draft to English Wikipedia. David notMD (talk) 21:23, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Really? where do I submit it? I typed it on my phone but I also made sure my edits were finalized on my laptop. This is my new account. My old account I forgot my password and email to. Visibledurante612 (talk) 21:29, 8 September 2021 (UTC)Visibledurante612Visibledurante612 (talk) 21:29, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Visibledurante612. I've added a header to it to allow you to submit it. However, there's no point in doing so at present, since it will not be accepted, since there isn't a single source cited. Wikipedia articles must be based on what reliable sources say, not on what a particular editor knows.

You are strongly advised to put a note on your user page explaining that you are the same user as the old account, and why, as this will save you from people being suspicious of it. --ColinFine (talk) 22:15, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Appears you submitted it as User:Visibledurante612/sandbox and it was declined (one minute after it was submitted). Continue with only one (draft or sandbox). David notMD (talk) 23:04, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Hello Collin I added my reference are you able to look at it?

Visibledurante612 (talk) 00:12, 9 September 2021 (UTC)Visibledurante612Visibledurante612 (talk) 00:12, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Visibledurante612, the reference is utterly inadequate. Here's why. And even if it were adequate for its minor purpose, there's no sign that your subject meets any of the notability criteria. I suggest that you forget about your draft for a couple of months, while you make constructive, well-referenced additions to existing articles. -- Hoary (talk) 00:43, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Your Sandbox version now declined twice. I agree there is no potential for this to be an article. Why? Because unlike List of people with surname Jones, you have no people with last name Di Moze who are notable, meaning having existing articles about them. David notMD (talk) 02:03, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

You were advised to continue only with Draft:Di Moze, which you have submitted. As it states in the yellow box, there is a large backlog of drafts, so this could take weeks. David notMD (talk) 21:38, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

lost draft

Hi, I'm sorry but can someone please help me - I created an article and then wanted to save it because I couldn't finish it in one sitting. I read about saving drafts and it suggested I move it into a draft space (I don't remember if this was a draft talk or personal sandbox). I am trying to create wiki entries on notable Australian women. The entry is Helen Foster. I can't find it anywhere. I would be very grateful if someone could locate it for me - I'm worried I've lost it! Anthropologist2020 (talk) 00:02, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Cannot find draft = please help

Hello, I created a draft for the article "Helen Foster." I can't find it anywhere. I would be very grateful for help. I am not sure where it is saved to and I have conducted searches and cannot find it and am worried it may not have been saved. Thank you Anthropologist2020 (talk) 00:06, 9 September 2021 (UTC) Anthropologist2020 (talk) 00:06, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Anthropologist2020 Welcome to the Tea House! I cannot find any such draft! I saw you added a red link to Helen Foster (author) but nothing else. Did you save the draft? It doesn't look like it was deleted either, but I could be mistaken. Also please use section headers. Your comment got mixed up with a previous question, I fixed it for you. ~ Shushugah (he/him • talk) 00:16, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

@Anthropologist2020: Hi there! When editing Wikipedia, be sure you click the "Publish changes" button to save everything you do. You can also copy your text to a word processing program on your computer and save it locally if you want. I wish you better luck with your future editing! GoingBatty (talk) 01:51, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

I (bot) failed to archive

There were 52 discussions, so I set up an archive bot. But, obviously old sections "Sacred geometry" and "Algebra, Popper etc." remained. Is this a case where I can archive manually? See Talk:Euler's identity. SilverMatsu (talk) 00:51, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

@SilverMatsu: You set minthreadsleft = 5 and there are 5 threads left on that talk page, so I think this is expected. See User:MiszaBot/config#Parameters_explained. Also, the oldest sections seem to have a lot of posts missing signatures, I wonder if that will cause a problem later? RudolfRed (talk) 01:18, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

@SilverMatsu and RudolfRed: I added {{UnsignedIP}} to the end of Talk:Euler's identity#Sacred geometry. It appears each section now ends with a signed comment, so they should archive in the future. GoingBatty (talk) 01:56, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

@RudolfRed and GoingBatty: Thank you for advice and signature addition. Also, I temporarily changed minthreadsleft from 5 to 3.--SilverMatsu (talk) 03:18, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

@GoingBatty: I know this is unrelated but do I actually have to add the date and time manually when adding the {{UnsignedIP}} template or is there something that does it for me? Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) (Stupidity by me) 13:26, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

@Blaze The Wolf: I like using User:Anomie/unsignedhelper to add {{Unsigned}} or {{UnsignedIP}}. As with any Wikipedia tool, check what it suggests before saving your edit. For example, the helper didn't provide the correct information for this talk page, because someone else added section headers after the comment was posted. Therefore, I added the template manually. GoingBatty (talk) 13:32, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Ah ok that's cool! Thanks for telling me! Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) (Stupidity by me) 13:32, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Red Userpage?

