Wikipedia:Teahouse

PrimeHunter, 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

Is there a tool/gadget to add projects on a talk page quickly?

Like we use Twinkle and Hotcat?

Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 07:35, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi Nomadicghumakkad, WP:RATER does that pretty well. -Paul ❬talk❭ 07:53, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

How do I cite an Act of Congress?

Specifically, I'm trying to cite the Silver Purchase Act of 1934. Here's a link to the .pdf scan from the Library of Congress: https://www.loc.gov/law/help/statutes-at-large/73rd-congress/session-2/c73s2ch674.pdf Tyrone Madera (talk) 01:40, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

@Tyrone Madera: Welcome to the Teahouse! Try using Template:Cite act. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 01:42, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

GoingBatty, Is there anything more specific for Congress? Cite act doesn't seem to be very geared toward the level of specificity that Acts of Congress have. For example, in this case, this act is filed under United States Statutes at Large, Vol. 48, under the 73rd Congress (1933-1934), under session 2, Chapter 674, pages 1178–1181, published on June 19, 1934. Tyrone Madera (talk) 01:47, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

@Tyrone Madera: In the Colorado article, reference #12 uses {{cite web}} for an Act of Congress. GoingBatty (talk) 01:58, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

GoingBatty, does reference #5 in the Free silver article look good? Tyrone Madera (talk) 05:10, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

@Tyrone Madera: Not quite - you're not supposed to use |others= without using |author= or |editor= - see Category:CS1 maint: others. GoingBatty (talk) 05:14, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

GoingBatty, should I put the 73rd United States Congress in the author last category then? Tyrone Madera (talk) 05:21, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

GoingBatty, also, should I use the short title or the long title for the act? Tyrone Madera (talk) 18:07, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

@Tyrone Madera: Again, I like the way that reference #12 is formatted in the Colorado article:

Cite web comparison

Wikitext	{{cite web|access-date=November 15, 2018|date=February 28, 1861|publisher=[[Thirty-sixth United States Congress]]|title=An Act to provide a temporary Government for the Territory of Colorado|url=https://www.loc.gov/law/help/statutes-at-large/36th-congress/session-2/c36s2ch59.pdf}}
Live	"An Act to provide a temporary Government for the Territory of Colorado" (PDF). Thirty-sixth United States Congress. February 28, 1861. Retrieved November 15, 2018.

However, some people like to use other formats. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 21:28, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

request an inclusion of a page on the topic of Artists without Borders

Hi, I have ended up here (in desperation) after trying to follow wikipedia's instructions on the main page about how to request a new topic for inclusion. As it was not clear how to do this (from the instructions there),I have wasted a few minutes just going around in circles from one page to another, getting nowhere. (Until now?)

So, my question is a simple one - can wikipedia please include a page on the very important topic of Artists without Borders? Artists Without Borders is a very important international initiative which makes it possible for artists from developing countries to live above their local poverty line, and that has to be to everyone's benefit I would think.

thankyou for all the work that you do, and no at this stage i don't have time to create the page myself as I am a working artist on a low income just trying to keep my head above water, and that takes all my energy!

Lastly, a heartfelt plea to Wikipedia administrators: please can you make it MUCH easier and simpler for wiki users to ask simple questions like this one, instead of making it progressively harder as time goes on! since I started interacting with wikipedia twelve years ago (when I was briefly an editor for a few months), I have noticed a growing tendency to overcomplicate everything here and make it more user UNfriendly.) Not a good trend for the long term health of a wonderful and much-loved resource! (If its too hard/annoying/frustrating then ordinary folk with busy lives will just give up and instead of contacting you to improve the site, will opt do something (anything!) that's likely to be more productive). 114.30.109.203 (talk) 08:58, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi, you can request an article at Wikipedia:Requested articles. Kleinpecan (talk) 09:32, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello. I'd like to clarify that your question "can Wikipedia please include a page on the very important topic of Artists without Borders?" actually translates as "How can I motivate a volunteer editor (or a group of them) to put in the considerable time and effort required to write an encyclopaedia article about AwB?" Kleinpecan has suggested one place to ask, but in honesty, the take-up is very low there. You might have more luck askingat WP:WikiProject Visual arts. But whichever way, you are the one wanting the article, it is unlikely that anybody will write it unless you inspire them to. That's how a volunteer project works. --ColinFine (talk) 13:19, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Indeed. I'm sure I'm not the only volunteer to have more ideas of content I want to work on than there would be time to do in five years of non-stop work. No exaggeration. I'll bump something up right to the top of my priority list when it involves helping someone else volunteer or when someone makes a good attempt to produce something of value. Here I don't even have the secondary sources about the organization necessary to see if this plausibly meets our notability requirements. A shame because it sounds like a wonderful topic I would enjoy learning about. — Bilorv (talk) 23:28, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

@114.30.109.203: I looked into this and there are numerous organizations called "artists without borders". You would need to provide more specific information about which one you are interested in.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Possinbly (talk • contribs)

Why do non-English speakers edit English Wikipedia?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Reading Wikipedia articles, it is often glaringly obvious that they have been edited by people for whom English is not a first language, nor perhaps even a second. An example: some text that I removed the other day.

That is a fairly extreme example, but less extreme examples are absolutely rife. I would say that the majority of articles I read contain at least one error characteristic of speakers of a foreign language. Editors of English Wikipedia must be in large part native speakers of other languages. So I am curious as to why anyone would edit a Wikipedia in a language they are not fluent in? I speak languages other than English, but simply would not dream of adding any substantive text on the relevant Wikipedias. Toleco (talk) 10:42, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

English Wikipedia incidentally is the largest Wikipedia, so the potential circulation/exposure is a big one. Shushugah (talk) 10:47, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

@Toleco: I understand where you are coming from, but, if I wanted to find out about a place, village or region in another part of the world where English is not the main language, I would be grateful that my prime source of information (English Wikipedia) actually had an article about that place. I would be unlikely to go to another language Wikipedia. If we stopped anyone for whom English was not their first native tongue, then we would be a lot poorer for it, and would not have so much content in those article. And how would we test everyone's language abilities before allowing them to edit? We must therefore rely on editors like yourself to help remove any content that simply makes no sense, just as we rely on other editors to remove other poor edits here. I agree that the diff you linked to above was extremely hard to understand, was unsourced, and so was ripe for reversion. But if I find well-sourced content that was just a little hard to make sense of, then I would prefer for the content to remain there until such time as I or another editor felt able to improve it. As was stated above, English Wikipedia is by far the largest and most accessed language version, so it is natural for anyone thinking they speak good enough English to want to add content to it.

It is often only another person who can sense that someone's language skills are not yet up to it, or that they have used Google Translate without actually being able to assess how well or poorly it reads. In the instance you cite, the content was added by Argentinian editor, GDuwen back in 2007 with this diff, possibly translated from the equivalent Spanish article. They are still active today, and appear nowadays to have very good English skills indeed, so now my PING will have alerted them to the removal of that old content, and they might even be motivated to rewrite it and add an up-to-date source. I would also add that there are a lot of people in this world for whom English is their first language, and yet do not have the abilities to write coherent sentences in their mother tongue. I for one welcome editors attempting to add content in a secondary language (providing it does make some sense!), and am ashamed at my own lack of skills to write in other languages. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 11:25, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

@Toleco:I wonder why is that even a question! I don't really understand either why was the content removed. I can see that it was a poorly-written entry that happened to be fourteen years old, but that is why we have tags to request an expansion or citations! (not to mention the possibility of letting me know on my talk page). I may also say that I've never understood why people bother bombing articles with a thousand tags instead of trying to fix them a little bit (maybe the simple explanation is that destroying is easier than building something up).

As Nick Moyes pointed out, it is preferable to have entries about villages and towns that non-native speakers contribute to rather than having nothing at all. The articles can benefit from a quick copy-edit from a native speaker to at least make them readable. Let's rather encourage people to contribute to this amazing project and not turn them away arbitrarily. In my particular case, I was doing my first attempts at editing. Starts are sloppy, but you have to start somewhere! (talking here fourteen years and 38 Good Articles later, without mentioning others I did not consider there was sufficient enough information to promote).

In short, it is more useful to improve the existing material, and to work in cooperation rather than to go into this kind of useless rants.--GDuwenHoller! 14:34, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Hear, hear! Nick Moyes (talk) 15:25, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

FYI

 – There was a related thread recently, started by 37.152.231.40 on 16 January 2021, now archived at Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1091#Editors who do not speak English. --CiaPan (talk) 15:19, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with non-native speakers adding material to the English Wikipedia. They are valuable sources of material that might easily be overlooked by native speakers. However, I have encountered non-native speakers who seem unable to understand that the way they have phrased something is confusing or even contrary to what they are trying to say. Some have gotten into edit wars to preserve their poorly written material, even insisting that obvious grammatical errors are correct. In those cases, those particular editors are problematic. Several have wound up being blocked (often on grounds of competence). --Khajidha (talk) 15:29, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Some comments:

English Wikipedia is by far the largest and most accessed language version, so it is natural for anyone thinking they speak good enough English to want to add content to it - truly, I do not understand this point at all. If the Wikipedia in someone's native language is smaller than English Wikipedia, why would that make them want to add poor-quality text to English Wikipedia, instead of improving the encyclopaedia of their native language, for their own benefit?

We must therefore rely on editors like yourself to help remove any content that simply makes no sense, just as we rely on other editors to remove other poor edits here. - that's the wider problem. You can't rely on that. The text that I removed as simply incomprehensible had barely been touched in over 13 years.

I don't see a problem with non-native speakers adding material to the English Wikipedia. - nor do I if they speak fluent English. And I still have no idea why people who must know that their English is nowhere near fluent edit here anyway. I simply would not dream doing this. Toleco (talk) 17:01, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Many people want their work to be seen and more people see the English Wikipedia. It's just human nature. Articles are also more likely to be translated from English than from other languages. An article about a German city may get more views in the German Wikipedia but in general, there are more readers in English. Reaching a bigger audience is probably the main motivator. Others may include training your English or liking being part of something big or very international. There are also editors who work on the same subject in both English and their native language. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:53, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Sorry but I still do not understand this at all. You're saying that, as a non-native speaker, your primary concern in adding text to an encyclopaedia is not to write well but rather to be seen? You would rather add poor quality text to English Wikipedia than high quality text in your own language, simply because you want more people to see it? I would consider that destructive vanity, not human nature at all.

"training your English" [sic] as a motivation for adding material to English Wikipedia is something I also cannot understand. How is it supposed to work? You attempt to write English and then check back later to see how other people have fixed up your mess? Toleco (talk) 09:50, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request to remove "Multilingual Wikisource" link from Main page template

Hello. On the Main page, there is a template ("In other projects") used on the left column of the page that contains links to other projects. I noticed that this template points to the Wikisource project twice. There is "Wikisource" (which points to https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Main_Page) and "Multilingual Wikisource" (which points to https://wikisource.org/wiki/Main_Page). Seeing as the other project links point to their respective English pages, I would like to request the "Multilingual Wikisource" link be removed, as to improve consistency. Please let me know where this can be properly discussed and how this modification can be done. Thank you for your help! Somerandomuser (talk) 18:55, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi Somerandomuser. I think Wikipedia, Wikisource and Wiktionary are the only projects with a multilingual front page, and Wiktionary is never linked under "In other projects". The links are not decided at Wikipedia but come from Wikimedia main page (Q5296) at Wikidata. Multilingual Wikisource was added by Liuxinyu970226 in [1]. I don't know whether it's supposed to be there. https://www.wikipedia.org is not listed. You can post to wikidata:Talk:Q5296, or maybe Liuxinyu970226 will post here. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:32, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Hmn, {{noexternallanglinks}} can only hide language links, maybe asking at mw:Project:Support desk? Also, removing a valid link on Wikidata is not permitted. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 23:27, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

@Liuxinyu970226 and PrimeHunter: I have started a discussion on the MediaWiki Support desk (see https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Topic:W5776mhi9im7r124). Somerandomuser (talk) 05:18, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

@Somerandomuser: The English Wikipedia could hide the link for itself with this in MediaWiki:Common.css:

.wb-otherproject-sources {display:none;}

It would require consensus and I don't know whether the Wikimedia Foundation would have objections to projects hiding interwiki links. You can place the code in your CSS to hide the link for yourself. PrimeHunter (talk) 09:10, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Can I make my own personal watchlist(s)?

HI. I wanted to know if I can make my own personal watchlist(s) using the "Recent Changes" tool. If so, how? Thanks in advance. Mosesheron (talk) 20:28, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi Mosesheron. I'm not sure what you mean but an account can only have one watchlist. See Help:Watchlist. PrimeHunter (talk) 09:14, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

@PrimeHunter: Thanks for your response. I think I should have elaborated a little. I came across this page a few days ago. It appears to be a customized version of Recent Canges page that only shows changes to Islam related articles this page contains. It says here that "The same method may be used to make your own personal list(s)." I was wondering if such personal list or lists that would show changes to certain selected articles only could really be made. And if so, how? Thanks again. Mosesheron (talk) 11:31, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

@Mosesheron: It refers to related changes at Help:Watchlist#Alternatives to watchlists. It can be used to get something similar to a watchlist but harder to use. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:42, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

@PrimeHunter: I get the idea. Thank you. Appreciate your time. Mosesheron (talk) 12:06, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Turkish article to English Wikipedia

There is a Turkish Wikipedia (Vikipedi) article about me with all credible references . Can we completely transfer this and open a new English Wikipedia article about me using the same information (of course by translating it into English)? Regards Cenk Taskan 96.20.210.103 (talk) 20:36, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

@96.20.210.103: Hi, anonymous editor! That's entirely possible, so long as the article comports with the English Wikipedia's standards for reliable sourcing and notability guidelines and so long as somebody is willing to put in the work to translate it over. I don't speak Turkish, so this is out of my wheelhouse, but my first impressions are cautiously optimistic, as the article's first citation leads to Blogspot, though the second seems to be an interview in a fairly popular newspaper Milliyet. Likewise, however, the majority of the information in the article is clearly uncited. That said, if you are indeed Cenk Taşkan, I would strongly recommend against trying to move it over yourself (please see WP:COI) and instead consult with a Turkish editor who could possibly take a look at this if they choose to, such as Nedim Ardoğa. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 22:35, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Vikipedi to Wikipedia (for Technıcıan27)

Hello mr. Technıcıan27

Thank you for answering my question

You recommended me Nedim Ardoğa. how can I contact him?

