Wikipedia:Teahouse

Shantavira, 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

Working

Hi, I added Working (Terkel book) to

For the 2019 book by Robert Caro, see Working (Caro book).

(and vice-versa) but it was removed due to WP:NOTAMB, is there not confusion if the reader cannot remember the author? (just a thought!) GrahamHardy (talk) 14:26, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

I'd suggest placing the hatnote For other uses, see Working. ─ The Aafī ^(talk) 14:44, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi @GrahamHardy, WP:NOTAMB says that a hatnote is not needed. The idea is that "(Terkel book)" or other disambiguating terms make it clear that the disambiguation page is at another location. I.e., you wouldn't end up on "Terkel book" by accident since even Working (book) goes straight to the dab. czar 00:51, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

So is the consensus that I remove the hatnote? GrahamHardy (talk) 14:07, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

I believe so, yes. czar 22:10, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Weird font for foreign language

Revisiting Kasuri, I note that the Japanese language words are now shown in a larger font/typeface. My perception is that although the individual words are larger, the chosen font makes them lighter in "color" (grey vs black) and more difficult to read.

Any ideas about what's going on here? I don't recall seeing other non-English words appear in this manner in other articles. Usually, articles feature a consistent font. The examples shown here for foreign words don't have this appearance. I tried using the recommended MOS:FOREIGNITALIC markup to substitute, but saw no change in the preview. Perhaps it reads differently on different devices? I've never seen this before. Thanks. Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 04:44, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Tribe of Tiger. Using the desktop site on Chrome running on a fairly new Android smartphone, everything looks perfectly normal to me. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:55, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

As an example, tate-yoko gasuri in that article is {{transl|ja|tate-yoko gasuri}}, which Mediawiki converts into HTML <i lang="ja-Latn" title="Japanese-language romanization">Tate-yoko gasuri</i>. You should check what your particular browser does with lang="ja-Latn". It's also imaginable that it does something to the font where there's a "tooltip" (HTML title). -- Hoary (talk) 06:07, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

I suspect I will have to learn to live with it. Cullen328, I checked my desktop computer, and it looks okay there. But, I always read/edit on an IPad, 14.6 software, using Safari as a browser. Also, I am a dummy...I have tried Hoary's suggestion, which I don't understand. Here's what I tried: {{lang="ja-Latn"|Kasuri}} {{tranl|"ja-Latn"|Kasuri}} {{tranl|ja-Latn|Kasuri}} , all are obviously wrong, because I get red Template "text". I don't understand the reference to "a "tooltip" (HTML title)", either.

I assume the {{lang}} template is preferred because it automatically detects the language, per MOS:FOREIGNITALIC? But now, I wonder if other readers on similar devices/browsers are seeing what I am seeing. Or, is my experience an anomaly? Anyway, thanks for your consideration and assistance! Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 02:29, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Tribe of Tiger, I was assuming (wrongly) that you'd be using a computer. I suspect that iOS and Android either don't let you make changes or will make such changes extraordinarily difficult. That aside, where you write "tranl", I'd written "transl". "Title" is an (X)HTML attribute (like "style" within your own signature). Most browsers interpret title text as popup messages; these are commonly called "tooltips". ("Title" is also the name of an (X)HTML tag, but that's irrelevant here.) My simple suggestion is: Use your computer (particularly as, even without reconfiguration, what it shows you does not irritate you). -- Hoary (talk) 03:31, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Hoary, I am so very embarrassed by my tral vs. transl error! So sorry! For the past few yrs, I have been unable to use my desk computer, because of physical problems, just too painful for any length of time. I really miss it, but the Ipad has been a boon, as I can read/edit on the sofa, or in bed...no sitting. I shall deal with the irritation of one article's font! Thanks again. Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 05:53, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear this, Tribe of Tiger; I'd had no idea. I know that Apple likes to keep tight control of the devices that it sells, but does it let you install alternative browsers? (My own Android toy comes with Chrome, but I instead use Firefox Focus and Ghostery.) -- Hoary (talk) 08:35, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Hoary, I don't know. But I do know a tech savvy WP friend, and may ask her! Thanks for the suggestion... Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 22:39, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Golygu ar declyn symudol Golygiad gwe symudol

The above has been appearing in edsums on my watchlist all morning, various editors. Isn't this the english language wikipedia? What does it mean? Is W?F doing something odd, or rather more odd than usual? -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 05:47, 16 July 2021 (UTC).

According to your friend Google Translate, it means Editing on a mobile device Mobile web editing in Welsh. I know no more than that. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:51, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

@Roxy the dog: Are you using en-gb as your interface language, by any chance? This is a noted issue (T286679) and should be resolved soon (hopefully). There's a discussion over at Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)#Tags in Welsh that talks about the issue. Temporary solution is to change your interface language to en (Sauce). —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 06:00, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Brilliant! Thanks for that pointer, Tenryuu, I didn't have my prefs set to en-gb, for some reason, but having changed them, I get the Welsh edit summaries as well. (I understand it is annoying to most non-Welsh speakers, but for this non-Welsh speaker it is a feature rather than a bug.) --bonadea contributions talk 08:06, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Newyddion rhyfeddol! When do we get also Kernewek?? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:45, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

It's official: the Welsh are setting their plans of world domination into action. Pretty soon every city in the world will have names like Llanfairpwllgwyngyll. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 12:38, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Lol. "Bring it dude!!" Pah! just wait until the Maoris get here! Martinevans123 (talk) 13:56, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

@Martinevans123: The Maoris are already here, and they got here first: whilst "wiki" is a Hawaiian word meaning "quick", it's the same in Maori, which isn't surprising - both languages have a recent common ancestor in Central–Eastern Polynesian. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:26, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Wow, thanks Redrose64, I never knew. Should have guessed, as it's an anagram of kiwi!! Dame Wiki Te Kanawa 123 (talk) 10:02, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Take a look at a newly created article

Changdeva Temple , I created today, I need a native speaker take a look it for grammer and tone. If something wrong you found, fix it. Huge Earth (talk) 11:26, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

It was moved to Draft:Changdeva Temple minutes after your last edit, with a comment that it is not yet of article-quality. Among other problems, the refs are all just URLs. David notMD (talk) 12:04, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

I've had a look at the grammar and writing; I hope I haven't messed up the meaning of anything (do change things back if needed; I do not know the local geography and may have made mistakes in interpreting your text). I'm not going to attempt to do the references as I can't judge which are likely to be deemed reliable secondary sources. But I personally liked the article and thought it interesting and well-balanced. If you can sort out the references so they show the newspaper/site etc. from which they're derived, then maybe it will be a good addition to WP. Good luck! Elemimele (talk) 12:30, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Hiii,fellow editors, I added some best references; for my edits from newspaper website's articles. I think anyone can go and verify source of information. I think you can move it to main space. If any improvement is needed, I'll try to do it and you can edit this article for its betterment.Huge Earth (talk) 13:38, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

@Elemimele and Elemimele: @David notMD and David notMD: someone moved Changdeva Temple Arti from main space. Will you move it to main space.

STATUS: An experienced editor/reviewer moved it to draft, several editors and the creating editor worked to improve it, and then the editor/reviewer returned it to main space. Congrats on going from creation to approved in one day. For this, and the other articles you have created, please learn how to properly reference rather than just bare URLs. David notMD (talk) 14:42, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

@Huge Earth:, just a hint from a non-teahouse-host! The easiest way to do references is to use the tool in the editor. I use the non-visual editor, so that's the only one I can describe. The top line has the Bold B, Italic I etc. icons, and at the far right end, the word "Cite". When "Cite" is selected, as it is by default, the next row says "Templates, Named references, Error check" If you click on Templates, it offers you a choice of four reference-citation styles. Pick whichever seems most suitable, and a little window will pop up with boxes where you can type all the relevant details. Fill in as many as you can (don't worry that not all boxes are relevant to all references) and the tool will do the work for you. Congratulations on getting this article accepted into main-space! Elemimele (talk) 19:27, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

@Huge Earth @Elemimele I also find Citoid helps. ―Qwerfjkltalk 20:48, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

@User:Elemimele Thankyou for information sir.Huge Earth (talk) 05:21, 17 July 2021 (UTC) David notMD Hiii editor, You said that I have to use different kind of sources not just bare URL's. ok, I have some book reference, but a book don't have ISBN number anywhere on it. So can I use that book for reference without writing ISBN number. Or can't use books that doesn't have in Eng and don't have ISBN??? Huge Earth (talk) 07:21, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Huge Earth. International Standard Book Numbers have been used by book publishers worldwide since 1967, although self-published books may not have them. So, they are not expected for books published over half a century ago, but if a 21st century book lacks an ISBN, that may call the reliability of the source into question. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:49, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Please edit this template

In this template, is it possible to replace the name Haute-Normandie to Upper Normandy? Or just add this link to it? Excellenc1📞 16:31, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Excellenc1, you can edit the template by clicking at the "E" in the upper-left corner of the template. You can yourself replace and edit the template. Lightbluerain❄ (Talk | contribs) 16:34, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Lightbluerain, I have added the link. Excellenc1📞 03:14, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Welcome. Lightbluerain❄ (Talk | contribs) 06:44, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Making an article public

Hello! I managed to move my article into Wikipedia's live space but it is not discoverable on Google. How can an article be found on Google? What are other further changes needed? Thank you! Sângeorzan Adrian (talk) 20:48, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Google indexing is not instantaneous. You need to declare your WP:COI. Regards, Ariconte (talk) 21:02, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Sângeorzan Adrian It was inadvisable for you to move the draft yourself; it failed one review at AFC. I strongly advise you to move it back for further work and an independent review. 331dot (talk) 21:08, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

An article is indexed by searchengines after it has been ok:d by a New Page Reviewer, or a certain time has passed, I think it was 90 days. Adrian Sangeorzan largely lacks inline citations, that's bad, especially for a WP:BLP, and you need to remove the WP:EL:s from the article text. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:12, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Actually, Sângeorzan Adrian never moved the draft to mainspace. It exists at Draft:Sangeorzan Adrian. Also, when instructed to remove external hyperlinks, removed refs - which I restored. DEclined once. Some sections have no references. David notMD (talk) 21:45, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

David notMD It's at Adrian Sangeorzan. 331dot (talk) 22:09, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you all so much. I will remove the external links. But how do I declare my WP:COI? And about the sections which have no references, what do I need to do about that? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sângeorzan Adrian (talk • contribs)

@Sângeorzan Adrian: You can declare your conflict of interest a couple of ways, all of which are listed here. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 22:34, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Draftified to Draft:Adrian Sangeorzan. However, Draft:Sangeorzan Adrian also exists (twice declined) with same content. David notMD (talk) 12:59, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Create a Wikipedia page for a pianist.

Hello, I would like to create a Wikipedia page for my piano teacher to thanks her for her hard work, but I don't know how I have to start. So I would be grateful if you can help me to create a Wikipedia page for her.