Hi, I haven't figured out how to make my user page blue -- it has been red for years. Can someone help me? Thanks.--C.Tseytlin (talk) 02:54, 9 September 2021 (UTC)--C.Tseytlin (talk) 02:54, 9 September 2021 (UTC)--C.Tseytlin (talk) 02:54, 9 September 2021 (UTC)--C.Tseytlin (talk) 02:54, 9 September 2021 (UTC) C.Tseytlin (talk) 02:54, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Simply click on "C.Tseytlin", write something there, and click on "Publish". The link to it will turn blue. -- Hoary (talk) 02:56, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. I tried that before but for some reason it didn't work. I hate I wasted your time!--C.Tseytlin (talk) 03:03, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Also, you don't need to put ~~~~ multiple times to sign your signature, you would need to do it once. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) (Stupidity by me) 13:25, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Gursimran Singh Mand

hey ... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Gursimran_Singh_Mand help me in this draft ... i added more than 8 reliable source and interview . please see this

thanks in advance 🙏 (talk) 04:00, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Your draft will be reviewed in due course. It says: "Review waiting, please be patient. This may take 4 weeks or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 1,366 pending submissions waiting for review." --David Biddulph (talk) 04:41, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

@Wiki97828: Welcome to the Teahouse! While you are waiting for the review, you can continue improving the draft. For example:

• I don't understand the first sentence in the "Political career" section. Please adjust the wording.
• Please carefully check the references, as reFill doesn't always get them correct. For example, the author in reference #2 should not be "DelhiDecember 27, India Today Web Desk New; December 27, 2018UPDATED:; Ist, 2018 13:39".
• Please also add |trans-title= and |language= to reference #12.
• Please add a |date= to each reference (if the web page has a date), and use a consistent date format throughout the draft: either MDY or DMY, but not both in the same draft.

Thanks, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 05:06, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

News item to add to "Anonymous"

I do not have permission to edit the page "Anonymous (hacker group)" but there is a new item in the news that is worthy of addition.

I would write

"In response to the Texas law banning abortions that went into effect on September 1, 2021, self-described affiliates of the hactivist group Anonymous launched “Operation Jane,” an initiative targeting those who try to enforce the law, within two days." https://www.dailydot.com/debug/anonymous-hactivists-texas-abortion-ban-operation-jane/

Thanks, this is a significant reappearance of Anonymous. Best, Chuck Stack User:CStack3 06:04, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi CStack3, and welcome to Wikipedia. The Teahouse isn't the place to request edits to protected pages, that is done with edit requests. You'll see when you try to edit a page, there is a large button to the right saying "Make an edit request" or similar. Click this to start making an edit request. There are more instructions at WP:Edit requests. Hope this helped :) — Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 06:38, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Kau Ka Pe'a

Aloha! Looking for help moving this draft page Draft:Kau Ka Pe'a into mainspace. Can anyone help assist with this process. Thank you! Sarahalohi (talk) 06:43, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

@Sarahalohi: I think the tone is too promotional and essay-like, and the article needs more sourcing to demonstrate notability. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 06:47, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

On the matter of tone, as a minor example, you should turn "Some of the notable musicians performing on the album include six-time Grammy® Nominee Amy Hānaialiʻi Gilliom [...]" into "The musicians performing on the album include Amy Hānaialiʻi Gilliom [...]". -- Hoary (talk) 07:25, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

@Sarahalohi: Welcome to the Teahouse! I did some copyediting, primarily to use quotation marks for song titles instead of italics per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Titles. The draft mentions that two songs are covers, but doesn't mention the original artist or writer. If the songs "When I Fall in Love" by Heyman/Young and "Bring Him Home (Les Misérables)" from Les Misérables, you can link to these articles. Please fix the author on reference #2, as "Friday, West Hawaii Today Staff |; May 21; 2021; A.m, 12:05" is not correct.

Per Help:Your first article#Create your draft: "When you feel that the article is ready, you can submit it for review by an experienced editor. If there isn't already a "Submit for review" button on the draft, you can add {{subst:submit}} to the top of the draft to submit it. A reviewer will then look at your draft and move it to the main article space or give you feedback on how to improve it. You can always edit the page, even while waiting for a review." Hope this helps, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 13:03, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Someone Changed all My Edits

Hello! I have been editing Wikipedia Articles for a couple of months and have been using it for a lot longer. Recently I edited an article about Pope Honorius I. A user immediately appeared telling me that what I wrote was not what the source said: even though I quoted it verbatim. He removed my edit. and I spent a few hours looking through all the sources on the topic to make it as unbiased as possible. I know that my form is a work in progress, and I need to tart summarising what my edits actually do, and I am working on it, but this same user accused me of plagiarism and insisted he had to edit it. I did not plagiarise, I referenced every source I used and nor had I ever seen the webpage he accused me of plagiarising from, but I didn't want to press the matter, to cause needless argument. Now after he had finished editing it, I thanked him for pointing out my mistakes and apologised, but it seems like he took that as a green flag to simply remove all sources that were not specifically Catholic, and now the article has become an opinion piece. His supposedly necessary edit was perfectly fine in his revision immediately preceding the one currently online. I don't know why he changed it again afterwards, but I feel that if I press the matter he will just continue to remove it, and accuse me of plagiarism again. A lot of valuable primary source content on the topic is now missing. Is there a way to revert it to his own edit, immediately preceding the one currently online? What do I do? H.A Elysian (talk) 08:41, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