Be save

Cenk Taskan

96.20.210.103 (talk) 13:46, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Follow this link: User talk:Nedim Ardoğa. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:29, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Dark Deception

Why is there no Dark deception Page on here and how can I make one? UB Blacephalon (talk) 23:22, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Blacephalon, perhaps best would be to create one after reading Help:Introduction and WP:YFA and collecting all WP:RS for doing so. Happy editing! CommanderWaterford (talk) 23:29, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

@Blacephalon: To add to what CommanderWaterford said, I've done some preliminary research, and it seems plausible to me that the reason Dark Deception doesn't have an article yet is just because it doesn't currently meet our guidelines for notability. I've looked elsewhere for sources discussing this game in-depth, but just as an example, the game's Metacritic page does not yet have any critic reviews. From what I can gather, this is a case of what editors commonly refer to as WP:TOOSOON, which means it may just be too soon for the article to be created as there isn't yet enough coverage of it in reliable, independent sources. While you're more than welcome to draft an article, I just want you to be aware that said article may not be approved because of this, no matter how well-written it is. Essentially, it may be best to hold off until reliable sources start covering the game. (By the way, Celesteela is the coolest Ultra Beast.) TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 00:21, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

@Blacephalon: Several things called Dark Deception are mentioned in Wikipedia without having their own article. I guess you refer to the video game. An article was created at Dark Deception in 2019 but the only source was a YouTube trailer. It was moved to Draft:Dark Deception and deleted seven months later as abandoned. An article should have sources to satisfy Wikipedia:Notability. See also Wikipedia:Notability (video games) although it's only an essay and not a guideline or policy. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:49, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Ahh Okay. So the wiki and the youtube trailers and the merch don't count I assume? Alright Even though the game has been out for a couple years...

Oh and @TheTechnician27:, Celesteela is a cool Ultra beast. I like Xurkitree, Stakataka, and myself more though. Talk on my Page if you wanna chat about it! UB Blacephalon (talk) 18:53, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

@Blacephalon: Admittedly haven't played USUM, so I don't have a solid opinion on Stakataka, but Xurkitree's crazy special attack is fun to play around with (and made it a nightmare to catch). But I digress. As you correctly inferred, the fan Wiki, YouTube trailers, and merch don't count as contributing to notability. The fan Wiki is indepndent of the subject  Done and has substantial coverage  Done, but it is not reliable because it is considered user-generated content  Not done (the same, by the way, would be true of Metacritic and Steam user reviews). The YouTube trailers are substantial coverage  Done and are reliable for some statements about the game  Done/ Not done, but they are not independent of the subject  Not done. Finally, the merch really isn't any of these three. As far as WP:TOOSOON goes, it's less about how long a subject has existed for and more about when reliable sources will start covering it. For example, MotoRodeo debuted 31 years ago and was one of the last games for the Atari 2600, but FOARP and I were entirely unable to find enough significant coverage in reliable, independent sources to create an article about it. Now I wouldn't call that one WP:TOOSOON (although it's not impossible it'll gain some traction and get its own article), but it's not out of the question at all for something ike Dark Deception. As a popular example, Among Us came out in mid-2018, but it absolutely exploded in popularity in 2020, and in September, OmegaFallon created an article. A bit of an extreme example, sure, but a less extreme version of that is definitely possible. Likewise, while popular LPers like Markiplier and 8-BitRyan have played Dark Deception, the videos are clearly intended to be a casual playthrough for entertainment and not meant as a critique. So for example, if Markiplier were to sit down and write/record a review of Dark Deception, discussing and fleshing out what his opinions on the game are, it would be considered substantial coverage from a reliable (there's no editorial board for Markiplier, sure, but he does play indie survival horror games for a living, so I think this falls under WP:RSCONTEXT), independent source and would therefore contribute to notability. However, him entertaining an audience with jokes while playing the game isn't considered substantial coverage.

As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia wants to know what reliable, independent sources have to say about a subject. Basically, the goals of Wikipedia's notability guidelines are threefold: 1) Making sure all of the information in our article can be reliably sourced, 2) making sure our article isn't just a bare minimum definition of a subject, and 3) making sure our article isn't just a rephrased/inferior copy of one source. For example, when creating an article about a video game, there are a broad array of aspects Wikipedia aims to discuss, like: how was this game developed? What did professional critics have to say about it? What accolades, if any, did it receive? What is its plot/setting? What is its gameplay like? What is its cultural significance/legacy? Not all of these have to be in a Wikipedia article (for many, in fact, like one whose reception section I recently worked on, it's basically just what it was released for and when, who made it, what the gameplay is like, and what its critical reception was, and that's totally acceptable), but whether or not you can create a 'Reception' section out of reliable, independent sources is usually a good indicator of whether or not a video game merits an article by Wikipedia's notability guidelines.

Hope this rambling short essay helped explain the rationale behind the policy a bit. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 20:13, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

@TheTechnician27:This does really help a lot but I do have some questions. Like if we need reliable resources, why do people not trust Wikipedia as a reliable source when we DO list our sources? How many reliable resources are required to write an article of that sort? Are How-to-Play sites allowed? Y'know?

And Stakataka is a massively bulky Pokemon with high defense good attack but not a great movepool. I actually have a plush of it. Xurkitree is a wonderful special attacker and Blacephalon are also a great special attacker but with its signature Mind Blown attack cutting its HP in half. UB Blacephalon (talk) 21:27, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

@Blacephalon: It's almost a bit paradoxical, isn't it? The article for Warren G. Harding is not only based upon dozens of reliable sources, but it has also been rigorously reviewed to make sure what we've written comports with those reliable sources, semi-protected to prevent vandalism, and watched by hundreds of editors. However, a few issues arise with citing Wikipedia (which apart aren't deal-breakers but which together pretty much are): 1) Wikipedia's quality varies by article. So while a featured or good article may be a fantastic resource, maybe something I've written (say, the Robert L.B. Tobin Land Bridge) is deficient in some way. Maybe it's not, but what if some other article is, and how do we judge? There's no real editorial oversight outside of hoping someone notices and fixes the issues. 2) Wikipedia is constantly in flux. What was an article one day might be radically different another or may not even be there at all. You can create permalinks, sure, but that leads us to 3) It creates an unnecessary layer of abstraction that could hypothetically go on forever. When a reader is looking at a Wikipedia article, they want to feel comfortable that what we're saying is attributed to someone reliable. Likewise, when an editor is checking a Wikipedia article against our source, they don't want to be burrowing over to another Wikipedia article to see what they have to say. In fact, if we didn't limit this to just one layer deep (and I'm not sure how this could be reasonably enforced), we could just go on recursively citing Wikipedia for multiple articles until we get to the actual source. 4) Because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, we try our best to give a general overview of a subject. This means that sources we cite often have a much broader scope for their specific topic than we could possibly fit into our article, so they often outright function better as a source of more detailed information. Finally, 5) It's just as easy to grab the relevant source(s) from our Wikipedia article and transplant them into the other Wikipedia article that would have cited it. In fact, it's arguably easier, because we can literally just copy-paste the source text from one article to the other.

As far as why people don't trust us when we do list our sources? I would point to those reasons listed above (plus, for more controversial topics, some people not trusting what we consider to be 'reliable sources', though this generally applies a lot less to less-than-controversial subjects such as video games). Regarding how many sources are needed? This is where things get a bit more subjective. For example, we new page reviewers stick to '2', but ultimately, there's no firm rule because, as WP:GNG puts it, "sources vary in quality and depth of coverage". So if I have two whole books published by reputable sources about my subject and nothing else, I'm good to go, but if I'm creating an article about a video game from the 90s and only have two short magazine reviews, I might want to look for a couple more. Likewise, depending on the type of article, I may want more. Having an article about a video game is pretty benign, but if I suddenly start making articles about living politicians using two newspaper articles as my basis for the whole thing, there'll be some cocked eyebrows. If you asked a generic experienced editor, they would probably say "Three, but more is better." Finally, as far as how-to guides are concerned (e.g. GameFAQs, video tutorials), it depends on who's writing them. For example, I love the game SSX 3, and one of the best players in the world is a Norwegian speedrunner. He makes tutorial videos, and more than almost anyone else (even mainstream outlets like IGN and GameSpot), I would trust him with my life to provide accurate information about the game's mechanics. Whereas I could get away with citing him on Fandom, I almost certainly couldn't here except in some bizarre hypothetical edge case that I can't even think of. The reason is because 1) there's no editorial board overseeing what he puts out, and 2) he's obscure enough that only dedicated fans of the game would possibly know who he is. Meanwhile, IGN (not the IGN Wiki, but the articles) and GameSpot writers do have editorial oversight, and they've built up a reputation for generally reliable information. However, an official manual or strategy guide could reasonably be used (game manuals and strategy guides sometimes contain inaccuracies, but you can always choose to exclude it as a source if you know it does). That said, just be careful if you're citing a how-to guide, and especially be careful what you're using it to substantiate, as Wikipedia is not a game guide (however, as an aside, it's looking more and more like our sister project, WikiBooks, will allow game guides).

To be sure, everything you've brought up are 100% already concerns for the imperfect methods we have right now (check the WP:RSN if you don't believe me), but citing ourselves would exacerbate this to a point where it could arguably ruin the project. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 23:28, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

@TheTechnician27: Aah, so more is better. So, what sites are reliable and which sites aren't? I've tried to publish an article about Porygon before but people are saying that there are not enough sources. I've also heard people say that because Wikipedia can be vandalized and edited so easily, You can't trust it. I do really want to publish an article, but other editors say I'm better off just editing articles. I've been doing that since I joined but there aren't any to majorly edit. I'm not sure what to do....UB Blacephalon (talk) 02:53, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Visual editor

Hi I'm kind of new to this so maybe this is something easy but I can't seem to find the visual editor anymore. It's working here, but otherwise I only see the edit source option and I couldn't find the visual edit toggle in my beta preferences Burnside Avenue (talk) 03:24, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Some articles you can't use the visual editor on. Specifically, "Not available in talk or discussion namespaces", from WP:VISUALEDITOR#Limitations WhoAteMyButter (📨│📝) 05:06, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

No that can't be it cause I've gone back to regular articles I've edited with the visual editor before and the option is no longer there. Also I just realized that the visual editor isn't working here, I just thought it was cause the ui looks like it, with the blue publish changes button in the upper right. Burnside Avenue (talk) 05:45, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

@Burnside Avenue: Please follow the following steps to ensure you cna edit with the visual editor

1. in [[2]], you'll find a checkbox "Temporarely disable the Visual Editor while it is in beta". If this box is checked, uncheck it and save your prefs.
2. Directly below, a box labeled "Editing mode" should appear. The best selection is imo "show me both tabs", becuase it lets you select between Visual Editor and Source editor when both are available.

If your source editor looks like the visual editor, this could be if you have enabled "New wikitext mode" in your beta prefs. Victor Schmidt (talk) 06:10, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, turns out my editing mode was set to remember my last editor, so I must have edited an article using source and it then only showed me that. I now set it to show me both, think you're right about that being the best option. Burnside Avenue (talk) 08:12, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

In a whole Table - How to Justify all Numbers by the Decimal Point?

Most tables are left-justified by default because it's less typing. How to right justify a complete table? How to justify a complete table by the decimal point? Just like a spreadsheet. I read the "Help:Table" and saw a workaround. Also I read "Template:Decimal-align".

Can I create a "Decimal-align" table without editing every cell with complex instructions? Sorry if the question has been asked a million times before.

Are there pages of asked&answered questions? So we don't keep repeatedly asking the same questions? Kartane (talk) 05:41, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

@Kartane: To align the text to the right, specify that in the first line of the table syntax. I've done so below:

A long string	A longer string	An even longer string
A	B	C
Potato	Banana	12345

As for decimals, Template:Decimal cell is probably the simplest way to do it; there's not a better workaround for this. However, why do you need to align this way? It's not very accessible, and I suggest using it as sparingly as possible

There is a searchbar at the top of this page, but I've found that it's not great at finding past conversations. Besides, us Teahouse hosts have seen similar questions many, many times, but we realize that beginners often have similar questions anyways and we're happy to answer them. In fact, asking a new question helps us tailor our response to each new editor. Be assured that you're the first one during my time here that's asked about decimal alignment. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 07:03, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

No editor is responding on articles talk pages

Why no one is responding on queries on talk pages? Lots of folks suggest here to discuss about article on their respective talk page. Research Voltas (talk) 06:37, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

@Research Voltas: The sad reality is that many smaller articles don't have a lot of page watchers, so if you post onto a smaller talk page, it's pretty common to not get a response. Talk pages are useful when you actually have someone to talk to and you use notifications to let each other know when you've responded. Depending on what you want to ask, you may want to approach individual editors on their user talk pages instead, or go to a WikiProject talk page (though inactive WikiProjects can often be as empty). ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 06:52, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi Research Voltas. A lot of it depends upon the specific article. Articles that are highly monitored by lots of editors tend to have active talk pages, and those that may get very little traffic for various reasons tend to have little or no activity. For example, you've posted something at Talk:Dhadakebaaz, but that is an article you created yourself that nobody but you probably knew existed until you posted here at the Teahouse. The article wasn't created via WP:AFC so an AFC reviewer did make sure everything was formatted correctly or that relevant WikiProject banners were added to the article's talk page; so, basically nobody would know about the article unless you asked them to look at it or they happened to stumble across it by chance. A new page patroller might eventually find it, but the article is only a day old and there are probably lots of new articles created around the same time still waiting to be reviewed. You also posted something on the talk page about an hour ago; even on really active talk pages, you might not get an immediate response and have to wait a while. Anyway, I've answered you question there. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:01, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Ironically that includes yourself. You asked for assistance on my User talk page, and I replied, but you haven’t responded (yet), which is of course absolutely okay! But you’ve answered your own question, people don’t always respond. See WP:VOLUNTEER Shushugah (talk) 08:55, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

talk at Dhadakebaaz article you just tagged it for CE but WP says WP:BOLD.You can't just tag and walkover.You have to fix problems if you saw them. Why your waiting for other person to fix a problem. If you saw grammar mistakes , go ahead and fix them. Research Voltas (talk) 13:17, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Correcting some biographical details on the article about Peter Singer