Her biography and her Instagram page links are below:

https://yaldasamadi.com/biography/

https://www.instagram.com/yalda_samadii/

Many thanks for your help, Amir Amirkm82 (talk) 23:34, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

@Amirkm82: Welcome to the Teahouse. You're going to want to read Your first article, but seeing as you're her student, you should disclose your conflict of interest, and understand that Samadi has to be notable by Wikipedia's standards. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 23:40, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Amirkm82, and welcome to the Teahouse. I understand why you might want to do something like this for your teacher, but I'm afraid that Wikipedia is a very very bad place to do this. Your attempt is likely to result in frustration and disappointment, both for you and for her. Here are some of the reasons:

1. Wikipedia will accept an article on her only if she meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability. This depends mostly not on what she has done, but on what people have published about her. Most music teachers do not meet these criteria.
2. If she is notable, and an article is accepted, the article will not be "her page" but "Wikipedia's article about her". She (and you) will not own it, and not control its contents. If it should happen that something critical or disparaging gets published about her somewhere, then that information may get added to the article, and neither you nor she can prevent that.
3. Wikipedia articles are required to be neutral summaries of what has been independently published about the subject. Nothing that you know about her should go in the article unless you can find a published source that confirms it; and your opinions (including your gratitude) should not appear in the article at all.
4. Creating an acceptable article is one of the most difficult tasks there is for an inexperienced editor in Wikipedia. Doing so about a person you have a connection with is even harder (because it will be harder for you to stay neutral).

I suggest that you read WP:NOT and WP:PROUD before you go any further. If you wish to contribute to editing Wikipedia (please do!) I recommend you start with making small changes to some of our existing six million articles before trying to create a new one; and when you do try creating an article, choose a subject that you do not have a personal connection with. After all that, you will be better placed to see if an article about your teacher is possible, and how to go about it. --ColinFine (talk) 11:07, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Create a Wikipedia page for Ojayy Wright.

 Courtesy link: Draft:Ojayy Wright

Hi Teahouse, I'm not new editor in wikipedia. I need your support to publish Ojayy Wright article, He is a popular person in Nigeria and some bilingual country as Cameroon. There are many press which talk about Ojayy Wright. Please, let us take a look on this article to manage as well its publication. Thank you.

 Bile rene (talk) 00:13, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Teahouse volunteers are here to answer questions about how to edit Wikipedia, but are not here to be co-authors. David notMD (talk) 04:06, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

How to publish this article, please?Bile rene (talk) 07:46, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Bile rene As you were told in the decline message, the draft does not show that this person meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable singer, as shown with significant coverage in independent reliable sources. You've cited announcements of their work, which does not establish notability. Please see Your First Article. 331dot (talk) 07:51, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi 331dot,

I've unterstanding very well what you told. How do I done to publish this article?

We know that the matter is not to delete an article but to engage editors to best practices and help them to publish good articles.Bile rene (talk) 08:18, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Bile rene You need to gather independent reliable sources with significant coverage of this person, showing how they meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable singer. The sources you have currently are just announcements, not significant coverage. Have you read Your First Article? As you are the one writing about the subject, we cannot do these things for you. Which aspect of the notability criteria does this person meet? 331dot (talk) 08:23, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

331dot for sources, I agree with you, but the guy is celebrity in his community and other countries as Cameroon where I'm.

The 11point is respected for notable singer on Wikipedia.Bile rene (talk) 10:46, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

The thing to understand, Bile rene, is that Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost entirely interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources. If you cannot find sources that are independent of Wright, are reliably published, and contain significant coverage of him (all three of those conditions), then there is literally nothing which can go in an article about him, and no article will be accepted. "Being a celebrity" is not enough, unless people have written about him. --ColinFine (talk) 11:17, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for clarification.Bile rene (talk) 11:33, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

I would like to specify the page number in Google Books

 Courtesy link: Function of several complex variables § Levi problem (ref.57 ISBN 9784431568513.)

I need p.109 for reference, and I noticed that the preview is available in Google Books. but I don't know how to link. (How to link directly to page 109.) Thank you for your help. SilverMatsu (talk) 00:29, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

@SilverMatsu: It seems you already have the reference info inputted correctly. You could add the {{rp}} template right after the reference to denote a page number. I unfortunately am not aware of how to link to an anchor to page 109 of the book on Google Books. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 04:57, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

@Tenryuu: Thank you for teaching me. I added {{rp}}.--SilverMatsu (talk) 05:09, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

@SilverMatsu: Google Books directly supports this ... first, display the page through Goole Books, click on the "3-dots" and select "share". It will display, or you can click "copy" for it to copy to your paste buffer. For instance, this link should take you directly to page 109. Fabrickator (talk) 05:47, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

@Fabrickator: Thank you for teaching me. I added url. You taught me the procedure in detail, so I think I can do it myself next time. --SilverMatsu (talk) 08:31, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Treemap upload

Hi, I am new here. I was to update treemap of Brazil exports on Economy_of_Brazil#Exports (currently it is showing 2012 treemap which is way out-of-date). Please guide me regarding this, can I just copy the license used in 2012 image and upload 2019 treemap as I am using same source (https://oec.world/en/profile/country/bra). Thank you. Droogenbroeck (talk) 01:11, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Droegenbroeck. The current diagram, Commons:File:Brazil Product Export Treemap.jpg says that it is uploaded with "Creative Commons 3.0 non-commercial license". Unfortunately a NC licence is not compatible with Commons, and I shall be raising the issue there: I fear that it will probably mean removing the diagram entirly, but I may be wrong. Looking at https://oec.world/en/resources/terms, I don't see any mention of a Creative Commons licence, though I see terms which are similar to the CC-NC licence. If I am right, then I'm afraid that you cannot use images from that site on Wikipedia (unless you can argue that they meet all of the non-free content criteria, which I doubt). --ColinFine (talk) 11:34, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

It's more complicated than that, Droegenbroeck. It appears that when these files were uploaded to Commons in 2012, their licence was questioned, and the uploader Doubleodd2 arranged that the copyright holder authorised them, though this was not recorded on that file's information page. However, my guess is that that permission would only apply to that set of images, not to any later version. I've asked about this at Commons:Commons:Village pump/Copyright#Updates to File:Brazil Product Export Treemap.jpg (and pinged you there, so you should get a notification about it in Commons). I note that Doubleodd2 doesn't seem to have been active since 2012. --ColinFine (talk) 11:58, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

ColinFine Thanks, you're very helpful. One more question, there is whole category where such images were uploaded in 2017 by some bot (BMacZeroBot) what do you think of it? Are they allowed? (Commons:Category:Images_from_the_Observatory_of_Economic_Complexity). Droogenbroeck (talk) 21:37, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Need admin to create page for "Mach-Hommy"

Need admin to create page for "Mach-Hommy" Learningtakessteps (talk) 05:48, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Non-admins can also create pages. If you want to start it yourself, please read Your first article. If you would like to request that someone else make it, you can try Requested articles, though that tends to be slow. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 06:17, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

@Tenryuu: Non-admins can't create Mach-Hommy directly, as the title has been salted. Non-admins can, however, create a draft. --David Biddulph (talk) 06:24, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

@David Biddulph: Ah, thanks for letting me know. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 06:43, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

@Learningtakesteps: - you can create a proto-article in your sandbox. When you think it's ready to be moved to mainspace, you can ask for assistance at the administrator's noticeboard. An admin will move the article into mainspace if it is in a fit condition to be moved, or if not they may give you feedback as to where improvement is needed. Mjroots (talk) 13:45, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

How can I

How can I return back Wikipedia delete articles Wikicontributority (talk) 08:53, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Wikicontributority Depends. If the article-subject doesn't meet the demands of WP:N, you can't. But if after reading WP:N you conclude "Yeah, I have those sources, no problem!", then you can give it a go. Start with WP:YFA. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:08, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

All different types of page protection

May I know what are all different types of page protection on Wikipedia? 42.60.18.87 (talk) 09:10, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

hi ip user! the types of protections can be found over at WP:PROTECTION. in short, the important ones are pending changes-protected (white), semi-protection (silver), extended-protection (blue), create-protected (sky blue, also known as salting), template-protected (pink), and fully-protected (gold) pages.   melecie   t 09:17, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Dark mode?

Hey, its Solar again. Interested if there is a dark mode you could put on your personal CSS, which I am positive does exist. Please direct me to the code I should C&P into. Thanks! (Oo and I forgot the name of the CSS, is it 'Personal.css'? Lol) -Solarrrr... Send a message to Solar? Tappy tap tap! ⏰Time: 09:15, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

@SsSsSølarRadia -75 To enable dark mode (currently it under testing), go to your preferences > Gadgets > scroll all the way down to Testing and development > tick    Dark mode: Use a light text on dark background color scheme > click Save at the bottom > refresh the page. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 09:59, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

@Paper9oll Hmm, does this apply to all wiki skins? I went there and saw nothing of the selected feature. -Solarrrr... Send a message to Solar? Tappy tap tap! ⏰Time: 10:10, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

@SsSsSølarRadia -75: Dark mode is currently supported for the following Skins: Vector, MonoBook,Modern and Minerva Victor Schmidt (talk) 10:32, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

@SsSsSølarRadia -75: The skins supported are as mentioned by Victor above, to see the changes, you would need to go to either the homepage or any other articles, for some reasons the mode doesn't work on preferences. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 11:42, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

@SsSsSølarRadia -75 You can also try User:MusikAnimal/nightpedia. @Paper9oll No JavaScript is loaded on the Preferences page (that is available through the gadgets or user scripts). ―Qwerfjkltalk 12:22, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

@Qwerfjkl Ah I see, thanks letting me know. I can't figure out why it doesn't work for quite some time and I just ignored it 😅. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 12:32, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

@Paper9oll well I guess that concludes this convo, since I like the skin Timeless instead. -Solarrrr... Send a message to Solar? Tappy tap tap! ⏰Time: 18:00, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Can I become extended and confirmed user

Hiii editor I wanna ask, I created Changdeva Temple article, tried to contribute in some articles. Is I'm now eligible to become a extended & confirmed user. And why no one still gave me barnstar so far, I'm kidding, if no one gave no problem. And I want to tell about my favourite sports, favourite sportsmans, about my favourite subject, favourite statesman, which is Abraham Lincoln in my talk page with colourful animation. Guide me to how to do that. Huge Earth (talk) 09:47, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

@Huge Earth To get extended confirmed user rights, your account would need to be least 30 days old and has made at least 500 edits. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 09:56, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

@Paper9oll: My account is 2 monts old and I did lods of edits. So can I become E&C user??? & You only gave half ans, my 2nd questions ans is not given so far.Huge Earth (talk) 10:09, 17 July 2021 (UT

@Huge Earth: According to XTools, you made 474 edits so far. Thats a lot, but not quite at the 500 requirement. Regarding Barnstars, I believe noone has considered giving you one so far. Its quite rare that you get one - my averge is about 1 per three months. Regarding the last thing, I do not believe it is possible to create animated content for talkpages (apart from .gif files) with wikitext. Victor Schmidt (talk) 10:28, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

@Huge Earth: Currently, your account only met the 1st condition (at least 30 days old) but you have not fulfil the 2nd condition (at least 500 edits). And as mentioned by Victor above, you currently have made total of 474 edits hence you're still 26 edits away from fulfilling the 2nd condition. Once you fulfil the 2nd condition, the system will automatically give you the user rights in which you should receive notification from the system informing on it. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 11:49, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Difference between source and visual editing

May I know what is a difference between source and visual editing? 42.60.18.87 (talk) 09:54, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

See WP:TUTORIAL. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:02, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Creating a page in Wikipedia

How can I create a page for a public figure celebrity woman? Salekin62 (talk) 10:22, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

hi Salekin62 and welcome to the teahouse! please see WP:Your first article and WP:Notability (people). once you've done so you may now compile reliable sources to create your draft in say, User:Salekin62/Sandbox. happy editing!   melecie   t 10:25, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

See "Create a Wikipedia page for a pianist." (above) for advice to new editors who hope to create an article. David notMD (talk) 12:57, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Can be upgraded to a higher level of draft?

hello everyone!

I've been working on this page for a long time, creating improvements until I reached a really good result in my opinion.