H.A Elysian, rather than continuing the interplay between User talk:H.A Elysian and User talk:Mechamutoh (and now raising questions here as well), I suggest that you bring the matter up on Talk:Pope Honorius I, inviting Mechamutoh to elaborate on their comment "removing redundancy, possible plagiarism". -- Hoary (talk) 08:56, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

@H.A Elysian: Welcome to the Teahouse! I agree with the suggestion by Hoary, as this is a common part of the normal Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle to build consensus. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 13:05, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Entire section removed by H.A Elysian in this edit. No, H.A Elysian, you may not remove material posted here. -- Hoary (talk) 09:45, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Facing an issue in Bing Webmaster

I am trying to index my website pages on Bing but the Bing URL inspection shows that the H1 tag is missing and description is too long in Homepage. While In Google Search Console, it has no error. Can anyone help me in this case? Jasmine14312 (talk) 08:45, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

@Jasmine14312: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Unfortunally, we only answer questions about using or editing Wikipedia here. Since Wikipedia is not affilated with Bing, we cannot give you a definitive response, however, you could try and ask at the Computing reference desk. Victor Schmidt (talk) 08:58, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Jasmine14312, before you go to the reference desk, I suggest that you feed your page to W3's HTML validator and correct any errors that this finds. -- Hoary (talk) 09:00, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

DRAFT TAGS

Which tags should I add to my draft which is of an upcoming television historical series? Golgooo (talk) 09:13, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

@Golgooo Welcome to the Tea House! I would highly recommend focusing on high quality sourcing and content writing before worrying about category tags. Once the article is published you can seek feedback from others, or look at similar Articles about related television historical series. Happy editing! ~ Shushugah (he/him • talk) 10:04, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

@Shushugah I have already added authentic references. I just covet to know what type of tags should I add, as the tags I want are not showing up.

Golgooo On second reading, I am unsure what you mean by 'tags'. There are WP:Wikilinks which are prominently visible, and WP:Categories which help with sorting and maintenance. To make it easier for other editors, please link the Draft article you are working on Draft:Selahaddin Eyyubi in this case. For a similar article see Salah Al-deen Al-Ayyobi (TV series) to get some inspiration. Note that while Wikilinks can already be added, regular categories can only be added once it is published. Regards ~ Shushugah (he/him • talk) 11:16, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

@Shushugah Improving your odds of a speedy review

To improve your odds of a faster review, tag your draft with relevant WikiProject tags using the button below. This will let reviewers know a new draft has been submitted in their area of interest. For instance, if you wrote about a female astronomer, you would want to add the Biography, Astronomy, and Women scientists tags. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Selahaddin_Eyyubi

• This is what I am talking about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Golgooo (talk • contribs) 13:05, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

@Golgooo: Hi there! The WikiProject tags Television, Pakistan, and Turkey seem appropriate. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 13:11, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Golgooo Do you have a particular need for a speedy review? 331dot (talk) 13:12, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

How to remove incorrect references

Dear Friends,

I tried to edit a page where the refences were incorrect. How do I delete the incorrect references and how do I delete a page that is not relevant at all as the company has seized to exist. Trulyinsightful (talk) 10:06, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Trulyinsightful Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I will answer your second question by stating that the company no longer exists is not a reason to delete the article, just as George Washington being decesased is not a reason to delete that article. Now, if the company was acquired by another company, there could be an argument to merge the two articles, which should be discussed on the article talk page(of the article that should remain). If the company did not meet Wikipedia's definition of a notable company in the first place, that would be a reason to delete the article, and an Articles for Deletion discussion could be started. 331dot (talk) 10:16, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Trulyinsightful your first question is quite complicated. It depends on what's incorrect about the references. If the references do not say what is stated in the sentence they support (e.g. "The company is based in Munich[1]" and reference [1] says it's based in Chicago, then you can, without any worries, change the text to match what the reference actually says. If you think the reference is incorrect, and the text is right, life is a bit more complicated. Really you need to find another reference, indicating that the first is wrong, in which case you can substitute the one for the other (but be aware other editors may disagree, so it's a good idea to explain what you're doing, in the edit summary, and on the talk-page). If you think that the current reference is not only wrong, but unreliable, you can remove it, but again you really must explain what you're doing on the talk-page or edit summary (or both), or you're liable to getting reverted; this can be a controversial situation. It's probably safest to remove the doubtful statement and its reference; if you leave an unsupported statement, a high-risk thing to do, I'd also recommend putting a citation-needed template ({{cn}}) in place of the removed reference. What's really important is this: the truth, as we know it, doesn't matter. We are here to report what secondary sources say, not what we know to be true. So even if the article is definitely wrong, from our viewpoint (no matter how well-informed that viewpoint is), we can't edit to say something different without having a secondary source to back us up. Whatever you finally choose to do, talk about it; other editors can chime in, if they know what you're attempting to achieve. Elemimele (talk) 12:34, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks a tonne. I will keep all your suggestions in mind while editing the articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trulyinsightful (talk • contribs) 10:19, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Email marketing links question

Hello Team, I am Gourav Bajaj, I am here to inform you that in Email marketing Page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Email_marketing) you have some Broken links. I just want you to replace it with Email Marketing Strategy and Tips to Drive Conversion (https://samwebstudio.com/blog/post/email-marketing-strategy-and-tips-to-drive-conversion) this source.