A few days ago I corrected this article eg I deleted the statement " and a Laureate Professor at the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics at the University of Melbourne" as Peter Singer has not held that position since the end of 2019. After I did this, I checked the page again, and verified that the changes had been made. Now I go back to the article, and that change has been reversed, and it seems, others as well. Why is that? Is there anything else I should be doing to to get the article corrected? Utilphil (talk) 06:55, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

@Utilphil: The edit was reverted by WeyerStudentOfAgrippa, who raised concerns about sorucing in the edit summary. You may discuss changes with them on the article talk page at Talk:Peter Singer, but be prepared to bring reliable sources to back up your claims. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 07:09, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi Utilphil. You might want to look at Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth, Wikipedia:Editing policy#Talking and editing and also Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Reliable sources for some further ideas as to why your edit was reverted , but basically you made lots of changes to the article without citing any sources in support and with only an very cursory edit summary explaining why. It was also the first edit you made on Wikipedia; so, you've don't really have a track record established as of yet of making acceptable edits. All of these things combined together created a perfect storm type of situation that almost certainly (even if it seems a bit unfair) led to reverting your edit. However, don't be discouraged since it's something that often happens in such a situation. Just follow Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle and try to establish a WP:CONSENSUS in favor of the changes through article talk page discussion. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:29, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

I have been trying to correct the above article. I'm new to editing Wikipedia pages, and the first time I was told that the summary was cursory and didn't cite sources, so today I have made several changes and each time have put the source in the summary -- either to Singer's CV, on his website,or to his book Pushing Time Away, or to an obituary of his sister. But most the changes have again been reverted, this time by InterestGatherer. I can't work out how to communicate directly with InterestGatherer, so I'm posting this here. × Utilphil (talk) 11:26, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

You can communicate with any other editor on their Talk Page. That link is in their signature or, if you are looking at the edit history (the "view history" tab) of an article, which is what you'll be doing in this case, then next to each contributor's name there is a direct link for you to click. Once on the Talk Page, create a New Section using the relevant tab at the top. For the editor you mentioned, the page is User talk:InterestGather, Utilphil. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:48, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi again Utilphil. First off, I've moved the other Teahouse discussion you started here since it's also related to roadblock you've hit at the Peter Singer article and it's better to try and keep everything in one place. It might be a good idea for you to take a look at Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Help:Referencing for beginners before trying to make any more changes to the article. The sources you citing in support of the changes you're making are likely going to be considered to be primary sources which means they have limited use; this particularly true when it comes to articles about living persons when you try to cite the subject of the article as a source as explained here and in the banner above the editing window that's opened when you click on the "Edit" tab. Moreover, the content you're trying to add needs to actually be supported by citations added directly to the article itself as inline citations, not simply added to the edit summaries you're leaving for your edits. Simply adding the content without adding the supporting citations as well makes it seem as if the changes are unsourced and not in accordance with WP:INTEGRITY. At this point, you've already been reverted a couple of times by different editors which means any more reverts might be mistaken for edit warring. Perhaps the best thing for you to do at this point would be for you to start a new discussion at Talk:Peter Singer and explain the changes you feel need to be made and provide links to the sources you want to cite in support. There seem to be a number of editors watching that particular article; so, you're likely to receive a response from one of them relatively soon. Trying to discuss the changes you want to make first will give others a chance to assess them and perhaps through such discussion a good way to incorporate them into the existing article will be found. Just for reference, one of the reason you might have difficulty editing the article is that Singer appears to be somewhat of a controversial figure in some ways and the article content might be contentious to some. If you look at the article's talk page, you'll see a banner that states something to this effect. Sometimes articles like this have had a history of problems with editors trying to make inappropriate changes; after doing a bit of digging, it appears that this has been the case for this article and some edits made in the past actually needed to be revision deleted because they were serious violations of relevant Wikipedia policies. With articles like this, edits made by new editors often end up highly scrutinized as a precaution against disruption or vandalism, even when they have only the best of intentions. One way to try and work through something like this is to engage in article talk page discussion to make it clear that you're to do things in accordance with relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:25, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Can someone please help create a copyright violation report at WP:CP?

For context, please see

• The 20th section of WP:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1098
• The 11th section of WP:Help desk/Archives/2021 March 4
• The 125th section of WP:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1098
• The 23rd section of WP:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1099

A large amount of text in the plot summaries at List of Talking Tom and Friends (TV series) episodes (especially newer episodes in Season 5, though earlier episodes may have to be checked) has been copied verbatim from various URLs at a fandom sans attribution. While Fandoms do allow copying of text, they require it to be attributed to them.

Since I am not in a position to fix the attribution issues (lack of time and technical know-how) and WP:CP is semi-protected, I am not able to do anything to proceed with fixing this. Can someone file the report for me?

By the way, the aforementioned list article was actually split from Talking Tom and Friends (TV series) and so, TTaF (TV series) may have had the copied text in some past revisions, though current revisions are free from copied text. Will it be necessary to note that past revisions had copied text or can that be ignored?
45.251.33.251 (talk) 07:20, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

@45.251.33.251: Hi, anonymous editor, and welcome to the Teahouse. This may have to be resolved on a case-by-case basis just to be sure. I went ahead and looked into it, and yes, it is the case that Fandom's version was published on October 30 while ours was published on December 4 by an anonymous editor. This Fandom page is licensed through Creative Commons, so it may still be possible to keep these so long as proper attribution is provided, but I'll leave that to someone who's more familiar with CC attribution than I am. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 13:45, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, TheTechnician27. I also agree that properly attributing the information should be enough, but as I have said before, I myself am not in a position to do it. Do you (or anyone else for that matter) know of an alternate venue that can be used by IP editors (besides WP:CP) to get this issue raised, or of a user who regularly cleans up CC-BY-SA unattributed information and can be reached? 45.251.33.59 (talk) 08:26, 16 March 2021 (UTC) (I'm on a dynamic IP range so don't ping me as it may be useless and can confuse others on my range)

Why can't I find the TW tool?

Hello everyone, why can't I find the TW tool in the user preferences? I have autoconfirmed users. BureibuNeko (talk) 12:40, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Is it not in the Browsing sub-section of Gadgets? - X201 (talk) 12:46, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

With full instructions at WP:Twinkle, BureibuNeko. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:52, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes! Thank you both (I'm sorry I didn't go there habitually), and I'm very sorry for the trouble for you all. X201 and User:Michael D. Turnbull!--BureibuNeko (talk) 12:56, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Need hand for copy-editing

Assistant me to improve grammar and sentence structure for Dhadakebaaz , It's a article about a Marathi movie.The Film is cult classic in Maharashtra Research Voltas (talk) 13:24, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

I've done one part, by fixing all the instances of citations to a single reference having multiple separate entries by naming the references. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:53, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

@Research Voltas: I've done a little more, including fixing the categories. Please convert the bare URLs to full citations. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 22:11, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

@Research Voltas: An very experienced editor and Wikipedia administrator named PrimeHunter did some extensive copy-editing of the article and cleaned up a lot of formatting/syntax errors with this edit that greatly improved the article, yet you reverted all of the changes with a very next edit without explaining why. If some makes an edit that you don’t understand, it’s OK to ask for clarification. If you’re going ask for help and then undo improvements they make and re-create the problems they’ve fixed without at least explaining why, it’s going to not only make others less willing to help improve the article but will also eventually be seen as disruptive. Finally, please stop adding icons to the section headings of new threads you start at the Teahouse. — Marchjuly (talk) 23:11, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Marchjuly Hello , If your mentioning about me , then I didn't reverted any changes. And if I did then possibly I clicked wrong button of undo while reading changes. Research Voltas (talk) 04:18, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

You reverted the changes here which was the very next edit made to the article after the one made by PrimeHunter. Anyway, PrimeHunter has left a message for you about this and some of your other questions at Talk:Dhadakebaaz#Why this article in in irrelevant category ? and you ask him about the changes he made there if you want further clarification. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:09, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Need a help

Hi Sir/mam, I'm writing on an article about an Indian Administrative Service officer. Draft:Divya S. Iyer, this is the draft. Can you please have a look at this? And let me, how about the sources ? Are they reliable or not? ProudMallu (talk) 14:21, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi, ProudMallu, and welcome to the Teahouse. As your name suggests, you should be proud, as I think this draft is coming along quite nicely! The sourcing seems reliable, and the article's structure is quite readable. Outside of copy-editing for some small grammar mistakes, there are a few things I would do here. You don't have to do these, but they're just suggestions:

• I would move more material into the 'Career' section. For example, her taking the UPSC seems more relevant to her career as a civil servant than to her personal life, as does being sub-collector of Trivandrum and serving as mission director of NREGA.

• I would move the 'Personal life' section below 'Career'. In the case of most biographies on Wikipedia, 'Personal life' is typically at the bottom of the article above the 'See also' and 'References' sections, as these subjects' main appeal to most readers and their most notable works – much like Iyer's – are what they did in their careers.

• However, I would keep some of the material from 'Personal life' and create a section called 'Early life' where information like where she was born, who her parents are, and where she received her education can be placed.

• If you do use an article in Malayalam, I would use the 'trans-title' parameter in the citation template, which allows you to add an English translation of the article's title. This helps English-speaking readers who aren't literate in Malayalam understand the context of the article.

Like I said, I think your draft is coming along really nicely. Keep up the good work! TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 14:46, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Technician27 Thank you so much for the valuable comment.. Can you please review the article? Draft:Divya S. Iyer ProudMallu (talk) 15:06, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

TheTechnician27, can you check for sigcov from that sources. I have no objection regarding the reliability of sources. But Im still concerned regarding sigcov. Kichu🐘 ^Discuss 15:08, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

@Kashmorwiki: I don't really see the subject falling short of WP:SIGCOV – in wording or in spirit. I believe the sources cited in the article already push her above the notability threshold, and as icing on the cake, I don't doubt whatsoever that there are more Malayalam sources covering her in significant detail, as that's one of the two official languages of Kerala. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 17:42, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

TheTechnician27, Another reviewer has already declined the draft due to notability issues.[3]. Regards.Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 17:56, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

@Kashmorwiki: In that case, I disagree with the article being declined. There's a very clear spirit to the WP:GNG which I think can be broken down into five goals, namely to ensure that: 1) all of the information in our article can be reliably sourced (verifiability), 2) our article isn't just a bare minimum definition of a subject, 3) our article isn't just a rephrased/inferior copy of one or two sources, 4) our article isn't just clear self-promotion, and 5) Wikipedia doesn't become an indiscriminate collection of information. With that said, Novem Linguae seems to have made their decision contingent on what Onel5969 stated about the three sources Novem provided at User_talk:Onel5969/NPPSchool/Novem_Linguae#Draft:Divya_S._Iyer.

As an example, however, one of the sources from our article not provided was this article from the Deccan Chronicle. Likewise, there are still sources not included in the article like this one and this one from The Hindu – one of the highest-circulation newspapers in India and a known reliable source – discussing her involvement with a scandal as Subcollector that garnered sustained coverage from state-wide and even national media; this one, this one, and this one from a large, Malayalam-language news channel owned by Mathrubhumi, the second most widely read newspaper in the subject's state of Kerala; this one and this one from Asianet News – the market leader in Malayalam-language TV news; this one and this one from Manorama News – a large news channel in Kerala; this one from News18 Kerala; this one from the Business Standard; this one by the Deccan Chronicle; this one, this one, and this one from The News Minute, etc. I'm not trying to WP:REFBOMB this, but I really feel that, holistically, this paints a picture of a notable subject worthy of inclusion. One could bring up WP:BLP1E regarding the land transfer scandal, but at least 2 of the 3 criteria that all have to be met to invoke BLP1E are definitely not met (not low-profile; substantial, well-documented role in a significant event), and I would argue even the first one isn't met either, because Iyer has been covered be reliable sources in the context of multiple other events, including but not limited to her wedding, her gender equality activism, her voting rights awareness activism, and her role in the film Eliyammachiyude Aadyathe Christmas.