Can I finally request to have it upgraded to a higher level of draft according to you? Nscent (talk) 13:03, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Nscent Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. There are not "levels" of drafts; you have resubmitted your draft and it is pending review to be formally placed in the encyclopedia as an article. Those are the only two possibilities. 331dot (talk) 13:22, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

331dot Hello 331dot, thanks for the reply, alright then I will wait for someone to evaluate it, I really hope this is the time to make it an article :) Nscent (talk) 13:27, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

You have not shown how they meet the criteria at WP:NARTIST and press releases are not suitably reliable sources. Theroadislong (talk) 13:39, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Using urlencode in templates

How do you use {{urlencode:{{{1}}} }} without it encoding {{{1}}} literally? ―Qwerfjkltalk 13:54, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

@Qwerfjkl: I'm not exacly clear what you're asking here. {{{1}}} is automatically replaced with whatever you set as the first unnamed parameter when transcluding a page. Is this related to User:Qwerfjkl/scripts/template (just had a peek through your edit history)? If so all you need to do is provide whatever you want the {{{1}}} to be replaced with as a parameter when transcluding it, e.g. {{User:Qwerfjkl/scripts/template|foo}} produces:

• Foo: (script • edit • history) • (doc • edit) | .

192.76.8.91 (talk) 20:46, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Oops, I forgot to purge the page and it was giving me a bad title error. Thanks! ―Qwerfjkltalk 20:59, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

@Qwerfjkl: No problem, by the way your edit link isn't working because you've got the URL in the wrong format. To generate a link to the edit form you need to either use [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title={{urlencode:{{{1}}}|WIKI}}&action=edit edit] or [[Special:Edit/{{{1}}}|edit]]. 192.76.8.91 (talk) 21:01, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, that was my next problem to solve. ―Qwerfjkltalk 21:06, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Fixed two typos in the reply by 192.76.8.91 (: --CiaPan (talk) 21:25, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Bulgars Article

Hello Editors,

 I have a concern about the Bulgars article for a long time now. It's been a debate on Wikipedia for a while also,and conclusions were made,which I believe it is not meeting with the real data and all sources around the world. I will point on the first sentence on the article which I believe is missleading. 

X = The Bulgars (also Bulghars, Bulgari, Bolgars, Bolghars, Bolgari,[1] Proto-Bulgarians[2]) were Turkic semi-nomadic warrior tribes that flourished in the Pontic–Caspian steppe and the Volga region during the 7th century. I find this first sentence on this article partially correct,by this means I want to say and point out that the Turkic origins of the Bulgaris,currently and since the begining of researching the Bulgars origins,this is the most common accepted theory,hypothesis of their origins. However it is not a fact. What I am trying to say is that the article begins as the origins are proven fact with evidence behind,which is not at this moment. Many historians,scholars and linguist have been debating and accepting common theories of their origins. The turkic one is one of the theories which is accepted,but we cannot disregard the others too as the Iranic theory. I would like to have that sentence edited to more neutral view,since right now it seems that the editors of the authors see the Turkic theory as a fact. Down below the article they have added the theories of other origins,however the sentence they began the article claims as the Bulgars were turkic. It seems its missunderstood. What I want to see is :

Y= The Bulgars (also Bulghars, Bulgari, Bolgars, Bolghars, Bolgari,[1] Proto-Bulgarians[2]) were semi-nomadic warrior tribes that flourished in the Pontic–Caspian steppe and the Volga region during the 7th century.The origins of the Bulgars is not yet fully understood,but they are many theories and hypothesis in existance about it.

At present, the main theories about the origins of the Bulgars are: (1) Turkic origins, (2) Sarmatian origins or Iranian, and (3) mixed, Turkic-Sarmatian origins. Many other theories have been put forward in the past, but have subsequently been shown unsupportable.

If u follow up from 2006 there are plenty of sources which of were taken in considartion taking in the origins and the history of the Bulgaris. In the present there is minority source of Bulgarian scholars or historians implemented into the article ,because simple the Wikipedia Editors on that artice find them Nationalistic point of view or anti-turkic propaganda.

I will really appreciate your time looking upon this request and take necessary actions to make that article less missleading for the public. Thank you!

Best Regards, Nikolay. SvetiNikolay (talk) 14:29, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

It appears you have requested at Talk:Bulgars a specific wording change. That is the proper place to present changes to this semi-protected article. Also appears that at times you are not signed in, so edits appear from IP:95.103.11.6. Please remember to always log in. David notMD (talk) 14:46, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Defamatory bio

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_G._Jacoby 72.218.131.88 (talk) 14:35, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

100% agree. There was a neutral-worded version in July 2020, 'whitewashed' (all mention of sexual misconduct removed) in Nov 2020, subsequently changed to a defamatory version that went beyond NPOV. I restored the July 2020 version but kept one of the recent refs. David notMD (talk) 15:05, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Need guidance in amending my draft

Hi, I have a written a draft on Myc-induced synthetic lethality taking inspiration from other peoples Wikipedia drafts. I have supported my draft with a good number of references. However, My draft is rejected for the reason being that it sounds like an essay. Also, I have written the draft with a neutral point of view. I have no clue as to what fails my draft as none of the sentences are pointed to support the rejection. Hence, it is challenging to improve the draft. Could I get some guidance on this please? Thanks, Vidhula Vidhula A (talk) 14:42, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello Vidhula A and welcome to the Teahouse. This draft seems to contain some of your own research and conclusions; this is not allowed, per Wikipedia:No original research. See also Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_publisher_of_original_thought. It's an interesting and very detailed draft but you shouldn't include your own research or conclusions here in articles. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 15:41, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Courtesy ping @Rubbish computer. Usedtobecool ☎️ 14:18, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Thanks for your prompt reply. The draft does not contain any of my research or conclusions. I have just made a compilation from other studies the references of which are included. Hence there is no original research involved. That's why I am confused. I am trying to edit the draft but every time the same comment comes back. Could you please specifically tell me which lines or paragraph makes it look like it's my research and conclusion and that this is an original research? At least that will help me improve. Thanks, Vidhula

Hi Vidhula A, combining different sources to reach a new conclusion is classed as original research: see WP:SYNTHESIS. I think the examples cover it nicely on that page. It's better to quote what the sources say and otherwise only come to the conclusion said sources come to. I'll go through the draft and add to this answer shortly. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 14:29, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

As an example: "The Myc family includes L-Myc, N-Myc, and C-Myc.[1][2][3][4] MYC expression is known to be highly governed by a series of mechanisms that are involved in the regulatory motifs associated with the transcription activity[5][6][7] MYC protooncogene is associated with many signal transduction pathways that are associated with growth.[8][9]"

Here, it appears that you're coming to your own conclusions. There are three statements here, and none of them are necessarily wrong, but they shouldn't be combined in such a way to come to a new conclusion. It can be frustrating, because this may be useful research, but we can't allow Wikipedians to come to their own conclusions, per WP:SYNTHESIS. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 14:35, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Help with footnotes

I have written the text of my narrative in sandbox. I am now trying to enter my citations. I have read the directions on about how to enter a citation, but I wasn't able to follow or understand them. I need more detailed step by step guidance about how to enter a footnote. Orangecholo (talk) 14:59, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Orangecholo Check these guides:

WP:TUTORIAL

WP:REFBEGIN

User:Nick Moyes/Easier Referencing for Beginners Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:03, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

See List of civil engineers for examples of what articles on civil engineers do and do not contain. WAY too much of what you have drafted is unreferenced laudatory content. All that must be removed. David notMD (talk) 15:17, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

am an amateur

how to start and go on properly??? Zahinian (talk) 15:28, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello Zahinian and welcome to the Teahouse. You can find a general introduction with useful links at Help:Getting started. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 15:33, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

@Zahinian: Welcome to the Teahouse. You may want to try this interactive tutorial. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 16:06, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

How can i submit a draft page?

 Courtesy link: Draft:Badhangarhi temple
i have made a draft page on badhangarhi temple and i want to submit it ,how can i submit it? Yakku3 (talk) 16:07, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

@Yakku3: Welcome to the Teahouse. You can submit the draft for review with {{subst:submit}}, but in its current state it's almost certainly going to be declined with the references you're using. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 16:10, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

@Tenryuu:then which type of references i can use because there is very lass data about this temple. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yakku3 (talk • contribs)

@Yakku3: If there are no reliable sources about this temple, then it isn't notable enough to be on Wikipedia, and no amount of writing will help. (Please remember to sign your posts on talk pages by typing four keyboard tildes like this: ~~~~. Or, you can use the [ reply ] button, which automatically signs posts.) —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:03, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi Yakku3, you can find out more about references at Wikipedia:Reliable sources. If there isn't significant coverage of the temple in reliable sources, then there shouldn't be an article written about it, because this means it is not notable. Cheers, Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 17:03, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Don't start every sentence with a date

Hi folks. There's a guideline, policy or essay on writing style that I can't find which essentially states: "don't start every sentence with a date" ("on 1 January 2021…", "on 4 January…" etc.). I've been doing web searches with different search terms but to no avail. Does anyone have an idea where I could find it? Kind regards, Robby.is.on (talk) 16:25, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Duh, I searched for ages and now that I posted here, I found it near instantly: WP:PROSELINE. Nevermind. :-) Robby.is.on (talk) 16:29, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

How to submit changes to a protected page

A page that I would like to update is currently semi-protected, the page is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_series_database Dirk Beetstra has told me that should prepare a draft called TimescaleDB but I am not clear if I should copy the page and modify the content as the draft, or create a draft containing the changes.

There are two sections I would like to change. The first is the table of Timeseries databases, to add TimescaleDB. The citations for this will include existing references [7] and [10] as per InfluxDB and will add a new citation 14

The second is to add additional citation, 14 (and possibly another one or two). The citation I would like to add is this one, proceedings from the Cray User Group 2018 where they state that they added TimescaleDB as the preferred time series database for PMDB (Power Management Database). https://cug.org/proceedings/cug2018_proceedings/includes/files/pap174s2-file2.pdf as I believe that this should provide sufficient evidence that TimescaleDB warrants inclusion on that page.

One other question: would either of these articles be considered appropriate secondary citations? https://www.dnsfilter.com/blog/why-dnsfilter-replaced-influxdb-with-timescaledb or https://labs.consol.de/development/2018/10/31/introduction-to-timescale-db.html

How should I proceed please? Lorilanc (talk) 16:43, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

@Lorilanc: welcome to the Teahouse, and sorry you did not get a faster response. A community discussion at Talk:Time series database#RfC on inclusion criteria decided that no individual databases should be mentioned in the article unless there is already a Wikipedia article about them. You should not copy parts of the article and edit them, rather, if (and only if) TimescaleDB meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability you can create a draft about it and submit it for review. Please make sure that you comply with Wikipedia's policies regarding confilct of interestand in particular paid editing, if they apply to you. WP:YFA has more information about creating a new draft article. Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 08:13, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

I see that TimescaleDB has been discussed extensively on that article talk page, for several years, and in fact it seems the reason the article was protected is that TimescaleDB was repeatedly being added to the paragraphs you mention. Take a moment to read through the talk page discussions. Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 08:19, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

@Bonadea: Thank you for confirming. I'd read through the talk page but could not 100% follow the dialogue so hadn't picked up on the decision to require a notable page. I agree that someone has repeatedly tried to shoehorn TimescaleDB onto the page... FWIW I want to assure you that wasn't me, and I appreciate why the page was closed to edits. I have checked out the CoI policies, agree with those entirely, and will be sure to comply (I admit I was not aware of those when I made a past edit to a different company page).

Variability of inclusion criteria according to language

I have been referred to this page by Theroadislong.