Can you Review and replace the URL.

Broken Link: Source Wozniak, Tom (27 June 2018). "What GDPR Means For Email Marketing To EU Customers" 404. Forbes. Retrieved 16 January 2019. GouravSWS (talk) 10:20, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

That reference link in the article isn't broken. --David Biddulph (talk) 10:45, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

In addition, samwebstudio.com does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for reliable sources, and it is a type of external link that should not be added to a Wikipedia article. --bonadea contributions talk 10:55, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Based off their username it appears that the user is associated with samwebstudio.com (SWS = Sam Web Studio). Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) (Stupidity by me) 13:04, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

They also seem to have the exact same name as the author of the site [1], what a coincidence! 192.76.8.74 (talk) 14:34, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

GouravSWS indefinitely blocked for removing a legit ref and substituting the samwebstudio ref - written by Gourav - at Search engine optimization. David notMD (talk) 16:08, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Uploading Instagram image on Wikipedia

Can I take an image from an actress' official Instagram account and upload it on English Wikipedia? I know it is not allowed to uploaded it on Wikipedia Commons but is it possible to upload it on English Wikipedia by reducing it's resolution. Already an image is there on her article's infobox but it is from 2012. Yesterday one Wikipedia editor requested me to change it but I couldn't find any good images of her licensed under CC. Few images are available on Wikipedia commons but they have watermark on them. Eevee01^(talk) 10:31, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

If the actress is living, a non-free image is not permitted. - David Biddulph (talk) 10:41, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Also, if freely licenced images of her exist, even if they're worse quality, then any non-free image would fail criterion 1 of the Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria, Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:55, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

@Joseph2302 @David Biddulph Thanks for answering my question. Eevee01^(talk) 15:29, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

I have one more doubt. Is it allowed to use images with watermark on an article's infobox? I have found few images on Wikipedia Commons with watermark on them. Example 1,2. Eevee01^(talk) 15:43, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

@Eevee01: Welcome to the Teahouse! I found WP:WATERMARK, but I'm not sure that answers your question. Your example 1 is a full body photo with a watermark, but also has a cropped extracted image more suitable for an infobox. Hope this helps, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 16:22, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Idea for a new "considered the worst" page

We already have pages for music and film considered the worst, what about creating one for sports teams considered the worst? Some of these teams like the 1899 Cleveland Spiders, a team that signed a local bartender to pitch in a game, were so bad that they live in infamy. The 1899 Spiders fascinate baseball fans the way Ed Wood movies fascinate movie buffs. The 1986-87 L.A. Clippers are another team could make the list. Despite having some talented layers, they stumbled to a .146 win percentage, which to this day if memory serves is the worst in NBA history.

I think there's interest in such a page. I look forward to hearing everyone's feedback. I'm only here because I'm not currently somewhere else. (talk) 12:25, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

@Sportsfan1976: There's a place you could propose this idea (i don't remember what that place is), however I suggest you change your signature to include your username, otherwise it can be a bit confusing. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) (Stupidity by me) 13:02, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

That kind of list would need multiple reliable sources talking about "worst sports teams" as a phenomenon. You could not compile such a list by using some sources that say "The Morristown Coronillas were the worst tiddlywinks team in recorded history" and other sources saying "Among the worst American football teams known to have existed, the Duckburg Dodgers were the worst". Are there sources that discuss "worst sports teams", globally, as a concept? (The examples you mention above appear to be teams from the US.) WP:NLIST is the relevant guideline. --bonadea contributions talk 13:09, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

@Sportsfan1976: Welcome to the Teahouse! To see if there's interest, I suggest you ask at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sports, where you might find other editors to help. If you decide to move forward, collect your reliable sources, and follow the instructions at Help:Your first article to create a draft for review. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 13:22, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

It would have to be worst within something like a professional or top league. Category:Lists of worsts includes:

• List of worst Major League Baseball season records
• List of Major League Baseball longest losing streaks
• List of National Basketball Association longest losing streaks
• List of National Football League longest losing streaks
• List of winless seasons

The 1899 Cleveland Spiders are mentioned in three of them. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:55, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

"Advanced" source code editing

I'm not a new editor. At Athletics_at_the_2020_Summer_Olympics_–_Men's_high_jump#Qualifying_round, is there a way to edit it not manually (not typing them one by one from source PDF)?