The prose itself still needs copy-editing, but – while I'm a NPP, not an AfC reviewer, and while Novem and Onel – Onel especially – both have more experience editing and reviewing than I do – I think this article should be approved and, should Novem object to its inclusion on grounds of subject notability, be brought to AfD. I had no deep involvement in creating this draft, I'm not from India, and I literally heard about this subject for the first time yesterday, but I really just see this as well-intentioned gatekeeping of an Indian subject whose level of coverage would basically be a shoe-in for an article on an American politician, and I genuinely think this subject's inclusion would be beneficial to the project. Which yes, I know, WP:OTHERSTUFF, but I'd be hard-pressed to believe that were this a hypothetical American politician receiving substantial, sustained coverage from reliable national and state-wide news sources that this draft (provided copy-editing) would receive this level of scrutiny, wouldn't be approved without such thorough consideration, and wouldn't handily survive a potential AfD discussion. I think ProudMallu picked a fine subject here for a first article and should – at the least, should their article's inclusion still be controversial – be given a chance to make a case at AfD. Ideally, however, I think this article should be copy-edited, have its 'Career' section expanded with Malayalam-language sources, and be given a fair shake to just exist in the mainspace. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 20:32, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

TheTechnician27. Hello friend. If you feel strongly about it, I'd be fine with you moving the article to mainspace yourself. Don't forget, moving a draft to mainspace is usually allowed. At the time I reviewed the article, it had 14 sources. I was confident that 11 did not pass GNG. I evaluated this source you mentioned as not passing GNG because there is only about a paragraph of information on her specifically, which is less than the standard I was taught of at least two paragraphs. After consulting with Onel, who is very experienced at new page patrol and AFD, he assessed the 3 sources I was unsure about as also not passing GNG. Of course, other sources may exist, but at AFC specifically, the onus is on the article submitter to provide those sources. The AFC reviewer doesn't do WP:BEFORE searches at AFC. In conclusion, feel free to move the article to mainspace, and maybe also add the sources you mentioned here. Happy editing. –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:35, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

TheTechnician27, I really appreciate the effort and time you spent for analysing the sources in this article. As you know I'm a native speaker of Malayalam, I always tries to review the Kerala related articles because of the presence of large number of Malayalam sources in it. I have already moved two of the ProudMallu's articles into mainspace and I am happy that, he is giving some valuable contribution to this enyclopedia. In in this case, reliable sources exist and I agree with that. But I'm afraid that none of them are giving the enough sigcov to the subject. Even though, a search for the sources is not required in AFC review, I indeed did a WP:Before for both English and Malayalam sources, because I know the subject very well and has even met her once. But we need relible sources giving enogh sigcov to any topic to make it notable. In this case, I was not able to find any sources that gives her sigcov, even though most of them are reliable ones. Most of them are some trivial and incidential coverage rather than sigcoc. I hope you know that the AFC reviewing and New page reviewing are slightly different. In the case of AFC, the reviewer can decline the article if he/she feels the article has not enough sigcov. But in the case of NPP, you may tag it with required template or take it to AFD. Let me tell you a thing. If this article was directly created in mainspace, I would have only tagged it proper template (may not be notable) rather than going for AFD. I am not a very experienced reviewer. But I'm saying this based on my plenty of experience in AFD discussions. I hope you are clear. Please let me know in my talk page if you have any concern regarding this. Regards. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 03:36, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

article needs editing

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

first line of the article is someone using obscene language. i can't edit it, i can only edit sources (i'm new here.) so can someone else do it? Geek100 (talk) 14:33, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

 Done by Fuhghettaboutit PrincessPersnickety (talk) 14:48, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi Geek100. The article is not protected at all, so I'm not sure why you would have only been shown view sources in the editing interface, and would not have been able to revert the edits. (I just logged out and was able to click edit at the top of the article by my IP address.) Anyway, thanks for finding this and advising the problem!--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:19, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

External links

I was wondering what the standard conventions for external links are and which templates should be used. If I am trying to include an official website for something like a podcast that is part of a network should I still use {{Official website}} and use the direct link to their page on the network's website? Or should I do something different? TipsyElephant (talk) 15:57, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

TipsyElephant, please have a look at Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Linking#External_links_section, I hope that might be helpful. CommanderWaterford (talk) 18:14, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

A article with no refrences

Today I came across a article Ghodasgaon with zero citation.I suggest to take some action on it. Research Voltas (talk) 16:40, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi Research Voltas. You've already appropriately added templates to flag the issues you found. Aspirationally, of course, sourcing the article yourself would be better than adding templates, but we can only do what our time and motivation allows (sometimes an article with zero reference should be nominated for deletion by an appropriate process, if you check and the topic actually doesn't meet notability standards, but geographic locations like this are generally considered notable). All this is to say, there's nothing else to be done here that I can see. There are thousands and thousands of articles in the same situation, and no additional special action is implicated for this topic. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:56, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Soundtracks in articles of Movies

Many articles about Bollywood and Marathi cinema don't have subsections of soundtracks.Guide what's the correct format for adding a soundtrack section in movies articles. Research Voltas (talk) 16:46, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi, see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Film § Soundtrack. Kleinpecan (talk) 16:50, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Indian English and the article the

I've searched for the answer to this, but can not find it. I see many WP articles that are marked by a template to have Indian English used. Many of them do not use the articles the, a, or an when it would seem appropriate. I have encountered this so often that I'm wondering if it is considered normal in Indian English and should be left as is in a WP article. Can someone give me guidance on this? Thanks. LilHelpa (talk) 16:52, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Hey LilHelpa. It might be useful to tap into some of the expertise at WP:RD/L and maybe Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics. Looking at Indian English is a dead end. Mostly, I have only anecdote and negative evidence to rely on. Nevertheless, given that we get so many, many articles written in utterly broken English by editors from India (which preponderance is evidence, albeit weak, that this "the issue" is not merely a manifestation of "Indian English" sounding wrong to the uninitiated), I'm guessing that it's more likely a result of non-native English speakers (rather than fluent Indian English speakers) leaning on the grammatical forms (here, in the form of a lack of article use) that more naturally transpose from their native tongues. (Although I recognize a contradiction there, insofar as that very process often shapes the local "proper" use of a language.)

Anyway, unless and until we have affirmative evidence to the contrary, I just can't see leaving this alone if you are involved in copyediting an article in this state. That being said, I just found this Stackexchange article on Use of “the” in Indian English, which includes the comment: "Indians usually do not mind the omission or insertion of THE in a sentence." If that's truly the case, then I think it best to treat this grammatical issue similarly to the way we treat vocabulary choices at MOS:COMMONALITY (i.e., likewise, we should fix this, as doing so is not a problem from an Indian English perspective, and is a positive for other English speakers). Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:19, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Eshykid

What is a host Eshykid (talk) 17:09, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

A host is a person responsible for guests at an event or for providing hospitality during it. Kleinpecan (talk) 17:15, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

In the context of the Teahouse, Eshykid, a host is an experienced Wikipedia editor who has signed up to welcome and help people who ask questions at the Teahouse. Welcome to the Teahouse!--ColinFine (talk) 17:24, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

CHANGE TITLE PAGE

Goodmorning everyone, I would like to change the title of a page, what can I do?

The page is the following: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rivista_italiana_di_economia_demografia_e_statistica

The reason is that the page has the title in Italian, while we would like it to be in English. I am a member of the editorial board of the journal: check here http://www.sieds.it/index.php/page-rieds-board/

Thanks Daniele G. Grechi.daniele (talk) 17:13, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi Grechi.daniele, I have started a discussion to move the article to the English name. Note that as an employee, you will need to make a paid-editing dissclosure, I have left details on your talkpage on how to do that. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:22, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Don't redirect to Wikipedia:New user landing page

Disregard

How do I stop Wikipedia from redirecting me to Wikipedia:New user landing page whenever I visit a nonexistent page? Kleinpecan (talk) 17:28, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

If you know that the page is nonexistent, maybe try helping Wikipedia by creating an article based on the page that was nonexistent. Or you should try sandbox, and when you are ready, you can turn it into a draft and click: submit for review. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Burgundian Feudalism (talk • contribs) 18:00, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't think your answer is on target, Burgundian Feudalism: Kleinpecan isn't asking about creating a page, just what happens when they accidentally go to a non-existent one. Kleinpecan: I'm afraid I've no idea. It doesn't happen for me. --ColinFine (talk) 18:30, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Apparently it has something to do with the fact that I'm not autoconfirmed. Kleinpecan (talk) 19:00, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it happens if you are logged in but not autoconfirmed. You can log out or wait two more days to become autoconfirmed. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:21, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

@Kleinpecan: I don't know why you want to stop the redirecting but the main things you could do if you were not redirected is look for a deletion log which is also possible at Special:Log/delete, or look for incoming links which is also possible at Special:WhatLinksHere. You cannot create the page before you are autoconfirmed. That's why you are redirected. It's misleading that Wikipedia:New user landing page says "You can create it". You can only create a draft outside the actual encyclopedia. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:36, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

I have tweaked the landing page to avoid the problematic language issue flagged here. If I was a new user and learned that what was meant by "You can create it, but..." referred at best to some secondary process of creation, without being told I couldn't create it directly until I reached some future threshold, I would be annoyed.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 20:25, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

There's an entry in another language

I would like to write a bio on an individual in English, but there's another bio on the same person in another language. What should I do? Amazone55 (talk) 17:49, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

You shouldn’t worry about other articles in another Wikipedia. As long as the article isn’t in this Wikipedia, we would be grateful for your support. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Burgundian Feudalism (talk • contribs) 17:53, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

('e/c) Hi Amazone55. Each language Wikipedia is a separate (sister) project. If the foreign language Wikipedia article has useful content, you can translate it. Please see Help:Translation and please be sure to provide copyright attribution, as described at that help page. However, please be aware that the mere fact the article exists at another language Wikipedia does not necessarily mean, nor is it really any evidence at all, that the topic belongs here. Not only do different Wikipedias have different inclusion standards, but it's possible the foreign language article should be deleted but just hasn't been yet. You should first make an independent assessment of whether the topic is notable under our standards. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:03, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Need restructuring and clean up of a highly traffic article

Namaste De Dhakka (2008) is a popular Marathi film.its article looks not according to WP standards.It have grammar mistakes.A native English speaker editor have to clean it up and rewrite. Research Voltas (talk) 18:10, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Research Voltas, thanks for noticing - the article is already tagged for copyediting, some Editor will take care of the article in the future. CommanderWaterford (talk) 18:12, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

CommanderWaterford By just tagging a article will alart , Experienced WP editors? Research Voltas (talk) 18:20, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Research Voltas, no the tag will not alert anyone ins pecial but there are several editors who regularly are looking for this tag in order to correct those articles. You could also ask for a CopyEdit Request at WP:GOCER, this is a project full of experienced "Copyeditors". CommanderWaterford (talk) 18:23, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

CommanderWaterfordHow they look clean up and copyediting required tags? Research Voltas (talk) 19:58, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Research Voltas, yes, they do. CommanderWaterford (talk) 19:59, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

User:Research Voltas - Applying the tag populates a category, and this causes the article to be listed in a list of articles in the category. Categories are an extremely useful feature for purposes such as this. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:32, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Plainrock124 notable?

Hello Teahouse, so there is a channel on Youtube named Plainrock124. Some know him because of his destruction videos, like when he destroyed the PS5 a while ago. He also has over 1 million subscribers. I have read WP:GNG and WP:ENT and I'm pretty sure he is notable enough to make an article about. There are also some news articles about him destroying these items, he shows this in a recent made video. Again, I'm pretty sure he is notable enough, but I would like to know for sure. Any help would be great. Max20characters (talk) 19:42, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Max20characters Hello friend. Welcome to the Teahouse. WP:GNG is much stricter than it appears at first glance. You need around 3 high quality sources such as newspaper articles or books, and they must have multiple paragraphs about the subject. I did a quick Google News search, and I clicked on and evlauated a couple of promising articles, and they did not pass GNG. Therefore I do not think this person is notable enough to have a Wikipedia article. I also do not think he passes WP:ENTERTAINER #2, which basically allows folks who have a "large fan base or significant cult following", but the catch is that you need quality sources talking about that large fan base in order to prove it. Hope that helps. –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:38, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Max20characters, another good resource regarding the notability of YouTubers is Wikipedia:WikiProject YouTube/Notability. Please also keep in mind that, contrary to popular belief, a high subscriber count does not equal automatic notability. A classic example is SSSniperWolf, who has 26.2 million views and still has no article (despite multiple attempts) as she simply lacks notability outside of YouTube. Thanks, EDG 543 ^{(message me)} 20:46, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

(e/c) Hi Max20characters. The "problem" I see here is that there are topics that are obviously notable because a gazillion good sources exist in places that tend to concentrate reliable sources and there's not much else on the topic, and then there are topics that might be notable, but the only way to check is to do a lot of legwork to winnow out whether the right types and depths of treatment in reliable, secondary, independent sources Template:Z21 exist upon which a verifiable article could be based. This is often made much more difficult for web-specific topics, such as a YouTube channel, by the fact that so many sources are typically going to be found online for such a subject that are not useful for demonstrating notability, e.g., fan mentions, blog hits, social media stuff, mere mentions, etc., that finding the wheat, among the chaff, becomes all the more difficult.

I can't just pop the name into Google Books and immediately say: "obviously notable" (nor find nothing online and tell you probably non-notable...) Instead, in order to answer your question, I would need to do what I would recommend as the first step to any person aspiring to write an article, which is: do nothing else first but look for and gather the sources that the article will be built upon (if they exist, start writing citing them as you go as the source of the information [without copying the words use]; if they don't exist, write nothing).

I can't tell you for certain that no one else is going to be willing to do that legwork for you, but I have my doubts. So, what I recommend is that if you really want this answered, go look for the existence of the rights types of sources. In order to know what I mean by that, read Wikipedia:Common sourcing mistakes (notability), report back with the list of sources you found if you still want a second opinion (since the process of doing what I recommended will probably allow you to at least somewhat answer the question yourself). Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 20:55, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Luke Away

Look Away, Look Away. Look Episode Horrow 2603:7080:7403:18F0:FD20:C9BF:9AD:1D4E (talk) 19:50, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

I will, I promise but...do you have any question?! CommanderWaterford (talk) 20:00, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

how do you make userboxes

userbox I really want to make a userbox but how do you make one? JaduaGreatest12 (talk) 19:58, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

JaduaGreatest12, hello, friend! Before creating your own userbox, take a look here to see if it has already been created. There are hundreds for you to choose from, so you'll probably find plenty to meet your needs. However, if you wish to create your own, I would recommend first taking a look here to learn about what is acceptable for a userbox. When you feel ready, you can just head on over to the Userbox Maker to get started. Hope that helps! Thanks, EDG 543 ^{(message me)} 20:40, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

How to link two articles ?

CommanderWaterford How to link two articles from different WP about same topic ? Right now I want to link Ghodasgaon, Jalgaon District article to घोडसगाव article of Marathi WP.Both articles are about same village.It will be nice of you do that for Research Voltas (talk) 20:19, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

As long as Ghodasgaon District Jalgaon doesn't exist, that is not possible. Once the english counterpart exists, one can link the two through Wikidata. Victor Schmidt (talk) 20:24, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Victor Schmidt Take a lookResearch Voltas (talk) 20:27, 15 March 2021 (UTC) The link of Marathi article is https://mr.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E0%A4%98%E0%A5%8B%E0%A4%A1%E0%A4%B8%E0%A4%97%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%B5Research Voltas (talk) 20:43, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

The Wikidata entry d:Q24930797 says in its English description that it refers to Ghodasgaon, in Dhule District, and is linked to the English article Ghodasgaon and to the Marathi article mr:घोडसगाव. Are you saying that there are two different villages called Ghodasgaon? Is the Marathi article linked to the wrong English article? If so, that link needs to be broken in Wikidata. (I note that there does not seem to be another entry for घोडसगाव in the Marathi Wikipedia). Please clarify the problem Research Voltas. --ColinFine (talk) 21:05, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

ColinFine Yeah, your absolutely right sir , The article is linked to wrong Eng WP article. In North Maharashtra there are two villages have name Ghodasgaon. One Ghodasgaon is in Dhule district and another one is in Jalgaon district. the article is have to link Ghodasgaon, Jalgaon District article. Research Voltas (talk) 04:14, 16 March 2021 (UTC) talk You can solve this problem. A admin , mistakingly connected Ghodasgaon article to article. article have to connect to Ghodasgaon, Jalgaon District article.Research Voltas (talk) 06:02, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

OK, Research Voltas, I see somebody (you?) has created a Wikidata item (d:Q105970888) for the Jalgaon one. I have moved the existing article to Ghodasgaon, Dhule District, and turned Ghodasgaon into a disambiguation page. I have also added some properties to the new Wikidata item. --ColinFine (talk) 14:18, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Who runs the gender pages?