I had posted on that reviewer's Talk page the following comment and question:

On 15 July 2021, you wrote (above, in Draft: Joseph Ribas (French author)): "other countries Wikipedia have quite different inclusion criteria". It seems surprising that the criteria for publication of Wikipedia articles can vary according to the language in which they are written. This appears to mean that users of Wikipedia in one language may be viewing articles which are of a quality inferior to that of corresponding articles in other languages. Yet Wikipedia is obviously a global "brand". All articles, regardless of language, seem to have a common format and appearance, a common (globe-like) logo, and a common domain name (wikipedia.org). Users might therefore be forgiven for thinking that all articles, regardless of language, are included on the basis of common, global criteria. I don't underestimate the scale of difficulty in securing agreement on, and then enforcing, a common, global set of inclusion criteria. But shouldn't the adoption of global criteria at least be an aim? Perhaps it is. But I've searched, and I haven't yet found a statement to that effect. (None of the above is meant to imply criticism of the criteria that are used for inclusion of Wikipedia articles in English.)

Theroadislong said that I "might get a more informed response" here, at the WP:Teahouse. So any response would be appreciated. Alan Mattingly (talk) 17:15, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

@Alan Mattingly: Welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia policies and guidelines are decided by consensus by its editors and not by the Wikimedia Foundation, who provides the software and appearance of the project. As editors tend to stick to one (or two) different languages, the overall consensus in each Wikipedia will differ. The English Wikipedia has more stringent criteria because it is the most viewed (and edited) language out of the ones available, and there's a sizeable portion of the userbase that can enforce said criteria. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:25, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

@Tenryuu 🐲: Thanks for your swift response. I am probably out of my depth here because I know relatively little about Wikipedia, but it somehow doesn't seem right that users of Wikipedia pages which are viewed less frequently (because they are written in less-used languages) tend to be offered articles which are judged by less stringent criteria. Don't editors from different language zones confer in some way from time to time to try to make their respective consensuses consistent across the globe? - Alan Mattingly (talk)

@Alan Mattingly: This is unfortunately one of the downsides of a volunteer project. Editors may sometimes interact with other users in a more global venue on Meta, but that's a dramatically smaller proportion of users on here, who solely peruse the English Wikipedia, and none of its sister projects like Wikibooks, Wikivoyage, or even Wikisource. (Please remember to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~) so that your username and timestamp show up in the signature.) —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 20:45, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

@Tenryuu 🐲: Fair enough. But it's to be hoped that there is at least a set of minimum global standards that editors in all languages are expected to comply with, and a process for trying to enforce those standards. (Incidentally, when I started this thread, I was told not to sign with tildes...).Alan Mattingly (talk) 06:59, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

@Alan Mattingly: The most likely way to do so would be to go make a proposal at Meta, but even there I don't find it likely to be accepted, editor discretion and all,
Opening questions are designed to sign on the asker's behalf; all subsequent comments are not. This is because a fair amount of newcomers don't know how to sign, and some don't leave follow-up comments. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 13:07, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Edits to the Palma Sola Article Reverted

The information on the Palma Sola massacre which took place in Dominican Republic, which I came across in my research, is biased and uninformed and omits key points behind the religious community which was massacred. The current entry also misrepresents the spiritual leader who founded the movement. Why were the edits reverted? Brooklynctitizen (talk) 17:31, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

@Brooklynctitizen: The edits were reverted here for being unsourced. Victor Schmidt (talk) 17:33, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm happy to add sources. The only reason I made this edit is that I was alarmed that the two sources referenced are travel guides written by white Americans. How is this a credible source? Travel guides are not historically accurate yet this information stands though it is biased and omits key information about this movement and its leader. This is misleading for any reader. Brooklynctitizen (talk) 17:47, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

@Brooklynctitizen: This sort of discussion is best had on the article talk page. You will still need sources for what you wish to add, and any other sources are not vaporized just because additional ones exist. If you have further comment, please edit this existing section, instead of creating additional sections. 331dot (talk) 17:59, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

There is a book called Peasants and Religion: A Socioeconomic Study of Dios Olivorio and the Palma Sola Religion in the Dominican Republic that may well be an excellent source. Brooklynctitizen, Wikipedia articles are works in progress, many of them have weaknesses, and many thousands of editors work every day to improve them. You are right that travel books are mediocre sources for history, but that is their nature and has nothing to do with the race or nationality of their authors. The solution is to add better sources, summarize those sources, and improve the article until the travel books are no longer needed. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:11, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

This is a new process for me so I will add final comments here. In terms of process why didn't Wikipedia simply alert me that the edits would be reverted if the sources were not added? Regarding the nationality and race of the travel authors it is absolutely relevant considering that this was an Afro-Latino resistance movement in response to the American occupation of Dominican Republic. It is neglectful to not include that Liborio was hunted and murdered by US marines. White washing history is not truthful and honest and I would think Wiki would strive for truthfulness. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brooklynctitizen (talk • contribs) This is a new process for me so I will add final comments here. In terms of process why didn't Wikipedia simply alert me that the edits would be reverted if the sources were not added? Regarding the nationality and race of the travel authors it is absolutely relevant considering that this was an Afro-Latino resistance movement in response to the American occupation of Dominican Republic. It is neglectful to not include that Liborio was hunted and murdered by US marines. White washing history is not truthful and honest and I would think Wiki would strive for truthfulness. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brooklynctitizen (talk • contribs)

White American authors are perfectly capable of accurately reporting on and criticizing the actions of the U.S. Marine Corps, but a diversity of reliable sources is a good thing. You are now just as much a Wikipedia editor as any of us, and are welcome to get to work on improving that article, in accordance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:32, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Every new editor finds the guidelines less than ideal. You have access to a personalized watch list in the top menu. That way, when you log in, click on your watch list and you will see a mention of the most recent edit, including reverts. General rule is reference as you go, rather than edit and add refs later. Some people compose in their Sandbox, then paste the completed (and ref'd) work when happy with it. David notMD (talk) 21:22, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Ajoku Gift Best

 Ajoku gift best (talk) 17:52, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

@Ajoku gift best: Welcome to the Teahouse. Did you have a question about using or editing Wikipedia? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:56, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

obituary for a source

Can an obituary be used as a source? 73.167.238.120 (talk) 19:23, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Absolutely! As long as it is a reliable, published, source.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 19:43, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Actually, in many cases, the answer might be "no", but that would depend on who wrote the obituary. If it was one submitted by someone connected to the person the obituary is about, then it would likely be considered a self-published source and have very little value as a source, particularly if it were used to support a claim about some other third-party. If, on the other hand, it was something written by an independent third party published in a publication with an established record of editorial control, then perhaps it would be OK to cite. For example, if the entertainment writer at a major newspaper writes an "obituary-like" article about a movie actor who has just died, then that might have some value to Wikipedia; however, if the "obituary" is just a sort of "press release" type of thing submitted by the actor's family or the actor's representatives, then that probably has little if any value, and could only be used very restrictively if even at all. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:00, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Marchjuly, the news source I read more often than any other is the Guardian (theguardian.com). As this is pretty ambitious in its coverage and doesn't require payment or even nag intolerably for it (I happily pay anyway), it seems to be a favorite of many editors. It very commonly has long and informative (and, in ways that are seldom useful for Wikipedia, fascinating) obituaries written by friends and acquaintances of the deceased. (This is made quite clear: "As a BM colleague, I came to appreciate his achievements...", etc.) Warts and all; but, unsurprisingly, the warts aren't dwelt on. The Independent is similar. But both the Guardian and the Independent also publish obituaries by people whose publications for the respective newspapers suggest that they were chosen not because they were personally acquainted (they may not have been) but because they were/are skilled writers of obituaries in the relevant area. (See as examples the obituaries of John Glashan here and here.) I presume that these newspapers have high expectations of their obituarists, independent or otherwise, so I'm happy to cite any obituary that appears in them. -- Hoary (talk) 00:17, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

I look for obituaries to find out when a person died and, if the person wasn't controversial, I believe the basic information, such as how many children the person had. But some people have been known to disown adult children, or exaggerate what they have accomplished, so you can't always trust what's in an obituary, because some people write their own, to make sure it says what they want it to say. That being said, I usually trust straight-forward obits, that tell a death date, and where a person lived and worked. Karenthewriter (talk) 23:11, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

First time new article contributor

When writing about music artists what are the best practices for sourcing their music? I have a few more I would like to write about and need help making sure I source reliable sources

I should have checked the guidelines further for more informations on which sources could be used and which ones could not. When I was doing the research on Rawle Harding I did a google search and there are articles written about his music however, i assumed when it came to listing his music a link to the source would be appropriate. I realize now it is not a reliable source. I have since removed those sources and added others. Kaimake (talk) 23:52, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Question

A few minutes ago I wrote a page about a client who is the founder of a fashion brand, some guy removed it. The reason was that there was promotional content in it, and if there was none at all. Letterwriter2021 (talk) 23:56, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

@Letterwriter2021: Welcome to the Teahouse. If you're writing on behalf of a client, you must disclose your paid relationship on your user page; you may use {{paid}} to do so. I also noticed that you seem to refer yourself as "we"; take this as a reminder that Wikipedia accounts are for one person and one person alone; sharing accounts is not allowed.

If you haven't, please read Your first article, as it gives details on how to write one, and go through the Articles for Creation process and make a draft. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:03, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Letterwriter2021 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. You had edited your user page, which is not article space or space to draft an article, but a place to tell about yourself as a Wikipedia editor. New users cannot (and are advised not to) create new articles directly, and should use Articles for Creation. That's not why your draft was deleted- it was considered promotional because it just told about the person. Wikipedia is not for merely telling about someone. Wikipedia articles must do more, they must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about a person, showing how they meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable person. Please see Your First Article. Successfully creating a new article is one of the hardest tasks to perform on Wikipedia; it's good to first get some experience editing existing articles, to get a feel for how Wikipedia operates and what is expected of article content. Using the new user tutorial will help as well. 331dot (talk) 00:05, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

We as a team make a client page, that’s what I meant. Can I restore a deleted article? and another question, if I put a paid article, do I have to pay some money to wikipedia and will that article get a place on google as a paid article?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Letterwriter2021 (talk • contribs)

Letterwriter2021 Wikipedia does not charge for creating articles. Wikipedia also has no interest in helping you enhance search results for your clients; Google results are a side benefit, which might benefit you and your client, but that's not our mission. We are here to build an encyclopedia of human knowledge, not to aid in marketing efforts. There are ways to recover deleted content, but I doubt anyone will do so. 331dot (talk) 00:10, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

We are writing about a person who is already recognizable, I wonder where that tag for paid content is placed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Letterwriter2021 (talk • contribs)

Letterwriter2021 If they are already recognizable and meet the special definition of a notable person that Wikipedia has, it would be better for you to allow independent editors to take note of this person in reliable sources and choose on their own to write about them. You should also be aware that a Wikipedia article is not necessarily desirable. You may place the paid declaration on your user page. 331dot (talk) 00:19, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

What exactly is the mark for paid? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Letterwriter2021 (talk • contribs)

You may simply write a statement which says "I am being paid by (whomever is paying you) to make Wikipedia edits about (your client or clients). 331dot (talk) 00:28, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

The paid declaration goes on your User page. Also, please 'sign' your comments by typing four of ~ at the end. And stop referring to yourself as "we". You as an individual have an account. You as an individual are responsible for what is written from that account. You may be working with other people ("a team"), but the account is for one person to use. Lastly, Wikipedia has articles, not pages. Once an article is accepted, any editor can amend it as long as references support the changes. No one 'owns' articles. David notMD (talk) 01:35, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Letterwriter2021, and welcome to the Teahouse. I suspect that some of the responses above have appeared a bit hostile. The fact is that (aside from an unlikely degree of altruism), if somebody is paying you to put them on Wikipedia then they are paying you for promotion. Promotion is fine many places on the web, but it is fundamentally inconsistent with the purposes of Wikipedia. You are permitted to edit as a pair editor, provided you make the necessary declarations; but you can and should expect your work to be carefully checked to make sure it complies with Wikipedia's policies. As 331dot indicated, a Wikipedia article is not in any way for the benefit of its subject - any benefit they may derive is incidental, as far as Wikipedia is concerned. Note also that Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost entirely interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources. Any article should be based almost 100% on what such independent sources say, not on what the subject says or wants to say. And once an article is accepted, your and your client's involvement in it will be limited to suggesting changes: neither of you will have control of the content. --ColinFine (talk)

David notMD My problem is what I will call and whom. So your discussion is worth nothing. Thanks to the others for the answers. Greetings— Preceding unsigned comment added by Letterwriter2021 (talk • contribs) 12:35, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Team editing via one account can get you blocked. Wikipedia prefers "articles" over "pages" because social media treats the latter as proprietary to the person who created it. David notMD (talk) 01:56, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Notability from video and audio

Can a youtube video or a radio program/podcast ever be used to demonstrate the notability of an article? I think there's a guideline or essay about how Wikipedia has a bias toward digital news rather than books and newspapers, but I don't remember what it was called. TipsyElephant (talk) 02:44, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

For YouTube, only if the source (1) was produced by an outlet we would otherwise consider reliable and (2) uploaded to that outlet's verified channel. Otherwise, no.