I never adding those kind of info because there is always someone who added them. Thanks. Hddty (talk) 12:48, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

@Hddty: Welcome to the Teahouse! It depends on the format of your source PDF. If it was a table you could copy into Excel (or another spreadsheet), you could then try using one of the tools at Wikipedia:Tools#Excel to convert the spreadsheet to a Wikipedia table. Hope this helps, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 13:27, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

@GoingBatty: If you use the visual editor you can directly copy and paste spreadsheets into wikitables, no conversion required. 192.76.8.74 (talk) 14:37, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Sangbad Pratidin

Sangbad Pratidin is a reputed reliable print Bengali newspaper started in 1992, created in 2006 in Wikipedia, is already supported by reliable sources. I request to restore it. It looks like it was moved to Draft:Sangbad Pratidin erroneously or by someone who does not understand Bengali topics or about the region. I request to restore it. Please find the weblink to get familiar (https://www.sangbadpratidin.in/) and e-paper link (https://epaper.sangbadpratidin.in/). Thank you. 2409:4061:2C85:9787:51F7:1B0B:9DAC:9466 (talk) 14:51, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

This is a piece of page move vandalism - the account that did this did the same thing with Bartaman a couple of days ago. They seem to be on a spree of revenge draftifications because their article wasn't accepted. 192.76.8.74 (talk) 14:54, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

pinging @Titodutta and Deepfriedokra:. The editors Andlol17 should be blocked immediately causing vandalism and Sangbad Pratidin should be restored. I pinged you both since you have commented at Andlol17's talk page. 2409:4061:2C85:9787:51F7:1B0B:9DAC:9466 (talk) 14:59, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Hello IP! I decided to be bold and move the article back out of the Draft space. I hope my reasoning is sufficient enough for people to understand why I did it. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) (Stupidity by me) 15:05, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

@Blaze The Wolf: thanks for helping. 2409:4061:2C85:9787:51F7:1B0B:9DAC:9466 (talk) 15:07, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

• (edit conflict × 2) Hello, indeed, the move does did not make sense, I think. I asked them about the move. The editor has not edited after that and I am waiting for their response. Regards. --Titodutta (talk) 15:08, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

  The move has since been undone by User:Deepfriedokra with appropriate reasoning. IT will probably be moved back if it should remain out of Draft space. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) (Stupidity by me) 15:09, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

@Blaze The Wolf: You are not helping. This clearly lacks sufficient coverage in reliable sources to show notability. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:09, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

My apologies. I did not fully understand the situation. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) (Stupidity by me) 15:10, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

@Blaze The Wolf: Might I suggest you reread WP:CORP, and if you are not an AfC reviewer, do please leave main spacing drafts to those who are? Thanks --Deepfriedokra (talk)

Will do! Reading what was going on I thought it was someone who was making article's drafts for no reason but it appears that the move had valid reasoning. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) (Stupidity by me) 15:16, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

@Deepfriedokra: I disagree with your draftification of the article, it doesn't line up with policy - From Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Incubation

If recently created, articles that have potential, but that do not yet meet Wikipedia's quality standards, may be moved to the Wikipedia:Drafts namespace ... Because many drafts are not regularly reviewed, unilaterally moving articles to draft space ("draftifying") should generally be done only for newly created articles (as part of new page review or otherwise) or as the result of a deletion discussion. Incubation is not intended to be a "backdoor route to deletion"

A 15 year old article should not be getting draftified - if you think the sourcing is poor and does not demonstrate notability (which it doesn't - the sources in the article are really poor) then prod it or send it to AFD. 192.76.8.74 (talk) 15:17, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

• (edit conflict × 2) User:Deepfriedokra, Thanks for your comment. I think the articles passes #3, #4, and possibly more of the notability criteria. I agree that the article needs better demonstration/sourcing. If you search, please use alternative spelling or variants such as "Pratidin", "Pratidin newspaper", "Sambad Pratidin". Example: Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL (See Google Books). Happy to discuss this further or work on to improve the article collaboratively. Regards. --Titodutta (talk) 15:18, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

@Titodutta and Deepfriedokra: Its really surprising that Andlol17 is doing this because Draft:Ranaghat News was declined. You are letting vandalism to go undetected. I am really sorry for ourselves. For prrofs see @Deepfriedokra: your talk page. 2409:4061:2C85:9787:51F7:1B0B:9DAC:9466 (talk) 15:26, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Proof of vandalism reported at User talk:Deepfriedokra
Sangbad Pratidin was not moved by admin Liz. It was done as an act of vandalism. See logs [2]. Andlol17 has done that since Draft:Ranaghat News ‎ was declined (see [3] and [4]) and in revenge. See proof [5] for Bartaman and [6] for Sangbad Pratidin. Also @Titodutta: for views. 2409:4061:2C85:9787:51F7:1B0B:9DAC:9466 (talk) 15:14, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Apologies to everyone. Hopefully this will get correctly sorted at the ANI thread. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:33, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Reliability