Who runs them? Gender Roamer (talk) 21:01, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Gender Roamer. Nobody "runs" any articles technically. Members of Wikiproject Gender studies do focus on them. Did you have a question about gender articles? I or another helper may be able to answer it for you, or you can ask the people at said WikiProject. Thanks, EDG 543 ^{(message me)} 21:04, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

How did I get that alert? I wanted to talk to the person who runs the gender pages about improving them. Many pages are poor. I read different pages for a few months and decided to register today. I look in the edit documentations and see people changing and removing things. At the gender dysphoria page, someone had removed important information about objections to the GD diagnosis. I reached into the edit documentations and restored it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gender Roamer (talk • contribs) 21:10, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

@Gender Roamer: Wikipedia is not monolithic. There is no one group or editor that is responsible for a given topic area (and given the sanctions in this specific area...). If you have issues with how specific articles are written, take it up on the relevant articles' talk pages, but I would strongly urge you to conduct yourself respectfully. Admins are not interested in "my-way-or-the-highway" behaviour here. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Takes a strong man to deny...} 21:19, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) :Gender Roamer, you received a notification because I mentioned you so that you would know that I responded. I did so simply by typing {{u|Gender Roamer}}. You can mention users yourself by typing the same thing, substituting in the username of the user you wish to mention. Make sure to sign your post by typing ~~~~ after your message or else it won't work!

If you have issues with particular articles regarding genders, feel free to make the fix yourself, being careful to include reliable sources. You can also raise the concern on the specific article's corresponding talk page. Since this seems to be about gender related articles in general, consider leaving a note on Wikiproject Gender studies' talk page. Thanks, EDG 543 ^{(message me)} 21:21, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

OK. Thanks for your help. I'm taking the Wikipedia Adventure. I'll read the protocols for Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gender Roamer (talk • contribs) 21:36, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Test: @EDG 543:. Gender Roamer (talk) 21:41, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Gender Roamer, your test was a success! Sorry I was slow to reply, I was a bit busy. Nice work, soldier. Thanks, EDG 543 ^{(message me)} 21:55, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Endeavor Business Media

Hi, this question is in reference to the page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Endeavor_Business_Media. I received feedback that the company page I am trying to start for my company, Endeavor Business Media, is not encyclopedic compared to other company pages. I would love to improve this entry but could use some help - this is my first attempt to create a Wikipedia page and I have disclosed the WP:COI so it is clear that I work for the company I am trying to create the entry for. Can someone please help me get this to the point where it may be published? Thank you! Abigail Christine (talk) 21:02, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Abigail Christine. Hey Abigail. Welcome to the Teahouse, and thanks for trying to learn about Wikipedia and our procedures. I visited your article just now and made some edits. The main issue with your article is going to be whether or not the company is notable enough to pass WP:GNG, which is our rule about what is allowed to have an article or not. Your article is in OK shape, so it probably won't get quick declined. It will probably sit in the queue for awhile until an experienced reviewer comes along, clicks all 14 of your references, and evaluates whether or not they pass GNG. This could take awhile, as the backlog for AFC is rather big. Hope that helps. Thank you. –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:18, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

IMO, this will not meet GNG, as all or almost all the refs document acquisitions, but none (?) are about what the company is or does. David notMD (talk) 21:43, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree that it is doubtful this will meet WP:GNG or WP:NCORP.--- Possibly (talk) 21:55, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

If you visit the editor's user page you will see that they a a paid editor, the company's the company's Director of Custom Content, with the huge luxury of a salary to create articles here. Generally I prefer paid editors to learn on their employer's shoaling, not on volunteer time. Fiddle Faddle 14:53, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

The New Republic

I'm a regular supporter and when I went to this page for information I was concerned to see the second sentance on this page was clearly an opinion and not a widely accepted fact. Maybe that sentence could go in another part of the page regarding different opinions about the magazine.

I've never edited a page so was hoping there was a way to "FLAG" this sentence for someone to look at moving it? 2600:1700:32F0:24A0:287A:AD4B:C60E:A900 (talk) 21:40, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello, friend. Would you be referring to The New Republic or another similarly named article? Thanks, EDG 543 ^{(message me)} 21:42, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello, IP editor. The second sentence of The New Republic is cited to an academic paper in a journal published by Cambridge University, so that seems solid. If you think the sentence is given too much prominence, please discuss your concerns at Talk:The New Republic. That's the proper place. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:47, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

How The Page Notice Is Made BroadcatsLimitedOne (talk) 21:51, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

BroadcatsLimitedOne, (assuming you and the IP are the same person...) you could try {{dubious|date=March 2021}} after the sentence to produce this. However, as Cullen pointed out, the statement is well sourced and your edit may be reverted. You may wish instead to address this concern on the corresponding talk page. Thanks, EDG 543 ^{(message me)} 22:05, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

@Cullen328 and EDG 543: success in navigating two abstract societal ideals is still clearly a statement of opinion and not fact. We should Avoid stating opinions as facts even when those opinions should be covered in the article. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:44, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Finnusertop, if the founders of the magazine explicitly stated that balancing those ideals was the purpose of the magazine, and later explicitly downplayed one of those ideals, then saying so is not an opinion but rather a fact. I have not read the source, and am not really interested in editing that particular article myself. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:54, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

ZombsRoyale Edit

I was wondering why my edits on the ZombsRoyale page were taken down because they were accurate and improved the page. MOISTE (talk) 21:53, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Likely for want of sources (online leaderboards are not sufficient) and for being tengential. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Takes a strong man to deny...} 21:56, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) MOISTE, you added information and linked to Gamepedia, which is by no means a reliable source, as anyone can change the information listed there. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources for more information on finding reliable sources. Please also see WP:REFB for a guide to citing sources, as you should include an inline citation instead of just a link. Hope that helps! Thanks, EDG 543 ^{(message me)} 21:59, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

How do I suggest a change to the Notability guideline?

I've got a very specific change I'd like to propose to the Notability guideline. What is the process for putting it up for discussion? A Request for Comment? Or is there some more magisterial WP process for proposing a change to such a core guideline? Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 22:59, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi Mr Serjeant Buzfuz. There are 13 notability guidelines in Category:Wikipedia notability guidelines and more in various WikiProjects. Many suggestions have already been discussed or are already somewhere. What is your proposal? We cannot give proper advice without knowing what you want. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:28, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

If it's "very specific" in that it's likely to be uncontroversial (e.g. rewording a sentence to be clearer without changing the meaning) then likely boldly fixing it yourself is right. If it's about changing a rule in a major way and the guideline is on a widely-watched page then discussion on the talk page is likely the first step, and a Request for Comment could be appropriate later down the discussion. If the change is on a low-watched page then you can solicit comments by using templates like {{Please see}} (substitute, not transclude) on more watched pages to draw attention, or by starting a Request for Comment. — Bilorv (talk) 23:33, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

If you want to propose a change to Wikipedia:Notability, then go ahead and make the proposal on Wikipedia talk:Notability. -- Hoary (talk) 23:40, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick replies. Of course, there's more than one Notability guideline. That's why I come to the Teahouse, for gentle reminders of points I have forgotten! It's the Notability (People) guideline, dealing with Politicians and Judges. It's not the "politicians" guideline that is the problem, but the "judges" guideline - it's cast too broadly and includes too many judges who are not notable (ie they likely would not meet the primary criterion in this guideline).

In Canada, for example, the current "Judges" guideline would probably include every federal and provincial trial judge. This issue came up a couple of years ago on the Canada Law Project page and there was a lengthy discussion about it. To the extent there was a consensus, it was that the Notability guideline itself is drawn too broadly, and couldn't be tweaked by a "made-in-Canada" guideline.

What I would like to propose is keeping the "politician" part exactly as it is, and narrow the "judges" part to judges of international courts, highest national courts, and highest state/provincial appellate courts. Maybe include the Chief Justices of trial courts. That would exclude all the trial judges from presumed notability, but of course individual judges could still meet the primary notability criterion. Whether that would be controversial or not, I don't know? Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 23:58, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

@Mr Serjeant Buzfuz: It'll take a little longer, but why not pick one that you think exemplifies this lack of notability, and nominate it for deletion. You'll get a good discussion, and if it's voted as a delete, then you can point to that outcome when you start a discussion about changing WP:NJUDGE for Canada on the talk page. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 00:05, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

The difficulty is that as the notability guideline stands, those judges would meet the notability standard, simply by virtue of being trial judges, so it's not clear that an AfD would pass - the reply would be that they meet the guideline. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 00:46, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Since state/provincial lawmakers are notable why not judges? But in any event, I agree with the advice here. 331dot (talk) 00:07, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

The catch is the term "state/province wide office" in the current guideline. As I understand, that automatically excludes most trial judges and appellate judges in the US, because federal and state judges sit in districts in their state. However, in Canada, trial judges have jurisdiction throughout their province, so they hold a "province-wide" office" and the Federal Court judges hold a nation-wide office. Should the notability guideline depend on the differences in jurisdictional provisions? A trial judge in Canada is always presumed notable, but a trial judge in the States, carrying out pretty much the same function, is not presumed notable? That seems an odd result, and the discussion on this issue in the Canada Law Project seemed to me to be that the notability criterion should be modified so that the Canadian trial judges have a similar notability assessment as a judge in the US - notability for a trial judge shouldn't depend on jurisdictional quirks. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 00:46, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

As to state/provincial legislators, the guideline works exactly the same in both countries. State representatives and provincial members both meet the "state/province-wide" category, but municipal politicians don't, so the results are the same. The oddity here is that trial judges have different results depending which country they are in. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 00:46, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

In many countries judges have almost no political role, are never elected by the public, and get very little media attention. Search "judges" in the archives at Wikipedia talk:Notability (people) before making a suggestion. The first result is Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)/Archive 2012#Proposed change: judges. Tweaking the judges rule doesn't sound RfC worthy but just something for a routine talk page discussion. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:24, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for that link, PrimeHunter. Interesting to see that the same discussion came up nine years ago. I think it supports the point I'm trying to make - that trial judges, even US federal District Court judges, shouldn't automatically be notable just by virtue of their job. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 01:00, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the comments, everyone. I'm thinking that the consensus here is that I should start with a discussion on the Talk page, not with a RfC, so I will post it on the Talk page for that Notability guideline, with specific proposed re-wording. I'll also post it on Canada Project page and let everyone there know about it. Is there any other project page that I should post a general notice (not canvassing - just a notice that there is a discussion on the Talk page)? Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 00:52, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

A slight tangent but all of the subject-specific notability guidelines should be deleted (including the one I wrote; my thoughts have evolved over the years). They are licenses for Wikipedia to have articles on topics for which suitable sourcing cannot be found; they present exceptions to the precepts that keep this place an encyclopedia and are terribly damaging for that reason (not to mention that they present an attractive nuisance for bickering over interpretation).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk)

I agree, Fuhgettaboutit. I think they take something that is clear and simple and turn it into something that is baroque and complicated. --ColinFine (talk) 13:10, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

@ColinFine: Yes, they do do that! (I have never actually considered opening that debate anywhere, though. About a snowball's chance in hell of succeeding.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:59, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

How to edit on wikipedia

How to edit on wikipedia ItsJustdancefan (talk) 01:25, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

@ItsJustdancefan: If you haven't already, I suggest you complete The Wikipedia Adventure, which is a short tutorial on how things work around here. Then, just be bold and start improving any article you feel like should be improved! Remember, if you disagree with someone else, strive to reach consensus on the talk page. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 01:33, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

And stop copying other editors' User pages and Talk pages to your User and Talk pages (even though you then deleted all the copied content). David notMD (talk) 03:08, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Inserting a picture as an edit

When one wants to add a picture to an edit, how do you proceed? Reason: There is a discrepancy with actor Ira Dean Jagger's name throughout his bio. I figured adding a picture of his tombstone would help others verify what his entire REAL name is. Nvymom20 Nvymom20 (talk) 02:05, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi Nvymom20. Actually, even though your intentions seem good, what you're suggesting is probably not a very good idea from a Wikipedia perspective for a variety of reasons. i'm not sure who the "Ira Dean Jagger" you're referring to is, but perhaps it's Dean Jagger. If you feel there's a name discrepency, it would be much better for you to look for reliable sources that possibly discuss such a discrepancy or perhaps refer to him by the other name, and then raise your concerns about the matter at Talk:Dean Jagger. You can start a discussion about this now on the article's talk page, but you're almost certainly going to be asked to provide information about sources that support such a claim; so, it's probably better to find the sources first. For reference, when determining what to use as the name of article, Wikipedia generally follows WP:COMMONNAME and use the name most commonly used by the reliable sources which have discussed the article. Actors, etc. often are know prefessionally under a name that is different from their birth name (see John Wayne, Kirk Douglas and Tom Cruise for some examples), but if properly sourced their birth name can usually be added somewhere to the article. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:55, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Nvymom20. Tombstones are not a reliable source for what a person's real name is. The company that sells the tombstone will carve exactly what the person who pays for the tombstone tells them to carve. They don't do independent fact checking. The same is true of paid obituaries written by family members. Some people change their birthdates for various reasons, and other people change their names due to adoption, marriage, divorce or personal preference. Consider Gerald Ford, whose birth name was Leslie Lynch King Jr. What name do you think is on his tombstone? While we are discussing it, how can you possibly define "real name"? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:14, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

To complicate matters further, Variety and the Associated Press obituaries say his birth name is Dean Jeffries Jagger. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:29, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

The 2nd reference which supposedly supports Dean Ira Jagger actually says his birth name is Dean Jeffries. And the 1st source is a book which is apparently the only publication of author Joseph F. Clarke. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:40, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

I will remove the 2nd "reference" and add the disagreement in the article. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:14, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Notability

I'd like to find out if my topic has 'notability'. I'm planning on writing an article of a prominent digital marketing figure - Nicholas Kusmich.