For radio programmes/podcasts, again yes if it was produced by an outlet we would otherwise consider reliable, otherwise no. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 02:54, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

How to get Rollbacker

 King Rudra 03:14, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello, King Rudra. In order to gain the rollback user right, an editor must have a good record of differentiating vandalism from other types of problematic edits. Pease read Wikipedia:Rollback for how to apply. But why would an administrator give an advanced permission to an editor who has "officially retired" posted on their user page? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:39, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Also, what's with the 'invisible' content on your User page? Suggest your Sandbox would be a better place for creating a draft. David notMD (talk) 08:51, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

DYK help

I have been working on a DYK piece for the page The Anarchist Cookbook and it appears I made a mess of things. Can someone please lend me a hand of fixing the subpage? Etriusus (talk) 05:46, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

@Etriusus: Happy to help, but what exactly do you need help with? I don't understand what you mean by "subpage"; mainspace articles aren't supposed to have them. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (talk) 06:55, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

@Ganbaruby: I assume Etriusus is talking about the first section of Talk:The Anarchist Cookbook, where there are DYK errors introduced. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 12:56, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

@Ganbaruby: and @Tenryuu: I need issue with the section of DYK where it is saying that there are errors within the nomination. I.e. ""The Anarchist Cookbook" is not a valid article name; check for bad characters,"User:Etriusus" is not a valid user name; check for bad characters. Error: no articles specified". It was my error in calling it a subpage. Etriusus (talk) 18:52, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

@Etriusus: Hello Etriusus, welcome to the teahouse. Did you know nominations are supposed to be created on separate pages in template space, rather than on the talk page of the article. Follow the instructions at Template talk:Did you know#Instructions for nominators, which will take you through the process of creating the subpage in template space. You should just be able to copy across all the stuff you filled in on the talk page. If you need extra help you'll probably get better responses at Wikipedia talk:Did you know where there will be a lot more people familiar with the process. 192.76.8.91 (talk) 19:00, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Etriusus, I've fixed all the stuff for you. Please see Template:Did you know nominations/The Anarchist Cookbook. ─ The Aafī ^(talk) 19:17, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Uploading of Video Game Cover Art Screenshots

Can I upload a higher-quality and more up-to-date video game cover art screenshot to a Wikipedia article about the game? This is the Wikipedia article I would like to add updated video game cover art for. As you can see on the page, the current cover art still has a "Rating Pending" ESRB label in the corner. I found a replacement image online with the correct ESRB rating (E for Everyone), and would like to upload the image to replace the existing one. With this use case in mind, I would also like to know if it still qualifies as Fair Use in a manner consistent with Wikipedia's non-free content criteria, as I saw the fact that the existing image is of a low resolution (256 × 359) mentioned on the file's page (linked in image below), and the image I found online is of a much higher resolution (1539 x 2154). From what I understand, the image I found online is a user-uploaded scan of the cover art, and can be found here. I am using the VisualEditor.

TheDoctor50 (talk) 06:16, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

@TheDoctor50: Yes, you may replace the image, but I would find a version without the back cover on it. Fair use allows copyrighted images in articles only for identification purposes, which is what the image is being used for here (the full list of criteria is at WP:NFCCP; all 10 must be met). Note that the low resolution is intentional because readers only need to be able to identify the game, and should not be able to take that image for other purposes (see WP:IMAGERES). There's a bot that goes around resizing images, but that takes a while, so I always resize it myself when uploading a free use file. As for how exactly to replace the image, go to the file's description page at File:Nicktoons - Battle for Volcano Island Coverart.png, scroll to the "File history" section, and click "Upload a new version of this file". Then, go into VisualEditor on that page, edit the big template under the "Summary" header, and update the "Source" parameter to the URL where the image is hosted. A bot will delete the now-unused older version. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (talk) 06:48, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Auto confirmation

hi just wanted to find out why my account has not been auto confirmed yet? I've made over ten edits now. My account has been active over 2 weeks. So when will it get auto confirmed? will we receive any email regarding confirmation? Also, once its auto confirmed, will I be able to create a new article and publish it live overnight? thank you @vash171 Vash171 (talk) 06:17, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

@Vash171: You have 8 edits so far, all of which are visible on your contributions list. While you can theoretically directly create articles in mainspace once you are autoconfirmed, I strongely adivse against it, because new articles are expected to meet most of the content guidelines, in particular, they must be well-sourced, have a claim of notability, neutral and not a copyright violation. New articles who don't meet the content criteria for articles often end up in draftspace anyway, so there is nothing preventing you from creating a draft, perhaps with the Article Wizard, until you demonstrateable have the experience in how to create new articles. Victor Schmidt (talk) 06:38, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Be aware that articles which bypassed Articles for Creation review are reviewed by the New Pages Patrol, which may execute a Speedy delete, kick back to draft or start an Articles for Deletion. Also, such articles are 'invisible' to Google and other search engines until either the NPP review or 90 days. David notMD (talk) 08:56, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Best practice for embedded irrelevant listing inside article

Hey! Still somewhat new and nonconfident with removing content from articles (I'm want to make sure I'm not making mistakes), but I'm pretty sure that the listing on phone models at Always on Display in the history section is unnecessary. I feel like, if the models shouldn't be removed, they should at least be rewritten (e.g. Google Pixel 2 through 5; or Galaxy S7 series and later.)

The article also has other issues, but I'm not sure how to clean it the best. aaPle (talk) 06:47, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

@AaPle: You may bring up your concerns at the talk page of that article and wait for other editors interested in the subject to give feedback. Or, you may be bold and make the change! If you do get reverted, follow the WP:BRD process to reach a consensus. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (talk) 07:00, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

I made a template in my sandbox. How do I move it to the mainspace?

I created a template on the Regional Councils of France in my sandbox. Can I/someone move it to the mainspace? Or is there any formality for making templates? Excellenc1📞 07:26, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

@Excellenc1 I think you can move it to the template namespace without any formality. ―Qwerfjkltalk 08:16, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

What is a template namespace? Will it be User:Excellenc1/Template:Regional Councils (France) or Template:Regional Councils (France)? Excellenc1📞 08:21, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

The latter. (It's the, not a, template namespace.) -- Hoary (talk) 08:36, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

I have created this template. Can someone please review it (if something is to be fixed in it)? Excellenc1📞 09:24, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

@Excellenc1 I just checked it, it looked fine except for the documentation, which was at User:Excellenc1/doc, so I moved it to Template:Regional Councils (France)/doc, and fixed the transclusion from {{User:Excellenc1/doc}} to {{Documentation}}. ―Qwerfjkltalk 11:16, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Teahouse editors, please have a look at some unanswered peer reviews

Hi all. Teahouse is known for its kind and gentle introduction to editing. We have a larger than usual amount of peer reviews that are lingering without any response at all, sometimes for several months. In my experience most peer reviews are from new editors or editors hoping to improve the quality of their editing. I think most reviews would benefit from the kind and helpful feedback of teahouse regulars and implore anyone who reads this to at least have a look at the list of unanswered reviews (WP:PRWAITING) and ideally respond to two or three of them. Many thanks, Tom (LT) (talk) 07:53, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Tom (LT), I've only had one experience with peer review, and it wasn't one that I enjoyed. I didn't want to clobber the editor (who no doubt had meant well) for what they had written, particularly as it had (in my opinion) damaged what I had written, but I believed that faithfulness to the facts and fairness to the biographee had to trump reticence about "ownership", or encouragement or welcome, so clobber I did. If I hadn't already been familiar with the cited material, I'd have had to spend more time looking for it and digesting it than I'd have been willing to spend. Did I go about this the wrong way? -- Hoary (talk) 08:52, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Issues with verification for my article

Greetings, I recently joined the Wikipedia to contribute whenever is necessary. Because I recently got my patent accepted, I thought it was worthy of mention, especially in Nigeria where Intellectual Property is hardly understood or mentioned.

I wrote about myself, in what I think was a very modest way but two reviewers said it lacked reference. As I said, Nigeria patent and design registry, though affiliated to WIPO, don't give links for accepted patents but document from the government showing patent acceptance with patent number. I have my patent document.

I would like to get a clearer reason why the article failed to pass the review and what I can do to be accepted. Thanks Mirep1404 (talk) 09:27, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Check out WP:COI and WP:CITE. - AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 10:20, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@Mirep1404: Please review WP:AUTOBIO and undertsnad that a Wikipedia article might not nessearely be desireable. To add to your question, anything on Wikipedia must be verifyable, in particular when writing about living people, because we are not interested in a rerun of the Seigenthaler incident. Victor Schmidt (talk) 10:21, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi Mirep1404. It sounds like you might be (slightly) misunderstanding what Wikipedia is about. Perhaps if you take a look at Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:The answer to life, the universe, and everything, you might gain a better understanding about what types of subjects are generally considered OK to try and create an article about. You probably should also take a look at Wikipedia:Autobiography and Wikipedia:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing for additional information. Please try and understand not being written about on Wikipedia doesn't necessarily mean you haven't already or won't someday accomplish some pretty great things; it's just means that perhaps at this time it might be too soon for an article to be written about you. -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:26, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Courtesy: Draft:Jeswills Eleke. What is mandatory is not confirmation of your accomplishments (patent), but rather that you have reached a level of notability in your field of expertise that other people have published articles about you. Also, what you submitted as refs 4-7 are not valid, as all refs must be to publication (print, web, etc.), not just statements of fact. David notMD (talk) 14:35, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Mirep1404 Wikipedia is not the only way to present information online. You might want to consider starting a personal website, or register a blog account. That way you would be able to tell those in Nigeria about patents and intellectual property, without worrying about following the strict rules of an online encyclopedia.

I hope that you will continue to contribute to Wikipedia by means of editing articles on subjects that you are familiar with, after you find good references that verify what you are adding to the articles. Congratulations on receiving a patent. Karenthewriter (talk) 18:05, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

If topic gets stolen, then...?