I'm curious whether tubefilter is a reliable source. I've come across the website a number of times and was wondering if it contributes to notability or not. For instance, with the current sourcing I would say that Waveform (podcast) probably isn't notable if Tubefilter is unreliable and probably is notable if Tubefilter is considered a reliable source. The website says it's copyrighted by Tubefilter (so I guess there isn't a parent company or anything) and I can't find anything indicating whether there is an editorial board or who the writers for the website are. The about page doesn't provide much detail. It looks like the reliability has been questioned here, here, and here but I'm not super familiar with the process at WP:RSN. TipsyElephant (talk) 15:58, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

I was about to say you could ask at WP:RSN but it appears that it's already been asked there. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) (Stupidity by me) 16:02, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

@TipsyElephant: After looking at the most recent one it appears to have been established as reliable, being used by other reliable sources. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) (Stupidity by me) 16:09, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Archiving

I set my talk page to archive monthly. If I wanted to change it would it automatically rearrange the archives to whatever interval I change it to? TipsyElephant (talk) 16:20, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

@TipsyElephant: Hi there! Changing your configuration for archiving your talk page would only impact future sections to be archived, not the existing archives. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 16:25, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

@TipsyElephant: No, it wouldn't. It would start again at archive 1 but leave all of your old monthly archives in place. If you look at some of the archive setups for really old pages (e.g. The Village pump) you can see examples of multiple systems of archiving in use. 192.76.8.74 (talk) 16:26, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Notable residents

in order for a notable resident to be listed at the end of an article on a town or village, is it essential that they were born there if they have named something after the village and only lived there for a few years of their life? 84.70.254.246 (talk) 16:35, 9 September 2021 (UTC) 84.70.254.246 (talk) 16:35, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Hello IP! I'm fairly sure they will have to have been born their in order to be listed as a notable resident of that town. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) (Stupidity by me) 16:40, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Generally either could be acceptable, as long as you can justify their inclusion, e.g. if an author wrote a famous book while living in a specific town that would be acceptable thing to add to the town's page. The two main requirements are that a) the person must have a Wikipedia article, and b) their inclusion is supported by sources. 192.76.8.74 (talk) 16:46, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Being born there NOT a requirement. Nor their notable achievements ocurring in the town. There are many examples of professional athletes living in a town for a few years, and being claimed as a notable resident. David notMD (talk) 18:01, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Ah that would make sense. I mean, besides that a requirement is that they have to actually be notable. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) (Stupidity by me) 18:40, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Eric Joyce article

I have edited other pages a bit without signing in but signed in to edit this article (after editing another). I want to include in the opening paragraph Joyces attacks on colleagues actually in the UK's parliament, which received worldwide media attention. 3 users keep reverting without discussion. It is ridiculous that there should be no mention in the first para of this guys high profile violence against people in his own famous workplace. I feel like the 3 editors who keep reverting and removing the reference have a Scottish view of some sort and for some reason are trying to keep the violence out of the opening paragraph and relegate it to further down the page. It would be great if an admin could take a look. I will not argue with an admins advice.Traleelad (talk) 16:57, 9 September 2021 (UTC) Traleelad (talk) 16:57, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

@Traleelad: Adding a phrase to a biography of a living person like "physical assaults on multiple people, breaches of the peace and possessing an email which contained child pornography" without citing a reliable source is unacceptable according to WP:BLP policy. The part you tried to add about receiving a prison sentence (the sources seem to be about one, not two) have good sources and might be OK if you proposed just that on the talk page, and not the full unsourced assertions you tried to add.

Also, new material should not be added to the lead section. The lead section should provide a brief overview of what's already in the body text of the article. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:28, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Traleelad. I am an administrator but administrators do not adjudicate content disputes. When I express my opinion on content, I am speaking as just another editor. Speaking as an administrator, I will advise you to avoid edit warring behavior, and editing against consensus. Also, when you are engaged in a content dispute while logged in, do not participate while logged out. Do not accuse other editors of lacking neutrality because you guess they may be Scottish. All of that is unacceptable.

On to the content matter. You are trying to add the phrase "who has served two prison sentences" although those were suspended sentences. That is misleading on its face. The lead of that article makes it very clear that this is a very troubled man with a history of violence. If you want to make changes to the lead, then you must propose language that is not misleading and you must gain consensus at Talk: Eric Joyce. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:31, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Looking for support on my first article

I drafted an article for music artist WOLFE de MÇHLS. It was first rejected but I have addressed the feedback I received. Looking for additional support and assistance getting it approved. Milesdotson (talk) 17:07, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

@Milesdotson: The Houston Press reference looks like the only good one there. The Byline Houston one, I don't know what to make of that; it seems to be a blog of some sort. The rest are trivial mentions and can be used only for verification of some factoids, but not for establishing notability. Please have a look at WP:MUSICBIO. Does the subject of your draft meet any of those criteria listed? ~Anachronist (talk) 17:21, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Actually, Draft:Wolfe De Mçhls Declined, which is not as severe as Rejected. David notMD (talk) 18:10, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Most of your refs are just credit-mentions. What is essential is published content written about him at length. David notMD (talk) 18:17, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

sorting in wikitables

suppose i have heading top: row-day of week col-consumed item row 1: wed col 1: milk; row 2: tue col 2: curd; row 3: mon col 3: cream; row 4: sat col 4: tea; row 5: thu col 5: pudding; row 6: wed col 6: apple; row 7: wed col 7: bread. if sorted alphabetically does "wed" with their values? চামুণ্ডা^{[আলাপ]} 18:29, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Hello non-latin username I can't ping! Could you possibly clarify your question? I'm not sure if I fully understand what you're asking and want to give as accurate of an answer as I can. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) (Stupidity by me) 18:41, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