I have sources from Forbes, CNBC, everipedia, lifestyle business but that's about it. He's also an author of an Amazon best-seller (does this count as a secondary source?).

Please let me know if the above links would make my article notable for Wikipedia. Suphotk (talk) 02:43, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

CNBC and Forbes will work, Everipedia is unreliable. Don't know about lifestyle magazine. @Suphotk: versacespacetalk to me 02:50, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

@VersaceSpace: When you say that Forbes will work, I have to mention that there's a massive divide between the reliability of Forbes and of Forbes.com contributors. See: WP:FORBES and WP:FORBESCON. The two articles I can find about Kusmich from Forbes – here and here – are from contributors, and should therefore be treated as self-published works. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 03:02, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

@TheTechnician27: I would normally agree but this is an interview, so I don't think that counts here. versacespacetalk to me 03:04, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

@VersaceSpace: They are interviews, which means that they can be used for attribution for things Kusmich has said. However, Suphotk was asking about the sources within the context of "if the above links would make my article notable", and the answer to the Forbes articles is "no", because: "Editors show consensus for treating Forbes.com contributor articles as self-published sources, unless the article was written by a subject-matter expert." For all intents and purposes, because of the minimal editorial oversight given to Forbes.com contributors, these interviews may as well be in a Medium.com article or a YouTube video. This interview from CNBC is a start, but the Forbes interviews – by community consensus – don't carry with them the same reliability. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 03:19, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

But don't interviews not count towards notability as they are not secondary and independent sources? JavaHurricane 03:31, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

@JavaHurricane: I could've sworn too that this was in WP:INDY at one point (can't find it anymore), but I would personally view the interview as a mixture of primary and secondary source. The direct quotes from Kusmich are unambiguously primary, but because CNBC has an editorial board with a reputation for fact-checking, I would personally treat the prose outside of quotations as a secondary source. In this case, I would also refer to WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD. However, when it comes to notability, how much this CNBC article confers is ultimately subjective as is how much notability is needed to warrant a BLP, especially one of a current businessperson. As outlined by the WP:GNG: "There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected." Moreover, secondary and independent are not necessarily always the same. In this case, I would call it independent because CNBC has no conflict-of-interest in publishing this interview. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 03:44, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

I would define interviews as primary sources, solely because of the subject's direct input. I consider any article where the subject had a direct hand in its content - whether by answering questions, writing/filming it, or commissioning it - as useless for notability on those grounds. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Takes a strong man to deny...} 05:32, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

See WP:INTERVIEW, WP:BLPSELFPUB and WP:ABOUTSELF for more information on citing interviews as a source and whether they are considered to contribute to Wikipedia notability, but alot depends upon who the interviewer was and how much editorial control they exerted over the interview. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:39, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Listing my contributions in a category.

Can I get a list of the articles I have edited in a particular category? I know how to list my total contributions, and I know how to list the articles in a category. But can I get a list of the articles I have edited in the category "Women astronomers" for example? Gronk Oz (talk) 04:45, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

XTools allows you to do that. Kleinpecan (talk) 05:43, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Good grief, @Kleinpecan: that's amazing! Thank you. --Gronk Oz (talk) 12:58, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Oh, dear, @Kleinpecan: now I realize I should have been more specific with my question. That Xtools list is amazing, but it omits articles that are in sub-categories. So in this example, it omits American women astronomers. Is there something that combines this with something like deepcat, to search in a category and its subcategories? --Gronk Oz (talk) 13:07, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Probably not. Kleinpecan (talk) 13:30, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Meghna Patel

i have changed issue in meghna patel wikipedia so please check . Hardyisback11188 (talk) 06:03, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi Hardyisback11188. What you did with this edit is remove some citations from the article without leaving any explanation as to why; so, I've re-added the content again. If the citations aren't to reliable sources then they have little value to Wikipedia and should be removed. If you remove only the citations, however, the remaining article content will be WP:UNSOURCED, which means that it also can be removed at any time. So, what you're going to need to do if you want that content to remain in the article is to find better citations that support it. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:13, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

About a user

A user by the name of Edaedes (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alexandru_Agache&oldid=1011536606) Vandalized a small article with "Wikipedia is lies". Should we be concerned? If so, can we ban him? Blue Jay (talk) 06:17, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

The great Jay, if you want to, you can report the vandal to WP:AIV. JavaHurricane 06:37, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

I've issued a final warning for now. If the vandalism recurs, please report to AIV. JavaHurricane 06:39, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Alright. Blue Jay (talk) 06:59, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

You were smart to check the offending editor's other edits, and revert those as also vandalism. David notMD (talk) 11:46, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

draft and duplication

I have a draft article (PEN America v. Trump) waiting for evaluation. I noticed that the topic (PEN America v. Trump) is a red link at the page about lawsuits involving Donald Trump. Clicking on it and simply entering the title did not give any indication that there is a draft pending. It seems that that means that someone else might write a new draft or a new article without knowing that work has already been done on the subject. I think there should be some way of actively telling potential editors that a competing draft already exists, saving unnecessary duplicative effort. Kdammers (talk) 06:39, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Kdammers, in fact, if an article doesn't exist, but an eponymous draft exists, the "does not exist" message also includes a link to the draft. I'm not sure why it doesn't appear: perhaps the names might be slightly different. PEN America v. Trump shows the link to the draft, at least for me. JavaHurricane 07:16, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

At List of lawsuits involving Donald Trump I changed the entry to Draft:PEN America v. Trump so that it now links to your draft. David notMD (talk) 11:53, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Shows directly for me as well. Perhaps it's a browser/caching issue? Definitely a useful/welcome feature! Shushugah (talk) 11:53, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

I did a no-no (listing a draft in a list), so reverted. David notMD (talk) 14:05, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Why don't you make it simple?

I am not so good at computer-related work as I am very old. I have enough thoughts to share with others may more than young ones. I don't understand why you have made this Wikipedia so complicated, I have spent enough time to understand this still I am confused. Does anyone of my age agree with this? Darshan Singh Writer (talk) 06:51, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

I too am very old. Wikipedia is complicated. I do my best. People don't complain so often, so I infer that I'm still competent (usually). But increasingly, I turn the computer off and do something unrelated. When I return, I usually find that Wikipedia has survived quite healthily even without my attention. -- Hoary (talk) 08:16, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

You started a draft (Draft:Tank Cleaner Film). I suggest you look at articles about India films, and model your draft on those. You can submit your draft when you believe it is ready. Given that the film was released last month, you may have difficulty finding references. David notMD (talk) 11:58, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi @Darshan Singh Writer:. Wikipedia definitely can be significantly complicated - I'm not sure whether it's the editing interface or the rules that you're finding more tricky. If it's the former, then can I check you're on Visual Editor, not the source editor. (VE looks more like Word/Pages, the source editor will have you working inside a box). I find that 40 minutes spent running through our basic tutorial (again, use the visual editor pathway) saves both a huge amount of time and a huge amount of irritation. If it's the rules that are the issue, then giving a specific detail(s) can help a lot. Nosebagbear (talk) 14:12, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Your thoughts about the film have no place in an article, so delete that. Again, best is you model content on other articles about films made in India. David notMD (talk) 21:48, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

remove page

this page Phra ram Pra Ram is just thai version of Rama need to be remove and this Pra Satrut Lalalulilalia (talk) 07:26, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

There's nothing necessarily wrong with this, Lalalulilalia. Among many similar cases, Kisshōten is, or is derived from, Lakshmi: I suppose that the former merits an article because of some divergences from the latter. (I notice that you say "thai version of", not "thai name for".) -- Hoary (talk) 07:59, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

atleast move page Pra Ram to Phra Ram and Pra Satrut to Phra Satarut Lalalulilalia (talk) 08:50, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Please go to Talk:Pra Ram and Talk:Pra Satrut, and explain there why the corresponding article should be renamed. -- Hoary (talk) 12:41, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Several questions

Hello,

I have several questions regarding English Wikipedia Policy, and English Wikipedia's Manual of Style.

• When reducing lenghty sentences to shorter ones without actually reducing their substance, which policy should I refer to? I tried looking up WP:CONCISE but it only concerns article titles, not the contents of the article body.
• Does Wikipedia pay attention to readers' personal preferences or habits? The number of Wikipedia readers is without a doubt, HUGE. Logically, there are also much bigger and complex differences in outlook of every aspect of life on the readers' part (politics, morality, social values etc). I believe Wikipedia's primary purpose is to put ANY information, whenever and wherever it is sourced reliably. Which policy should I refer to when dealing with this kind of situation? For example, when readers disagreeing with some content and removing them.
• Does updating some small details (such as: technical, always-updating lists, rankings) annually constitute WP:RECENTISM with regards to the article's quality as a whole? For example, source A discusses progress of a railway project and it usually updates annually. Every year, I'd update the date (or any related info) per the source cited. My concern is to avoid dated information.
• When I cite a source, is it necessary to put emphasis on certain sentences (by adding a particular sentence quote unqoute) from the source before the ref format? For example, there's a source who mostly talks about the USA, but there is a particular sentence there that concerns China. If I want to cite only the China part, is it okay to, not only cite the USA source, but also put that particular sentence about China? It looks like this:

Multiple sentences about China's strategic moves against the USA.<ref>This sentence, placed here, is copied quote unquote from the source about those strategic moves.{{cite web|url=www.usa.com|title=USA|publisher=White House|author=The Press|date=16 March 2021|access-date=16 March 2021}}.</ref>

Is there a policy or guidelines regarding this situation?

I'm asking all this this because I want to cite policies (WP, MOS etc) in my edit summaries wherever possible. Thank you. AdaCiccone (talk) 07:50, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

The Manual of Style is not a policy but a guideline, with subsidiary guidelines. Where you, AdaCiccone, know that what you're asking about is the implications of MOS, it would probably be better to ask at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. MOS material aside, you ask a lot of questions. Let me comment on just one of your premises, namely "I believe Wikipedia's primary purpose is to put ANY information, whenever and wherever it is sourced reliably." Not so. I can, if I wish, cite a reliable, published source for the entire timetable of the train line that I use most often. This would be well-sourced, factual information, conceivably of some use to somebody among the huge number of Wikipedia users. However, I should use my discretion and realize that for the overwhelming majority of users this would be mere trivia. This is one reason why I do not add this material (there are others); and if somebody else added it, I wouldn't hesitate to remove it. -- Hoary (talk) 08:11, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

And indeed, there is a policy, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, AdaCiccone. --ColinFine (talk) 13:20, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

did I create a page correctly?

Hi, I created a page several days ago (in hebrew, it is titled draft:רן נמרוד) and it is my first time creating a page, just wanted to know if it was done properly. Also, does anyone know what is the next step in the process? How do I track what is happening with the page? Many thanks!! Wikinamerode (talk) 09:48, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Wikinamerode Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. If you are attempting to create an article for the Hebrew Wikipedia, you should do it there; each language version of Wikipedia is a separate, independent project from the others. 331dot (talk) 09:53, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

If you wish to create an English draft, you may use Articles for creation. 331dot (talk) 09:54, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

WikinamerodeThis definitely belongs in Hebrew Wikipedia, which you can find by visiting here he:Main. Make sure to read their policies for Article creation, which you can find here he:ויקיפדיה:איך ליצור דף חדש ~ Shushugah (talk) 10:21, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

FYI

 – Related thread in archives: Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2021 March 4#Page I created has disppeared. --CiaPan (talk) 13:37, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Need copyediting,inspection for a new article

Ola today I created a new article Muktabai temple I need copyediting from a native British English speaking editor on this article.It is important article for Warkari peoples. Research Voltas (talk) 10:03, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Tea House is not meant to be used for soliciting editing help from others, otherwise everyone would use it for that. I tagged it with Template:Copy edit, so that people who are interested in grammar editing will easily find it and contribute if they choose to. Shushugah (talk) 10:25, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Shushugah So , If I tagged a article by CE template. Will editors will come and fix it ? Research Voltas (talk) 10:30, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

In short, yup! It always depends on the availability/interests/expertise of the editor in mind. We are all WP:VOLUNTEERS and work on whatever we feel like. Shushugah (talk) 10:37, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

@Research Voltas: Wikipedia:Categorization#Articles says:

"Apart from certain exceptions (i.e. eponymous categories and non-diffusing subcategories – see below), an article should be categorised under the most specific branch in the category tree possible, without duplication in parent categories above it."

Most of the categories on Muktabai temple should be removed or replaced with more specific subcategories. Don't add non-existing categories. They display as red links. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:34, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Tagging an article with the {{copyedit}} template will put it in the Guild of Copy Editors' backlog, so it'll be worked on eventually (there's 200+ articles there last time I checked).

Linking to a press conference

First post here, and I've been around for four years now. Anyway, here goes.