If I am making a draft on a topic, but at the same time another user made an article on the same topic, my draft will get declined. But then all my work will get wasted. Is there any method to prevent it? (This happened to me few days ago, I was creating a draft on Cap Écologie but at the same time, another user created an article on the topic Cap Écologie. It didn't affect me much because my draft was short.) Excellenc1📞 10:22, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi Excellenc1. You might want to take a look at Wikipedia:Ownership of content for more details, but basically we as editors don't really have any claim of ownership of the articles we create and edit in the sense that we can stop people from taking what we create and reusing it in some way (for reference, we really don't even own our user pages). Every time we hit the "Publish changes" button we are basically agreeing to allow others to do whatever they want with it as long as they comply with the terms of Wikipedia:Text of Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License; in other words, we "own" the copyright over the content we create, but are agreeing to let others reuse it for any purpose as long as they say where they got the content from. So, while I can understand how what happened might be a bit frustrating, I wouldn't consider it a case of stealing (at least not as you seem to be using the term). The only possible problem I can see with what has happened is if the other editor basically copied-and-pasted the content you created into their "article" and didn't not give proper attribution to the original source of the content. You're always free to improve the existing article if you want, and incorporate content from you draft into it if you can do so in accordance with relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines. You can either be WP:BOLD in making changes or you can be WP:CAUTIOUS; if another editor disagrees with your changes, then try and resolve things in accordance with WP:DISPUTERESOLUTION. -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:38, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Creating Proposals

How do I?

Hi,

I am wondering how to create a new Proposal for a Wikipedia Page. There is an image that is incorrect, and the text goes incorrectly with it. May I know how to create a Proposal, please? It'sBirdy (talk) 10:31, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

It'sBirdy Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. By "proposal" I think you mean you want to make an edit or request an edit? It's not necessary to seek permission to make an edit; you are welcome to make it yourself if you feel comfortable doing so. If you don't feel comfortable, that's okay too, in which case you may post on the associated article talk page, describing what you wish to do. You can make it as a formal edit request(click for instructions) but that's not required. 331dot (talk) 10:42, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi It'sBirdy. If you find an error in an article and you think you can fix it in accordance with relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines, then you can be WP:BOLD and fix it without proposing anything. If you think something might be wrong but aren't sure or aren't sure how to fix it, you can be WP:CAUTIOUS and start a discussion about the matter on the relevant article's talk page to seek feedback from others. -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:44, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Review of new page

Hello, hoping you can help me understand how "unreliable sources" are defined when they are not, and how a decision can be challenged. This page is linked to original sources at the BBC, The Shaw Trust Power 100, The Royal National Institute for the Blind, and London Transport campaigns -- all original source material references to this individual.

These are leading UK media and national insitutions. It is hard to see how much credible the sources can be, and how we can demonstrate that the reviewer was incorrect, and have a second opinion please? Thank you.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Dr._Amy_Kavanagh Kookkee Monster (talk) 11:56, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

@Kookkee Monster: That decline reason (This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.) is actually overloaded, as it can mean two things (or sometimes a mixture of both):1) Some of the sources are unreliable 2) This draft has reliable sources, but we need more in order to verify everything stated. You can check at WP:RSP if there is already consensus on the reliability of a particular source. Also, please see WP:CITEHOW - So far, the draft has a bunch of external links, but no actual inline citations, which are required for articles about living or recently departed people. Victor Schmidt (talk) 12:11, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Kookkee Monster, and welcome to the Teahouse. Your references may very well be reliable, but that is only one of the criteria: most sources also need to be independent of the subject (for example, the subject's own website may be cited only for very limited information, as explained at SPS). The bulk of the content of an article must be derived from sources wholly unconnected with the subject - not them, nor their associates, employers, or institutions; and nothing based on a press release or interview. Because you have not cited your sources in one of the recommended manners, it is hard for a reviewer to evaluate them; and with hundreds of reviews waiting, in a pile that can take months to sort through, reviewers have little incentive to dig into a draft which is presented in a way that makes this difficult. --ColinFine (talk) 14:39, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Actually, Draft:Dr. Amy Kavanagh has no refs, because what you did was place hyperlinks in the body of the article rather than in reference format. Also, after it was declined, you resubmitted without making improvements, hence declined a second time. David notMD (talk) 14:42, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the welcome and all the constructive comments. After a refresher reading on how to cite rather than link, (I'd forgotten and wrongly assumed that the links created the references) I went ahead and did 14 citations, fully referenced with dates, links, titles and accessed on details. I hope they can be recovered as unfortunately someone else seems to have not merged but overwritten them. Again, thank you for the supportive comments. Kookkee Monster (talk) 17:48, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

I recommend recreating the refs in your Sandbox, then pasting into article. David notMD (talk) 02:58, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Move category

A club called Sreenidi Deccan FC was given entry to I-League (a top tier football league in India). Some of the categories and subcategories of page is spelled 'Sreenidhi Deccan FC', where the letter 'h' is there in between. According the the club website and social media handles, it is wrong. So someone, please move the categories from 'Sreenidhi Deccan FC' to 'Sreenidi Deccan FC'. I cannot do it by myself because the option is not visible in here. Someone, please help me sort that out. Thank you. Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 12:17, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

@Ken Tony: Hello Ken Tony, welcome to the teahouse. If the categories are misspelled then you'll want to list them for speedy renaming, following the instructions at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion#Speedy renaming and merging. In this case the relevant criteria would be WP:C2A, Typographic and spelling fixes. If 48 hours pass with no one objecting the category will be moved to the new title, and a bot will automatically fix all the category transclusions on pages. 192.76.8.91 (talk) 12:36, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

192.76.8.91 This issue comes under WP:C2D right? Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 13:44, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

@Ken Tony: Since the article uses the same spelling that would also be a valid criteria, I would give both of them in your rationale for moving them when setting up the request. 192.76.8.91 (talk) 13:54, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

@Ken Tony: https://www.sreenidhifc.com/ uses both "Sreenidhi Football Club" (with 'h') and "Sreenidi Deccan Football Club" (without 'h'). Although I created the categories by request, I'll let someone more knowledgeable determine what the correct name is. GoingBatty (talk) 14:12, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

@GoingBatty: I think it might be good if we select "Sreenidi Deccan Football Club" (without 'h'), because in their website, under this heading only they mentioned about their I-League entry. The same is used in all of their social media handles. AIFF (governing body of Indian football) also uses the same in their website. Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 14:46, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Archiving my own talk page rather than deleting to clean up and declutter

Hello, I am sure it is covered somewhere, but my own talk page is getting cluttered so I have been deleting stuff to declutter. What I would ideally like to do is not delete but somehow archive the material and not delete so it still results in an uncluttered - or at least less cluttered - page please. Can anyone point me in the right direction if possible please? GRALISTAIR (talk) 14:44, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

@GRALISTAIR: Welcome to the Teahouse. There are different ways you can to do, which are listed at Archiving a talk page. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 14:53, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks - I have made a start GRALISTAIR (talk) 15:20, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

@GRALISTAIR You appear to be doing it manually. Also you can use {{Archives}} or {{talk header}} on your talk page. ―Qwerfjkltalk 15:30, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

@GRALISTAIR @Tenryuu You can also try User:Anne drew Andrew and Drew/SetupAutoArchive (a user script). ―Qwerfjkltalk 15:24, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

@GRALISTAIR, I "installed" it at my talkpage in this edit: [1] If that looks ok to you, you can copy the code. You may have to wait several hours for the bot to actually archive stuff. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:33, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Come to think of it, you probably should tweak the "archive=User talk:Gråbergs Gråa Sång/Archive %(counter)d" bit. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:42, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Comment It's absurd that we expect new editors figure out how to archive their talk page. Perfect job for a bot.--S Philbrick(Talk) 18:23, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Sphilbrick There are some editors who prefer to just delete old stuff or archive it manually, so I'm not sure about a bot opting people into automatic archiving. How about creating an automatically substituted wrapper template that produces a copy of one of the bot setup templates with all the parameters filled in with some reasonable default values? Then when someone asks how to setup auto archiving for their talk page you can just tell them "just add {{Auto archive setup}} to the top of your talk page, and bots will deal with the rest". 192.76.8.91 (talk) 18:49, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

I like the idea. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:21, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång But to use Lowercase sigmabot III or ClueBot III? Probably sigmabot. ―Qwerfjkltalk 19:34, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

I would go for Lowecase sigmabot III, on the basis that the vast majority of users aren't going to need the extra functionality of cluebot (creating an index page and retargeting incoming links), and that cluebot has had major performance issues in the past. 192.76.8.91 (talk) 19:38, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

I don't have an informed opinion on that. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:39, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

I keep proposing this idea, rather than carrying it out for two reasons: I don't have any bot skills, and I don't have a clue which of the various archive options is the best. I know that when I started, I didn't have a clue about how to go about it — I asked somebody probably at a helpdesk and somebody set it up for me. It's worked ever since but I don't know whether the option I have is the best option or if there something better but it works for me.

I'm fully on board with the notion that some people might prefer to do it themselves. I also wouldn't automatically set it up for every new user. Something like 90% of them never have more than a handful of edits so it would be silly to set up talk page archives for millions of uses that would never use it. My suggestion is we pick some threshold, perhaps number of edits or number of days or some combination, and then a bot could drop a message on the editors talk page that says there is a option to automatically archive the page. The editor either clicks okay or decline. If they decline they will never be bothered again but if they accept, a bot come along and sets up the archiving. They can always manually override with a different option if they choose.--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:28, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Try it out at Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:40, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Saber mensur

File information

Description	Saber mensur, in German Säbelmensur
Source	Landsmannschaft Zaringia Heidelberg
Date	1913
Author	Felix Geiger
Permission (Reusing this file)	Landsmannschaft Zaringia Heidelberg

Licensing: By Licensing are all members of the Landsmannschaft Zaringia Heidelberg. How can I put the video on Landsmannschaft Zaringia Heidelberg? https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Upload&wpDestFile=S%C3%A4belmensur_der_Heidelberger_Landsmannschaft_Zaringia_und_Cheruskia_1913.jpg Wname1 (talk) 16:19, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi Wname1 and welcome to the Teahouse. From Commons:Licensing; "Wikimedia Commons only accepts media that are explicitly freely licensed, or

that are in the public domain in at least the United States and in the source country of the work." If media isn't either specifically licensed, or in the public domain, it can't stay on Commons due to copyright issues. Cheers, Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 16:36, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello Rubbish computer "Wikimedia Commons only accepts media that are explicitly freely licensed, or that are in the public domain in at least the United States and in the source country of the work." It is Licensing like you said. What should I do now? Wname1 (talk) 17:04, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi Wname1, I'm not that proficient at Commons terms. You need to provide said licensing if you upload to Commons; it can be complicated, and it may be easier to ask this question on Commons. It looks like the video was deleted as it didn't have proof of the proper licensing. If there is no specification that the work is licensed, it can be deleted from Commons after a set time period. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 17:08, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

@Wname1: If the photograph was indeed taken in 1913 by Felix Geiger, then provided he has been dead for over 70 years, it will now be out of copyright. So one way forward is for you to provide evidence for his date of death and add that information to Commons when you re-upload the file. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:26, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

@Michael D. Turnbull:I am currently on the way to find out, when that date Felix Geiger died. Regards, Wname1 (talk) 06:41, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Draft question

My page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Siddhant_Sarang had been denied several times. This time the denied message has asked about paid or COI disclosure. But I was not paid by anyone to create or edit the page. 2405:201:A403:C8E0:9C4B:7991:96B8:F2B6 (talk) 18:43, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

@2405:201:A403:C8E0:9C4B:7991:96B8:F2B6: Welcome to the Teahouse. The reason that the reviewer thinks you have a COI, even if you don't, is the use of language such as "one of a kind" and "first ever"; this sort of language has, in the past, been frequently used by paid editors. Once you remove those, I think you're in great shape. I'd recommend reading WP:WORDS to get a sense of what to watch out for. Helen(💬📖) 19:14, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Deleting subpages in my Sandbox

Do I have to do anything specific to delete old subpages that I had in my sandbox? TipsyElephant (talk) 19:27, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

@TipsyElephant: Welcome to the Teahouse! Just add {{Db-userreq}} to the top of each subpage, and an admin will delete them for you. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 19:31, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Article Creation

How can I add a podcast? Cotryk (talk) 19:33, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

@Cotryk: Have a look here: {{Cite podcast}}. Victor Schmidt (talk) 19:43, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

@Cotryk: Welcome to the Teahouse! If you're looking to create a new Wikipedia article about a podcast, first read Wikipedia:Notability (web) to see if it meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, called "notability". If it does, then follow the instructions at Help:Your first article. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 19:46, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

How to get a variety of sources in an article? Multiple passes or thorough reading?