@চামুণ্ডা: Welcome to the Teahouse. I'm going to try and parse what you're asking: If I alphabetically sort the days of the week, will the associated food switch positions to match them? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:19, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

@চামুণ্ডা: This appears to be your supposed table:

day of week	consumed item
wed	milk
tue	curd
mon	cream
sat	tea
thu	pudding
wed	apple
wed	bread

If you sort alphabetically by day of week then the three "wed" rows will be listed after eachother in the milk, apple, bread order they had right before, and not sorted by the second column. Is that what you were asking? If you first sort by consumed item and then by day of the week then the three "wed" end up sorted by consumed item apple, bread, milk, because they were in that order right before. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:34, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

@PrimeHunter: so our wikitable is quite intelligent. yes, i was looking for sorting col 1 (day of week). sorting by consumed item is giving accurate results. i copied wikitable code whuch is quite useful. the issue is resolved. how do i mark this question as completed? -চামুণ্ডা^{[আলাপ]} 03:22, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

@Blaze The Wolf: perhaps my username change was denied becuase it is registered few days back. did not received accepted or rejected email confirmation. -চামুণ্ডা^{[আলাপ]} 03:25, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

@চামুণ্ডা: If you sort by day of the week then chronological is usually better than alphabetical. This can be done with sort keys like below. See more at Help:Sorting. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:24, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Ah alright. PrimeHunter and Tenryuu seem to have pinged you though so it's all good! Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) (Stupidity by me) 13:08, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

day of week	consumed item
wed	milk
tue	curd
mon	cream
sat	tea
thu	pudding
wed	apple
wed	bread

Wikipedia:Sandbox clear intervals

Hello! Just wondering but how often is WP:Sandbox cleared and how often does the bot come along and readd the headers that people removed? I would revert edits to the page that remove the header people are specifically told not to remove but I'm not sure if that would be allowed or not. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) (Stupidity by me) 19:54, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

@Blaze The Wolf: The main sandbox is cleared once an hour, the talk page once every 12 hours. There's a bot that automatically reinserts the headers, so you don't need to do it manually. 192.76.8.74 (talk) 20:09, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

@192.76.8.74: Ah ok. Would it be alright if I reinserted the header manually anyway or should I wait for the bot to do it? Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) (Stupidity by me) 20:10, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

@Blaze The Wolf: I mean, you could if you want to, but User:Hazard-Bot is programmed to do it pretty much the instant they are removed. 192.76.8.74 (talk) 20:12, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Notability For Crypto Coins

Hello,

I checked the entire https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability, but there is no criteria set for Crypto currencies. Will it for under GNG? Should there be a conensus to add a new criteria? SAMsohot (talk) 00:28, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

GNG would be applicable regardless of whether there was a specific notability guideline (SNG). In fact, GNG and SNGs are an "either/or" situation, in that it need only meet one of them. Are you ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN you want to work in a topic area under general sanctions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jéské Couriano (talk • contribs) 00:40, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

SAMsohot Along with WP:GNG which is golden standard, WP:NCOMPANY and and WP:NWEB also exist, I cannot think of other crypto related topics that would benefit from additional guidelines. Do you have specific examples in mind? ~ Shushugah (he/him • talk) 10:45, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Determining Changes

JC847966 (talk) 02:49, 10 September 2021 (UTC) Is it possible to see who made changes, and who edited an article I have written? If I do not agree with these changes, can I remove the new edits? Furthermore, can everyone edit any Wikipedia article, or is there a certain status requirement? JC847966 (talk) 02:49, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

@JC847966: Welcome to the Teahouse! At the top of each article is a tab called "View history", which allows you to see who made what changes when. Anyone can edit (or revert edits) to any Wikipedia article, except those articles that has some kind of protection - see Wikipedia:Protection policy. As part of the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, you can revert someone's changes if the edit does not meet Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, but be prepared to discuss the edit and work towards building consensus for the article. Hope this helps, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 02:57, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

@JC847966: What is the article? Your contribution history doesn't show anything you've written that others have edited. ~Anachronist (talk) 03:36, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

JC847966, Joe Biden is an example of an article that newcomers cannot edit -- at least for now, and very likely until four years or more after he ceases to be president. Or rather, they can't edit it directly. They can make suggestions for changes on Talk:Joe Biden. However, these suggestions must be precise; if they're not, they won't be considered. -- Hoary (talk) 05:36, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Moving a category