I'm currently trying to handle an edit that was caught in an edit filter. The edit in question appears to be constructive; however, there is an issue in sourcing for a quote (the one that tripped the edit filter, most likely). It comes from the Apple WWDC 2013; the editor, JuneForceOne, has given me a source that proves this definitively; however, from my understanding of WP:YOUTUBE and WP:ELNEVER, we are not allowed to use the YT video as a source, as it would be copyright infringement. Would it be correct to attribute it to "Apple WWDC 2013", as I believe has been customary for sources that we cannot link to directly? Or is there other problems in the edit that would be a blocker? Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 11:47, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Youtube videos can be linked, and can even be considered WP:RS in the cases of youtube videos published by academic or news organizations like BBC. Linking to a video is not copyright violation, however in this case, it may be construed as a form of WP:Original research. For factual info that could not be obtained elsewhere, for example a person stating their date of birth, even self published videos can be acceptable. Shushugah (talk) 11:59, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Shushugah however, material that violates the copyrights of others per contributors' rights and obligations should not be linked. You can link a CNN YT-clip if CNN uploaded it, not otherwise. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:28, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Uploaded by "the unofficial AppleKeynotes channel" who almost certainly don’t hold the copyright for what they’re uploading. SK2242 (talk) 15:14, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Full protection

What are full protection locks used for? And why are they not on Wikipedia page? (Just curious) -  Joshua's Number9 (talk) 13:11, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Joshua's Number9! Full protection is typically for articles with persistent disruption from extended confirmed editors or for articles that are quite visible and critical templates that would screw up a lot of articles if messed with. If you want to request page protection for an article, you can go here. Thanks, EDG 543 ^{(message me)} 13:39, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

For the second part of your question, I assume you mean "Why are they not on the Main Page". The answer is that it is fully protected in a different way: you may notice that there is no "Edit" tab on that page. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:52, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes. It is called Cascading protection. Sungodtemple a tcg fan!!1!11!! (talk) 14:44, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks guys. -  Joshua's Number9 (talk} — Preceding undated comment added 16:40, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

What links a Macedonian historian with a giant container ship?

When I click on the ship names in the article about Bird-class container ships I am taken to a New user landing page ('The article that you're looking for doesn't exist.'). Why, under 'languages' in the left-hand menu, does this page link to articles about a Macedonian historian? See here for example.

There is an article about the ONE Apus ship in Dutch. I would be happy to help translate this.

Thanks! 5duckroof (talk) 14:00, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

This link was added by Jonovski in this diff. I've removed it. Kleinpecan (talk) 14:10, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Imerit / iMerit

Hi, I went through articles for creation for an article called iMerit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IMerit

When i went through the creation process, I thought I made the title iMerit (little first "i") but later realized that I made it with a capital "I." I don't know how to go about changing it. Thoughts on this? Miaminsurance (talk) 14:00, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

I believe that due to technical limitations the first letter of an article title must be capitalized. I think there is a workaround but I'm not aware of what it is. 331dot (talk) 14:12, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

MediaWiki automatically capitalizes the first letter of all article titles (see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (technical restrictions) § Lowercase first letter) unless you add {{Lowercase title}} to the article. I've fixed it for you. Kleinpecan (talk) 14:13, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

@331dot: for messing with titles, see Help:DISPLAYTITLE. Victor Schmidt (talk) 14:38, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you both — Preceding unsigned comment added by Miaminsurance (talk • contribs) 16:25, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Alert Vandalism ,Block a vandal

Today I created a article Muktabai temple , a vandal is came on article did vandalism.I suggest to Block these vandals from editing on WP. They're two to three vandals.One of them is User:IRoninX1 Research Voltas (talk) 14:59, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello Research Voltas, I checked out the article. It appears IRoninX1 did 1 vandalism edit and that was the only edit he did. Wikipedia doesn't just block someone for making 1 bad/troll edit as majority of editors would be blocked. I will leave a low tier "vandalism warning" on his talk page, but nothing more than that. Elijahandskip (talk) 15:01, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Also, @Research Voltas:, you said there was "two to three vandals". I checked the articles history and that appears to be the only "troll edit" done. Can you mention the other vandals? Elijahandskip (talk) 15:07, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

SubPages?

What are subpages? How can I create one? ExclusiveEditor (talk) 15:07, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Subpages. Kleinpecan (talk) 15:12, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi, ExclusiveEditor. If you've ever done editing in your sandbox, participated in AfD, etc., you've used a subpage before. All it is is a page underneath a page (the "child" page of a "parent" page, in computer science lingo). If you want to create one on your user page, for example, you could go to the URL bar and type https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:TheTechnician27/Name You Want To Use, then create the page. However, as Kleinpecan noted, please see Wikipedia:Subpages to make sure you're creating one for an allowed use. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 15:19, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

I need help getting my wikipedia page to be accepted

I have tried three times to get my page submitted and every time it comes back with insufficient citations. I used citations from industry publications and replicated a page that is similar to our businesses. Can someone please help me get through this barrier? 98.232.43.181 (talk) 16:16, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi. Remove every reference that does nothing to contribute to notability and are primary sources that should not be used in the manner they're being used. I say this because you have some sources that might be somewhat okay, though it's not clear and needs more, but even those are somewhat buried in prominence next to utterly useless references. I suggest starting with reading Wikipedia:Common sourcing mistakes (notability) so that the following has context:

1. Source 1: Not sure about reliability; it's no BBC News article, but at least it's not on-its-face disqualified; it at least appears independent and has substantive treatment;
2. Source 2: Useless, non-independent, press release; a primary source used for an invalid, self-serving purpose;
3. Source 3: Tech Crunch, when it's not regurgitating a press release, is mostly considered akin to a blog and thus unreliable – no oversight; no reasonable assurance of accuracy and neutrality for its content (search WP:RSN for "Techcrunch" to see this playing out over numerous threads [note also, from WP:NCORP: "there is a presumption against the use of coverage in trade magazines to establish notability as businesses frequently make use of these publications to increase their visibility])";
4. Source 4: Repeat of the source above; see WP:NAMEDREFS for how to fix this, for any useful sources you might cite multiple times;
5. Source 5: Forbes is a reliable source in some contexts; here it's an interview of a principal of the subject and thus a primary, non-independent source (I should qualify that sometimes interviews may have partial content that is usable, e.g., an introduction by the magazine staff, outside of the interview content);
6. Source 6: Another apparent trade publication; a questionable source of unclear provenance, but at least not on-its-face disqualified;
7. Source 7: maybe possibly partially okay? (but a long way from a really good source); certainly is regurgitating some press release tripe, with its purpose being just to announce tech companies within the ambit of its challenge—and not to provide an investigated, fact-checked write-up of the companies involved.

You see the problem? Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 19:39, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

hey

 Zoe haverkamp1 (talk) 16:17, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello. Do you have a question? Kleinpecan (talk) 16:19, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Submission for Music Producer

Meeting criteria for musician Hi, I submitted an article on music producer Joey Auch. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Joey_Auch

The reviewer stated 'it only seems to be riding on one event'. I added 6 additional events that fall under 'criteria for musicians'. Below is what I found in the 'criteria for musicians' and the event I added to the article. Will this now meet all the Wiki standards to be published?

1- This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, magazine articles, online versions of print media Event added: article in Rolling Stone Mag, Huff Post, ABC News & NBC News

2 - Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart. Event added: # 152 on the CMJ Radio 200 (2004)

6 - Is an ensemble that contains two or more independently notable musicians, or is a musician who has been a reasonably prominent member of two or more independently notable ensembles Event added: Produced Rachel Platten right before her national #1 song “Fight Song” & also produced notable musicians Erin Bowman and Decora.

9 - Has won first, second or third place in a major music competition. Event added: Won The Great American Song Contest in 2006. "Leaving Carolina" And won ‘Pop/Top 40 Outstanding Achievement in Songwriting with Nick Deutsch for “Meteor” in The 2014 Great American Song Contest

10 - Has been placed in rotation nationally by a major radio or music television network. Event from original article: National with McDonalds jingle “Gimme Me That Filet-O-Fish”

11 - Has been a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio or television network. Event added: Featured on CBS’s The Rachael Ray Show

Thank you - jcashmanIII JcashmanIII (talk) 16:21, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Is adding trivia appropriate?

I am reading an article about a painting. The painting is said to favorite one of one really important historical figure. However, there is no popular culture heading for the article. I am not entirely sure whether I should or should not make this addition. Is adding trivia, which has little to do with main content of article, wikipediac? Thanks. AbhigyaDahal (talk) 16:47, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

AbhigyaDahal, hello, friend! If this tidbit contributes to the reader's understanding of the subject and is supported with a reliable reference, I'd say add the trivia. Otherwise, it can be left off. Hope that helps! Thanks, EDG 543 ^{(message me)} 17:00, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi AbhigyaDahal. I believe this is something that simply cannot be answered in the abstract. Far too dependent on context, where many of these types of questions are on the razor's edge of the exercise of editorial judgement. (That being said, just about every single question we get here that tells us something in the abstract instead of telling us the specific context, would be improved by providing the details.) Anyway, a prior post of mine, here, might have some discussion that might be useful to at least set the stage for this issue. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:22, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

How do i know if my edits are good

So i just started editing wikipedia very recently. I mostly just took care of typos so i knew i was improving the wiki. But recently i found an article that was obviously created with a large bias and was hard to understand. I trimmed alot of the fat from the article and made it unbiased. But im not sure if my edit was good. I know it was better then the previous page but im not sure if i didnt do well and should have just asked someone else to do it. Below are the article before and after my changes. Thank you in advance

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kicko_%26_Super_Speedo&oldid=1005852367 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kicko_%26_Super_Speedo Googleguy007 (talk) 17:06, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your work, but the characters section remains completely unsourced. Ruslik_Zero 17:43, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Not Notable

I've been told that my subject, a part of ZAG Entertainment, is not notable enough. A colleague of his who is equally as notable has a page on Wili that has been published. I don't understand what criteria makes my subject 'not notable' enugh when he and his projects are cited all over the internet and are wildly popular? — Preceding unsigned comment added by WJG222 (talk • contribs) 17:49, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi WJG222. Please could you tell us the name of the colleague, so that we can investigate? Please also note WP:OSE.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 18:00, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi--and thank you. Jeremy Zag is the colleague. He has a Wiki page. Julian Zag is the subject of the new page. He is a large part of the same (family) company. Their products also have Wiki pages (linked in my newest article submission). Pages are Zagtoons, and others per each group of animated feature subjects. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WJG222 (talk • contribs) 18:05, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

@WJG222: I haven't found any good sources for Julian Zag in a quick search. Well, if you can find at least a few reliable sources for the article, then it should be fine. Make sure to check out WP:GNG and WP:BIO for more information on notability. Also, please use four tildes (~~~~)to sign your comments. Sungodtemple a tcg fan!!1!11!! (talk) 18:39, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. Linked in the new submission are several reliable sources including casting on IMDB, links to casting and production pages on the mentioned cartoon projects, Business Wire, etc., etc. I'm not being sarcastic (you can't get tone in writing)--but that's not enough? WJG222 (talk) 18:45, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi WJG222. The three references you've mentioned are each useless as evidence of notability. (They're also embedded external links, which is not how we reference things; see this how-to guide to the basics of citing references.) We are looking for reliable, secondary, independent sources Template:Z21. Please read Wikipedia:Common sourcing mistakes (notability). Please also note that if the issue is adequately addressed, then the draft would almost certainly thereafter be declined as promotional. A preliminary step would be removing all of the intellectual property symbols. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:59, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

New page

Hi Tearoom, I have been asked by a number of industry colleagues to submit a wiki page for the producer Kristian Smith. I've done that but it's been declined. WAny advice on getting the page publsihed? Bimblebuster (talk) 18:10, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Bimblebuster, hello, friend! This draft, Draft:Kristian Smith, was rejected declined because you failed to include any references. You must include multiple reliable sources in order to verify the content of the draft. You can see WP:REFB for a beginner's guide to citing sources. If you have any specific question, you can go ahead and ask. Hope that helps. Thanks, EDG 543 ^{(message me)} 18:18, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

@EDG 543: yust a note, on AfC drafts, "declined" and "rejected" have different meanings. "declined" means Sorry, this is not yet ready for mainspace. Please improve it while "rejected" means Sorry, this cannot get acceptable for mainspace at any time soon. Stop wasting everyone's time. This draft was declined. @Bimblebuster: Please make sure that your refs are actually verifyable. For example, "BBC" is a very bad ref, because which of the thousands of BBC articles is it? Please include at least enough information so others can see what you refer to. For example, is much better, because it allows the interested one to access and check the source without having to guess which one. Victor Schmidt (talk) 18:36, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

References

@Victor Schmidt: Thank you for catching that error. Thanks, EDG 543 ^{(message me)} 18:44, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

@Bimblebuster: I have declined your draft again and left an explanation on the draft. Please read over my comments as well as Victor Schmidt's comment above. Thanks, EDG 543 ^{(message me)} 18:44, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

See WP:Your first article for more details on how to write an article. Sungodtemple a tcg fan!!1!11!! (talk) 18:45, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

(e/c ×4!) Hi Bimblebuster. After the post above, you added a whole host of footnotes in the draft, not one of which is functioning as a citation. Instead, you have placed certain existing words from your draft in between <ref> ... </ref> tags, and thereby made them show up in the references section, which also has the function of removing those words from display in the body of your draft, thereby leaving it in a mangled state. Let me provide an example of a fully-formatted citation, to a transparently attributed reference work, that verifies the material preceding it. That context, I hope, this will better illustrate how it works. See also this how-to guide to the basics of citing references.

Flightlessness often arises in birds on isolated islands, probably due to limited resources and the absence of land predators. ←this footnote links below to an external academic journal article that corroborates the information written, and provides transparent information on the details of that journal article, so that readers can locate it view it themselves in order to check whether it verifies the content it is cited to verify.

Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:47, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

References

@Bimblebuster: A Google search (string: "Kristian smith" producer) doesn't really return anything remotely usable as a source (not helped by the fact there is apparently an unrelated music producer who has the same name), and especially not ones that would meet biographical standards. There's no way we can have an article on him at this time; the sources just flat-out do not exist. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Takes a strong man to deny...} 20:44, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

area of City of Sydney and Parramatta citation needed

Found area of City of Sydney and Parramatta at Wikipedia in km^2. Would have liked to find an official source for their area, but they don't have a citation. Help about this would be appreciated! Gryllida (talk) 21:55, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi Gryllida. Looks to me like this would be a good source for the first.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:07, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, looks good! Would be interesting to also find for the second one. Gryllida (talk) 22:28, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Question

Usually when I wrote wikipedia I could see my citations afterwards as they look while I'm editing, but that option disappeared. Where did it go? 2600:1700:A1C0:6D40:9832:F281:2380:5F68 (talk) 22:15, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

If you click the "Preview" button for your edits, it will show you what the changes will look like. RudolfRed (talk) 23:48, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

understanding promotional content

When a page is tagged as "This article contains content that is written like an advertisement. Please help improve it by removing promotional content...." How do you fix that when it doesn't specifically say what is written like an advertisement? Miaminsurance (talk) 22:20, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

@Miaminsurance: Understanding the style and tone of Wikipedia comes from being an experienced editor. Many of us can read any article and immediately tell if someone connected to the person or company wrote it. It's hard to share years of experience in a quick note, but this might help a bit. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch. You also want to use reliable sources, and avoid emphasizing trivial info. You also want to avoid making the article sound like an advertisement, extolling the greatness of a person or company. Finally, it's possible that the offending language was already removed, but nobody bothered to remove the tag. If you want to post the article title on my talk page, I'll tell you what the issue is. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:34, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Timtempleton, well and ... ehm.. it always starts with the username, like MiamiINSURANCE for example ... CommanderWaterford (talk) 22:44, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

@CommanderWaterford: lol that’s another whole essay! TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 23:02, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi Miaminsurance. When it's not clear what needs fixing you can ask at the talk page of the article and then link to it at the teahouse. Then a volunteer from the teahouse can read the discussion at the talk page of the article and assist - such as, explain what needs fixing and continue to watch the article for the next few days while you're working on it. Gryllida (talk) 22:49, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you to everyone. I appreciate the feedback. Just so we are clear, I'm not in insurance. I also don't presume that CommanderWaterford is in the crystal business. But I truly appreciate the feedback.Miaminsurance (talk) 23:33, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

and, for the record, I am probably a little blue blob of jelly stranded on a nearby beach! We don't always have to live (or down) to our usernames  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   23:37, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Mine states that I am not an MD - true. David notMD (talk) 02:19, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

User page

Hi, When I have a user name but when I sign in and try to open my user page, I get a message, 'Wikipedia does not have a user page with this exact tile. How do I crate a user page?

UserKSCV page KSCV (talk) 22:42, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

After logging in Visit Special:MyPage Gryllida (talk) 22:44, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

If you're logged in, there should be an option to create the page. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 23:16, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Regarding warnings

Do your warnings expire after a month of having them? Or do they never expire? Thanks!

~Wizdzy [💬 | 📝] 23:21, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Wizdzy, typically warnings start back at level one the month after warnings have been given. However, I think you should be more careful regardless, or you may receive a block in the future. Just to be clear, waiting until the next month to continue disruptive editing will not save you from a block. Thanks, EDG 543 ^{(message me)} 23:45, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

So if you don't cause disruptive editing after one month, the warnings expire? ~Wizdzy [💬 | 📝] 00:03, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

@Wizdzy: They don't "expire", it's just that the automated tools we use to hand out warnings typically ignore the previous month's warnings and start at level one again. That is not an excuse to vandalize after another month, and please don't test this. You still may be blocked if it's clear that you're not here to build an encyclopedia. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 00:12, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi Wizdzy. Just for reference, a user warning is a show of good faith to give an editor (who might not be very familiar with Wikipedia) an explanation as to why something they did was might have been wrong and a chance to avoid doing the same thing again. A user warning, however, isn't required per se and administrator can block an editor without warning if the administrator feels it's necessary to do so (i.e. to prevent further disruption). Finally, just a friendly suggestion since you seem fairly new to Wikipedia. It's easy for new or newish editors to become enamored with editing in the user namespace and doing things like creating customized signatures, userboxes and alternate accounts, etc.; however, those who spend most of their time doing such things often are the ones who find themselves running into problems when they venture into the article namespace. Ultimately, Wikipedia wants all editors to strive to be as WP:HERE as possible, and the main way of doing that is to try and improve existing articles or create viable new articles. That's what it means to be an "average Wikipedia" (a least in my opinion); so, if being an "average Wikipedia" is how you want to be seen by other editors, then it's probably not a good idea to spend almost 70% of your time editing in the user namespace. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:40, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

@Wizdzy: you can remove warnings if you like, there's no such thing as 'expiring'. If you keep doing the same things wrong again and again, expect a WP:CIR block. However, a few warnings for minor issues is not going to be an issue - admins are expected to use common sense in blocking. Elli (talk | contribs) 08:04, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Wizdzy Editors can be blocked for not being here to work on the encyclopedia. As noted above, the great majority of your edits have been to your own User page, most of the edits you made to articles were reverted, and you have created a second account: User:ThreeTimesTheCharm and have been editing that account's Talk page with Welcome notes and Warning notes (and then blanking). Get with the program. David notMD (talk) 02:31, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Where can I talk about what I read in the wikipedia library?

I learned about the wikipedia library and downloaded What Is Several Complex Variables? by Steven G. Krantz. (Thanks to jstor and wikipedia). Based on what I read does mentioning the scope of complex analysis on the wiki project page, as well as being readable in the wikipedia library, fall within the scope permitted by the wikipedia library?--SilverMatsu (talk) 00:23, 17 March 2021 (UTC) SilverMatsu (talk) 00:23, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Unfortunately I don't fully understand your question. However, as I look at your recent edits, I guess that you have slightly misunderstood an amiable and helpful comment that you received in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics. The point was that you seemed unfamiliar with the markup conventionally used for discussions on talk pages -- note for example that this reply of mine is indented from the left, and that I've accomplished it with a single colon -- and that if it seemed hard to understand, then asking about it here ("Teahouse") would be a good idea. "Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics" is for the discussion of articles about mathematics, not for discussions about mathematics (other than what's necessary to produce good articles): many new editors are gently chided for using talk pages for article-unrelated discussions; but you weren't, because you didn't do that. As you discuss potential improvements to maths-related articles, of course you can (and often must) mention the relevant maths. -- Hoary (talk) 02:21, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

@Hoary: Thank you for the advice. To be a little clearer, I'm discussing the article name of several complex variables, and if we're an editor editing an article with some passion (of course I need to calmly accept the advice), I noticed that we can access the wikipedia library. I thought that the content I read could be reflected in the article space with some moderation ( i.e. With the same standards as books on sale), but I am wondering if the content can be used for discussions on the talk page based on the same criteria as the article space?--SilverMatsu (talk) 08:07, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library (TWL) seems to be something of an abstraction; I suppose you're talking about its "Library Card Platform". As I now understand it, you were able to access Krantz's paper (doi:10.2307/2323391) thanks to TWL. The paper was published in The American Mathematical Monthly, a well-respected source. In common with the huge majority of Wikipedia editors, I am not competent to read papers published there. If you can understand this paper (which I haven't looked at), then you are welcome to employ it in articles. The fact that you were able to access it thanks to TWL does not affect this in either way. If you believe that insights in Krantz's paper should persuade Wikipedia to retitle one or more pages, you're welcome to suggest the retitling (or "move", as it's called), of course citing Krantz, on the talk page(s) of the relevant article(s). If you find Krantz's paper and the mathematical issues it raises fascinating, you suppose that the people who look at the talk page(s) are far likelier to be able to discuss the issues than are other people you can think of, then no, please don't attempt to start a discussion on the talk page(s), because the talk page for odious number, for example, is not for discussion of odious numbers or number theory but instead for discussion of how to improve (or retitle or merge) the article "odious number". When you signed up for TWL's Library Card Platform, you undertook to observe various restrictions (for example, that you must not send your friends or others the PDFs that you obtained there). But I see nothing in the "about" page about any distinction between articles and their talk pages; rather, "The Wikipedia Library provides free access to research materials to improve your ability to contribute content to Wikimedia projects", and in my view the intelligent citing of material on talk pages would be part of the work of contributing content. (Note by the way this is about "Wikimedia" and not "Wikipedia" projects: Wikimedia projects are listed here and you'll notice that Wikipedia is one of them.) -- Hoary (talk) 09:49, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Editing Wikipedia

I can change a wikipedia page's information, then change it back to get a free 2 edits to help crawl my way to be an extended-confirmed user. Is that allowed in wikipedia rules? SteelerFan1933 (talk) 00:24, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

SteelerFan1933, hello, friend! No, you should not do that, it's just plain silliness and it's not ethical. You become extended confirmed once you have 500 edits and 30 days of experience because you need experience to be able to edit certain articles, not just because we're mean. Just continue with constructive edits and you'll be there in no time bud! Thanks, EDG 543 ^{(message me)} 00:44, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

@SteelerFan1933: no, this would be in violation of WP:PGAME, and can get you blocked or warned. versacespacetalk to me 01:01, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi SteelerFan1933. As noted above, no. However, even though getting extended confirmed status is really no big deal (really), if you want to get the edits quickly and do something legitimate, that actually improves, I suggest visiting Wikipedia:Lists of common misspellings. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk)

Contacting contributors

contacting contributors

Is there any way for me to contact people who have contributed to a page_ 64.222.221.26 (talk) 01:38, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

You can visit the user's talk page (a link to which you can find next to their username on the History page) and leave a message, or mention them on the talk page of the article in question. WelpThatWorked (talk) 01:43, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi IP 64.222.221.26. The way editors generally communicate with one another is via talk pages; so, if someone makes an edit to an article that you don't quite understand or might want clarified in some way, you can post something on the article's talk page and seek assistance. Ideally, the best place to discuss an article is on it's corresponding talk page because that keeps everything in one place and makes it easier for others to join to discussion if they want. Each user, however, does have a corresponding user talk page where you can also post messages if you want; so, you can also posts messages for a user on their user talk page. For some general guidelines on how to use a talk page, please see Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. Now, if you're not sure how to find a user's talk page, try looking at the relevant page's edit history because you'll find the name of every editor who has edited the page listed there; just find the name of the person you want to contact and then click on the "talk" link next to their username. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:50, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Can I have two wikifana's?

I'm Wikiotter and WikiPrairieDog. Also... Happy Saint Patrick's day. JennilyW (talk) 02:54, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

JennilyW, you can put whatever wikifauna boxes on your userpage that you'd like, or you can create them if they don't exist currently. Just remember that the purpose of a userpage is to help other editors understand your editing, not just an outlet to display your personality. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 03:50, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, whatever you do DO NOT make your page anything like mine. EEng 08:31, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

User Names

Hi, How to make designed and customized username like these?

• WhoAteMyButter (📨│📝)

• Novem Linguae (talk)

• PrincessPersnickety (talk)

Wikiaddictcommo, see WP:CUSTOMSIG. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:32, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

@Wikiaddictcommo: Please do not go overboard with this; overly-elaborate signatures clutter up talk page syntax, is distracting, and is generally frowned upon. Please also do not imitate other users' signatures. Either use a simple, original design, or no design at all (which is perfectly fine). ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 08:21, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

@Wikiaddictcommo: I'll just add that the first and third example are almost illegible to me on a tiny mobile screen. There is insufficient colour contrast, and many users with visual impairments will struggle even more. Nick Moyes (talk) 09:08, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Wikiaddictcommo! User:Gråbergs Gråa Sång already gave a link to a section describing how you can change your signature. Please also see this link: WP:CUSTOMSIG/P. It provides some important notes about what you can have and what you should avoid in your signature. --CiaPan (talk) 09:34, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Source reliability

I was trying to edit West Bridgford F.C., specifically I was trying to source the ground and its capacity. I found this source:https://www.footballgroundmap.com/ground/regatta-way-sports-ground/west-bridgford, and was looking over WP:RS, and wasn't quite sure if it would be considered a reliable source or not. Thanks for your help! AnApple47 (talk) 06:44, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

AnApple47, welcome to the Teahouse! Based on [4] it seems a bit selfpublished, then again, it doesn't seem like very controversial info. In this particular case, try asking at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football (or WP:RSN if you prefer), perhaps they heard of it or know a better alternative. Or you can be WP:BOLD and see what happens. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:30, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Contentious information BLP

Hello everyone, a public figure is complaining that their Wikipedia page contains wrong information about their age. The article about them contains multiple contradicting info from multiple sources, some of which are from the yellow press and are not supported by any evidence. Can they provide a legal identification document so that the information is corrected? If this is possible how to do so without compromising their personal information? Disclosure: I am a close acquaintance of this person but I am not related in any way to their field of work or their representative. I have edited arabic and french Wikipedia without registering because I wanted to stay anonymous given my relationship with a politically engaged family in a conservative country. Mohamed watdi (talk) 10:02, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Mohamed watdi There is no central location to send legal documents to, and in any event you should not send copies of personal identity documents to anyone, to prevent identity theft. If any information is sourced to a poor source and not based in evidence, that should be removed and, if challenged, discussed on the article talk page. If reliable sources are contradictory, probably no information about the person's age or birthday should be in the article until more sources have the same information. If this individual has a verified social media page with their correct age on it, that could serve to support the use of independent sources with the same age. 331dot (talk) 10:07, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Is Minecraft@Home notiable enough for it's own article?

I have make an article about Minecraft@Home a long time ago, when I think they have good reasons to be included to Wikipedia. However, it got deleted by (A7: Article about a club, society or group, which does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject), and it is quite reasonable when I think about it for a while. However, it has been the pioneer in many areas of volunteer computing project, and after read many guidelines, I think that although little coverage is made in this part of the project, but I think it is worth it for inclusion. These reasons are:

• First noticiable non-scientific project, which meant to promote and spark intrest in volunteer computing, similar to SETI@Home, however in gaming category
• One of the few projects that gain substancial publicity
• Many articles are written about the projects, many of them tell about the project itself

Would it be a good inclusion to Wikipedia, or it still lack significance/notability/too specfic? DrifAssault (talk) 10:13, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

DrifAssault, you won't establish that Minecraft@Home is notable enough to warrant a WIkipedia article by listing bullet points about it here. The only way is to find several reliable independent published sources with extensive discussion of it. I've had a quick look, and haven't been able to find any such sources; others may be able to do better. Maproom (talk) 10:29, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't see any article discussing about Minecraft@Home, so I don't think it should be added to Wikipedia too. Thank you for telling me that! DrifAssault (talk) 10:37, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello Dear Moderators, My first article content was deleted "under CSD G11, as unambiguous advertising." Now I want to know can I create the same content in a new and innovative way? Because I have researched a lot about this org.

Kindly help me to know how to proceed now ButlerJan (talk) 11:10, 17 March 2021 (UTC)