Sometimes when I am writing about a topic, I worry that I represent one source (and the viewpoint associated with it) too much, but at the same time I don't think "completely reading" all sources before starting writing is feasibale.

Is this okay? Do people have opinion or tips on this?

For some subjects things are simpler. If you are narrowly writing about one topic in science you can look at a recent review and you will get a fairly complete summary. In humanities... it feels more complicated. It can feel like to know what to read you have to start writing.

In my head there is an evolutionary process where an article might initially be biased by one source, but through people progressively being interested in the varied literature for factual claims a variety of sources and viewpoints get added to contextualize the source. But are we happy with the bias initially? Is this how things happen in practice? And is an approach of "read towards you write" better. I have seen authors argue far more in favour of "find the best sources and summarize them" I'm unsure if this is possible. I am reminded of the concept of "inductive research strategies" where you don't know what to look for or how to do thigns until you start looking. I sometimes feeling that editing wikipedia can be like that.

It feels like there's a related idea of "using your understand of a topic in order to find sources" or "systematically looking for sources and summarizing them". The former creates bias and invites OP, the latter is "stupid" and can't search correctly. It feels like a general question of how much you should use "OR" type thinking when making editorial decisions - this isn't the same as introducing OR. You can simultaneously be scrupulous with your sourcing and referencing, while also having you understand of the topic influence your editing quite a lot.... Talpedia (talk) 20:59, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Talpedia. In my opinion, a new article should never summarize just one source because the General notabilty guideline requires significant coverage in reliable, independent sources (plural). A widely accepted essay Wikipedia:Multiple sources recommends at least three such sources. Certain topics have a plethora of sources, such as Abraham Lincoln who is the subject of about 15,000 published books. Clearly, the editors who were working on Lincoln's Wikipedia biography 20 years ago could not have read even a tiny fraction of those books, so it is necessary in a case like that to select recent books written by respected academics. But 20 years into this encyclopedia, with over 6.3 million articles, articles about all of the heavily covered topics are already written. Topics of potential new articles usually have fewer readily accessible sources. So, you should read as much as you can about the topic, reject the sources that are dubious or consist only of a passing mention of the topic, and select those that are reliable and discuss the topic in depth. The Neutral point of view requires that our articles summarize the range of points of view of the topic, so if the topic is at all controversial, you must read sources from the most prominent points of view and summarize all of them. I have written six new articles in the last six weeks, and they have had 7, 5, 4, 21, 20 and 8 references. I gather most of my references before I start writing, but often find others as I proceed. I finished an article on a more sweeping topic a couple of months ago that now has 59 references. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:16, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

All I can add is - I feel your pain GRALISTAIR (talk) 00:30, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Logan Park High

 Courtesy link: Logan Park High School
Info removed ; I made a correction and add info both on the principal and year school started important part of history that was missed - yet this has been removed despite another member verification on the principal death.

The editor is dismissing me and happy for incorrect info surley he does not have the sole right on what goes on about the school and also to delete the true history of 1974 the school opened vs the reported 1975 - my school photo is not wrong 😀 neither is memory

Disappointed in my effort to help being dismissed RiJac (talk) 22:25, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

@RiJac: Hello RiJac, welcome to the teahouse.

Wikipedia articles are written based on information available in reliable published sources, memories are not usable as citations in articles. To support this claim you'll need to find some kind of published work that includes it, for example you might use a newspaper announcing the opening of the school. For this kind of simple factual information published materials from the school themselves would also be acceptable, e.g. if they have a history section on their website that mentions the date the school opened you could use that. 192.76.8.91 (talk) 22:46, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

@RiJac: Welcome to the Teahouse. As you've been told on your talk page, your sources need to be verifiable, which is done through reliable sources, which are typically secondary sources. Personal recollections can't be verified. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 22:46, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

How do I create a page for someone not listed

How do I create a page for someone not listed on Wikipedia? Cadman2001 (talk) 23:25, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

WP:YOURFIRSTARTICLE TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 23:30, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

@Cadman2001: There are a few ways to do it. However, there are a few things that you should keep in mind first. One of the major things is notability, however you should also keep in mind whether or not you have a conflict of interest with the subject you are wanting to create an article for. I'm probably forgetting a few things but if the person you are adding is in line with the above then you will want to see Your First Article, which provides some advice for creating an article. As I said before there are probably a few things I'm forgetting, and if I am other people will add on to what I've said. But I think I've at least covered some of the more important things. Hope this helps! Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 23:42, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Cadman2001. Your first and most important step, by far, is to identify multiple independent reliable sources that devote significant coverage to the person. These will become the references that will serve as the skeleton of the article, and if you cannot find such sources, it is not possible to write an acceptable Wikipedia biography. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:45, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Not by creating a promotional piece, anywhere; and not by creating a draft (even one free of promotionalism) on your user page. If you want to promote this Brian Mabry (who I notice you chummily call not Mabry but Brian), you've chosen the wrong website for the job. There are various PR websites that will let you do it, for a fee. -- Hoary (talk) 00:34, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

To be clear, remove the content from your User page. Use either your Sandbox or the WP:YFA process to create a draft. As already stated, confirm you have valid references before beginning the effort, as otherwise, guaranteed to fail. Do not quote Brian. What he says does not create notability. David notMD (talk) 00:39, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Couple questions of different topics

Hello again, I apologize for coming again, but I have a couple questions:

1. On the talk page of an article I made (Hanns Wolf), it says that it is a part of Wikiproject Article for Creation, does that mean anything besides the fact that the article went through the AfC process, can this have an impact on article quality reassessment or if the article was nominated for deletion?
2. How do I create an article directly to the mainspace?
3. How do I request for an article quality reassessment? (I might do this in the future with my article Hanns Wolf however, I definitely need to do more editing)
4. Can normal users add Wikiprojects to the talk page of articles? (Kind of bad wording, but idk how to explain)
5. How can I find out if an image is copyrighted or not, and if the image isn't copyrighted, how can I add it to Wikimedia Commons or to an article?

Thanks for answering! RandomEditorAAA (talk) 00:29, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi RandomEditorAAA. I'll try to answer your questions based upon my understanding of things.

1. The AfC banner just shows that the article was approved via the AfC process (i.e. it was created first as a draft, was submitted for review, and then eventually accepted). I don't think it means anything else. The fact that an article was created does mean that someone (i.e. an AfC reviewer) looked it over and came to the conclusion that it does meet WP:N or that there's at least a really really good chance that it would meet WP:N; it doesn't, however, mean that the article can never be nominated for deletion. AfC reviewers generally are, for the most part, expected to have a fairly good understanding of Wikipedia notability and how it's assessed; so, a draft approved via the AfC process is typiclaly not going to be one that is of really such questionable notability that it's going be tagged or otherwise nominated for deletion shortly after it's accepted. AfC reveiwers, however, are just like any other editor in that no two editors may assess things exactly the same way and different editors might feel differently about an case, particularly if it's a borderline case. So, an AfC approved draft can still be nominated for deletion.
2. You can first create a draft or a userspace draft and then WP:MOVE the draft to the mainspace. You can also simply create the article in the mainspace like you would create any page: first you search the title you want to create to make sure that another page with the same title doesn't already exist. If no other page exists, the page title should be indicated by a WP:REDLINK. All you need to do then is click on the red link to create the page. If you're account is not yet WP:AUTOCONFIRMED, then I don't think you'll be able to do this; moreover, even if you're account is autoconfirmed but have yet to establish yourself as someone who has created quite a number of problem-free articles (i.e. you're account isn't classified) as WP:AUTOPATTROLED), then any new articles you create will likely be reviewed by a WP:NPP member. Sometimes a NPP member comes across an article that they feel is not quite ready for the mainspace, and in such cases, they WP:DRAFTIFY the article so that it can be further improved. Once something has been added to the mainspace, it's pretty much there for anyone to edit at anytime, including to nominate or tag for deletion. Some editors immediately add content like a lead sentence to the mainspace with the intention of goign back and gradually improving it over time; unfortunately, someone else comes alongs, sees what looks like a possible draft but is something not ready for the mainspace and then draftifies it or tags/nominates it for deletion. So, I wouldn't add anything to the mainspace that is unsourced or doesn't seems to have at least a reasonable claim of notability.
3. If you want to request a formal reassessment, you can try WP:PR or maybe even asking on the talk pages of any WikiProjects whose scope the article falls under. You can also reassess it yourself if you feel you got a decent undestanding of WP:ASSESSMENT. My personal opinion is that you probably shouldn't really assess articles you've created or heavily improved yourself, but there's any policy or guideline that states such a thing can't be done.
4. Anyone can add a WikiProject banner to an article talk page; moreover, anyone can remove a WikiProject banner from a talk page. You might want to look at similar articles to see what WikiProject banners are added to them since articles similar in subject matter often fall under the same WikiProject scope.
5. You can find out a little more about copyright in WP:COPY#Guidelines for images and other media files and c:Commons:Licensing. I think it's basically good practice to start out with the assumption that an image is going to protected by copyright and then work from there. This is particularly true for any images you didn't create yourself. It's a lot more complicated than that for sure; so, you can always ask for opinions on a specific image either at WP:MCQ or c:COM:VPC.

-- Marchjuly (talk) 01:07, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the detailed explanation, I am still unsure about 3. hopefully it can be answered, as WP:ASSESSMENT didn't tell me much about re-assessment, and I am not qualified to be assessing articles, let alone mine (where I will have a bias). Thanks again for your answers! - RandomEditorAAA (talk) 03:03, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Here you go

1. No.
2. Type the title of your prospective article into Wikipedia's search box. You may be told that no such article exists, and be invited to start one. If so, take up the invitation. However, I strongly advise you not to do this. Just use AFC.
3. Don't know, sorry.
4. Yes.
5. Assume that every image is copyrighted unless you have, and can point to, solid evidence to the contrary. An image that isn't copyrighted and that is useful for Wikipedia can be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons; look there for an explanation. Once it's uploaded there, it can be used in an article.