I can't figure out how to execute a category move, but clearly Category:Obscenity controversies in internet should be moved as in internet is not grammatically correct English, even if all the other categories under Category:Obscenity controversies follow the Obscenity controversies in … template. Possible targets are Category:Internet-related obscenity controversies (which I'd prefer) or Category:Obscenity controversies on the internet. cc Renzo487, who has moved a bunch of pages into this category. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 06:09, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

@Psiĥedelisto: Moving a category takes a lot more work than moving a normal page, so the ability to move them is restricted. To rename a category you need to list it at Categories for discussion, either under one of the speedy criterion (if one applies) or for a full week's discussion otherwise. Once that's finished the actual moving is done by a bot. 192.76.8.74 (talk) 08:47, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

@192.76.8.74: Thanks for the help! Tagged C2A. I know many of our policies and procedures but Wikipedia is a very large system. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 09:27, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

@Psiĥedelisto I agree a rename is needed. I for example I would have proposed Category:Obscenity controversies online as an even shorter alternative should you raise a discussion at Wikipedia:CfD ~ Shushugah (he/him • talk) 10:49, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

@Shushugah: Your target is better, so I updated the speedy request to reflect your idea instead. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 10:55, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

@Psiĥedelisto just a small note, this likely would NOT be a valid speedy request, because on the contrary it's breaking away from naming conventions of "Obscenity in..." and isn't a mere typo/obvious fix. ~ Shushugah (he/him • talk) 13:35, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

@Shushugah: Are you sure? [I]n internet is obviously not grammatically correct English. I read WP:C2A criterion №3 as easily fitting the bill, though I don't plan to make too many of these requests. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 13:38, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

@Psiĥedelisto I may be splitting hairs here, since I agree with your ultimate proposal whether in a week or immediately, but WP:C2A to me implies there is an obvious/apparent renaming which there isn't in this case, and it would benefit from more discussion, just as we are/have done so here. I won't opposite it there for that reason, since I'm not trying to be a WikiLawyer 💩 ~ Shushugah (he/him • talk) 13:43, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

writing simple and small effective summary, resources with examples?

is there any cheatsheet with examples for writing edit summaries in our wiki or external website. right now i am using half to more than half 500 character limit. Wikipedia:Edit summary legend and Wikipedia:Edit summary legend/Quick reference, both of them give a head start, but i am looking for webpage or cheatsheet with examples taken directly from enwiki or hypothetical. চামুণ্ডা^{[আলাপ]} 08:27, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

If it's your wiki or website, চামুণ্ডা, you can make up your own rules; as for English-language Wikipedia, there's Help:Edit summary. -- Hoary (talk) 08:57, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

@চামুণ্ডা Welcome to Tea House! Another idea is to write longer comments on the talk page and reference those in your edit summary, so that others can also discuss/respond to you. ~ Shushugah (he/him • talk) 10:51, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

New article collides with old article - beginners question

Hi guys :) The article Democratic Education is a wild mix-up of general aspects to education for a democratic society and specifically Democratic Schools. That's why I decided to write an article "Democratic School" which is here in my sandbox and delete some redundant parts in the old "Democratic Education" article. It's my first article here on Wikipedia, so I don't know how to start. First publish the new "Democratic School" article or first delete the redundant parts or do it basically at the same time? I am afraid if I publish the new article first (which makes more sense to me), reviewers won't accept it, because of redundancy.

I would be very happy for advice. And thanks to all who contribute to this awesome project!!! Altiflash (talk) 12:01, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Hello @Altiflash:! You should probably take a look at WP:your first article for advice on writing an article. Next you should probably open a discussion on the talk page about the changes you'd like to make to see what other editors think of the changes you want to make. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) (Stupidity by me) 13:28, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

@Altiflash your sandbox contributions look like a wonderful addition to the school aspect! I would recommend making a comment as you did here, on the talk page of Democratic education which you can find at Talk:Democratic education. If you're determined to get Democratic schools published (User:Altiflash/sandbox) I would focus more on the inline sourcing/prose quality than on any duplication. How much/little duplication can be fixed overtime, but only with an article that is published. My 2 cents there is to trim the content on Summerhil, for example the alumni of each school can remain in each individual section, instead of making a giant combined list. ~ Shushugah (he/him • talk) 13:32, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Review draft

Can you review my draft, please? Wokipoki (talk) 12:11, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Wolipoki Your draft was submitted and is pending, please be patient as there are hundreds of drafts waiting for reviews, which are conducted by volunteers. 331dot (talk) 12:13, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

@Wokipoki: While you're patiently waiting for someone to review Draft:Güneş Hayat, could you please add |trans-title= to each Turkish reference? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 13:13, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

To clarify, Teahouse hosts are not all draft reviewers, and asking at Teahouse does not accelerate a review. If you are asking for an opinion on Draft:Güneş Hayat, mine matches that of the reviewer who declined the first submission on 7 September - her career is not notable, as it appears to be as a supporting actress in several films and TV shows. Most of the references confirm that she had those roles, but are not about her at length. David notMD (talk) 13:22, 10 September 2021 (UTC)