-- Hoary (talk) 01:13, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks - RandomEditorAAA (talk) 03:03, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Biographies

What should be at the top of a biography. I have read some and it always seems that it should be those things that define a person's life. Some I have read have minor value and/or while true are meant to dimish the subject. Is there any guidance on this? Thank you. JMeditor101 (talk) 00:33, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

What that person is notable for. Which biography is it that concerns you, JMeditor101? -- Hoary (talk) 01:04, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Hoary!--I will give a couple example Jason Ravnsborg Attorney General of South Dakota. He has it noted how he lost the US Senate Primary in 2014, who cares? That is clearly not what defines his life. Contrast that with Tom Miller the Attorney General of Iowa, he lost his first race for AG and it is not noted at the top anywhere as I would say both don't define either man and should not be at the top. Further I have noticed there are people clearly with an agenda on Ravnsborg's page who have no legal background and seemingly want to slur him about the accident. Like what do the speeding tickets have to do with anything? he wasn't charged with speeding even. Maybe a point, but not an entire section header. Friends have tried to change or make it less partisan and more neutral and they just undo it or make it worse.

Example number 2 is Paul LePage former Governor of Maine. There are things on his page at the top that are not even sourced and clearly with a partisan slant. Now they may or may not be true, but I thought everything had to be sourced and neutral. Appreciate your thoughts.

@JMeditor101: For general guidance, see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biography. GoingBatty (talk) 01:20, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you--GoingBatty; I will check it out. Feel free to weigh in on what i wrote Hoary also.

I'm trying to edit the article about disastrous balloon releases, but my edits keep getting reverted and now I've got a nasty message.

Please help! I'm trying to correct the misimpression given on the balloon release page, which is that these horrors are some kind of romantic or peaceful way to celebrate, when in reality they are polluting, littering, sea-turtle and other aquatic wildlife-killing, bird-entangling-and-killing, disasters. Every time I edit the page some guy named MichaelMaggs, who claims to agree with me, reverts my edits to the original puff piece on how lovely these horrifying events are. I did what he asked, which was to provide citations for every claim I made, and also added the requested reasons for the edits.

And now there's a horrible message on my talk page: Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did at Balloon release, you may be blocked from editing. Code Pending (talk) 00:20, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

How is it that the money-interested helium balloon industry's opinion is valid or neutral, but mine isn't? Bettt (talk) 00:34, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

You have been undone five times by four different editors. You have been pointed to WP:RGW and WP:POV. Have you read those links? You should also read WP:BRD and WP:EW. Please discuss your contested changes on the article's talk page rather than continuing to make them.Meters (talk) 00:50, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Balloon release has an Opposition section. Consider adding referenced content there, rather than deleting content from elsewhere in the article and changing the Lead. Given reverts, the Talk page of the article is a place to state your position. David notMD (talk) 00:53, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

David notMD Because the opposition part is below the part that tells everyone how wonderful these horrible events are.

Also I've never seen a reference to WP:RGW and WP:POV before. There's nothing on my talk page about it; where else would those references be? And what are those things?

I'm not trying to be troublesome, just trying to right a horrible wrong. Bettt (talk) 01:00, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

@Bettt: Please read WP:Advocacy. Wikipedia is not to be used for righting great wrongs or environmental advocacy, no matter how worthy the cause. 192.76.8.91 (talk) 01:03, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

The link to Righting Great Wrongs, or WP:RGW, is in this edit summary by user:Jasper Deng [2]. The link to WP:POV is on your talk page as neutral point of view policy, left by user:Code Pending in this edit [3]. Meters (talk) 01:10, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

The Lead (or Lede) is supposed to summarize the gist of the article. The lead has a sentence about opposition, and that is elaborated upon - with references - in the article. Removing content that describes balloon events (releases, races) is not the way to approach this. David notMD (talk) 01:51, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Let me correct something; I misspoke. I should have said not that I'm trying to right a wrong, but to correct an incorrect assertion. The wrong I spoke of was the untruthfulness of the assertions in that lead.

The balloon industry shill who wrote that piece talks about how wonderful these things are, claiming they are peaceful or prayerful. Except those aren't facts! Nobody can prove that they are either of these things. The negative side of these events, however, which is everything that happens after the flying litter passes beyond the sight of the observers, is only mentioned way down the page, "below the fold" as it were.

I seek to remove the emotional arguments of the advertising part of the page, which - again - cannot be supported by citations, and put forth the truth about what happens after the balloons go up, for which there are many documented dreadful facts and citations to prove them.

I also put in an image from the US Fish and Wildlife Service, which the photographer offers as in the public domain, showing a strangled bird hanging from the ribbon of one such balloon. This image should share the prime time with the colorful sky full of deathly gasbags. Along with many other such images, of sea turtles and other wildlife harmed by balloon litter. Bettt (talk) 01:59, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

@Bettt: If you have concerns about the article Balloon release, then the best place for you to raise them would be at Talk:Balloon release per Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Try to discuss your concerns in terms of relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines and keep the focus on the content being discussed, but avoid commenting on others who might be involved in the discussion or made edits you might disagree with as much as possible as explained here. Making statements such as The balloon industry shill who wrote that piece talks about how wonderful these things are, claiming they are peaceful or prayerful. and How is it that the money-interested helium balloon industry's opinion is valid or neutral, but mine isn't? aren't really conducive to fostering a constructive discussion of the subject matter, and comments directed towards individual editors like the one you made here can quickly turn a discussion into a WP:BATTLEGROUND or WP:USTHEM type of thing which is not going to help you achieve whatever you want to achieve. Try to assume good faith with respect to the others involved and don't just automatically assume that they're not here just because don't seem to agree with the changes you want to make. Wikipedia is a collaborative diting project and sometimes this means that some sort of middle ground needs to be established through discussion. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:07, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

The article was created in 2008. It has always had an opposition section. Again, it has always had an opposition section. Per Marchjuly, the best place for making a case for changes is the Talk page of the article. Per my suggestion, detailed content with references and images can be added to the Opposition section. David notMD (talk) 07:43, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Köppen climate classification map Amhara Region

Hello, question are there Köppen climate classification maps of Ethiopian regions other smaller subdivisions somewhere in Wikipedia? Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 01:37, 19 July 2021 (UTC) Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 01:37, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

@Dawit S Gondaria: The article at Köppen climate classification has many references that are open-access, so you could look there. Alternatively, it might be better to ask the question at the reference desk for science questions, where expert editors may be able to point you to other sources. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:16, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

@Mike Turnbull Thanks! Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 15:50, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Question

Can I upload the Prende TV logo? ItsJustdancefan (talk) 02:10, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

You could upload it to this Wikipedia only (not to Wikipedia Commons) to illustrate an article here on Prende TV (which we do not yet have) under the Fair use criteria: however, you should not upload it to a Draft of the article, but instead wait until the article itself is accepted. See Wikipedia:Logos for more information.

An argument could be made that it is not sufficiently original to qualify for copyright protection (being merely typographic), and so is eligible for upload to Commons. I myself think otherwise (because the typography is artistically modified, not reproducible by unmodified typefaces), but I'm not an expert in this area. Other opinions welcomed. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.122.177.31 (talk) 02:46, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Editor not engaging @talk page

Hello a user was reverted, and i adressed user on talk page, user doesn't respond on talk page instead he puts the same content, but this time over 5 edits, so that i can't revert it without breaking the 3 revert rule, what to do to? Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 02:30, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

@Dawit S Gondaria: You can gather the diffs of their reverts and report the user at the edit warring noticeboard. Make sure to read the top of the page carefully. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 03:41, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

@User:Tenryuu thanks Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 03:44, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

My user page was deleted almost immediately after posting.

My question is. And i done all but five seconds of reading is that. Conflict of Interest parties to a particular topic can not Edit, or Create a page about said topic? I.e. movie directors can not edit a page about a movie they directed. A musician can not edit or create a page about themselves. Somebody else has to create these "pages"? Bmguitar89 (talk) 03:38, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

@Bmguitar89: Welcome to Wikipedia. I can't see what was on your page, but if you are trying to create an article, use WP:YFA to learn how and there is a wizard there that will help you create a draft for review. Your user page is for things about your work on Wikipedia, not for drafting articles. RudolfRed (talk) 03:43, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

OK, I guessed wrong. There is discussion about this at User_talk:Ashleyyoursmile#Deleted_my_user_page RudolfRed (talk) 03:45, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

@Bmguitar89: Welcome to the Teahouse. People with conflicts of interest (CoI) aren't prohibited from editing articles, but they are strongly discouraged to do so directly, as many of them are unable to write about the subject neutrally. It is strongly recommended that if this is an article in the mainspace (i.e., no prefix before the title), people that have CoIs should submit edit requests on the article's talk page. If the subject is being nurtured in draftspace, they can work on it directly, though they must disclose their CoI. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 03:45, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

I was in fact trying to create a page for my band. I can understand the conflict of interest aspect. I thought maybe it would be allowed to create a page, of my band, beacuse who will. Alot of local bands dont get mentioned here and they should be honestly. I think all of them should have the chance or opportunity to have a page here, since it is information. Is it possible i could create a local or unsigned band page? One that consists of all local bands anyone might know or remember. It could be categorized by Country,Then State/province. Then alphabetically. I find that there are alot of people who ask about local bands they have seen or used to listen to, but cant remember their name exactly. Atleast this could help to narrow down their choices. And would definitely pump up the artists when they see they are mentioned on wikipedia. Thank you for any help regarding my questions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bmguitar89 (talk • contribs)

Short answer: No. An article on any topic must pass a notability threshold, generally described in Wikipedia:Notability. Specifically for bands, there are additional criteria; see WP:BAND. If your band doesn't meet any of those criteria, then your band cannot have an article here. Your statement "Alot of local bands don't get mentioned here and they should" is incorrect, and has been incorrect since Wikipedia began. Wikipedia isn't an indiscriminate collection of topics. We have articles on notable topics, and notability is pretty clearly defined.

If you want to try to write an article about your band, please see Wikipedia:Articles for creation for instructions, write the article in draft space or your personal sandbox, make sure it complies with WP:Golden rule at a minimum, and submit it for review. That's the only way anyone with a conflict of interest can get an article published on Wikipedia.

~Anachronist (talk) 04:07, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

@Bmguitar89: As Anachronist said, Wikipedia isn't an indiscriminate collection of topics. If you're thinking of compiling a list of local bands, you may want to start your own project somewhere off Wikipedia. Alternative outlets has some suggestions. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 04:43, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. I guess there is ALOT to learn about what wikipedia is. I will continue to do my research. And hopefully I can contribute properly in the future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bmguitar89 (talk • contribs)

Published page

FYI

 – Heading added by Tenryuu.

Hello sir/madam I published a page on wikipedia for myself a few months back. and have still not got approval please tell when will I get approval on my created page Regards Divyanshu Tejwani Divyanshu Tejwani (talk) 05:35, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

@Divyanshu Tejwani: Welcome to the Teahouse. It seems you misunderstand what Wikipedia is for: it is not a place to promote yourself. You could try some of the alternative outlets listed here. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 06:10, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Query regarding page details of an Educationist.

FYI

 – Turned into a section. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 06:08, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi, I'm trying to create a wikipedia page for my grandfather, although I'm not quite sure as to why it is getting rejected. From my understanding I have mentioned references, his books, published articles, papers etc. If you could help me with identifying what is missing or how I can improve on it, it'll be really helpful. There 3-4 wikipedia pages of other people where the the works of Dr. Bhim S. Dahiya have been mentioned as well, but I'm not sure how to add those in this references list The username is - Dr. Bhim S. Dahiya Dr. Bhim S. Dahiya (talk) 05:44, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

@Dr. Bhim S. Dahiya: Welcome to the Teahouse. I see you have started your draft at User:Dr. Bhim S. Dahiya (which is an inappropriate use of one's user page) and Draft:Bhim S. Dahiya. If you are not your grandfather, please abandon this account, as it is against Wikipedia's username policy to impersonate a real person.
To be pedantic, the draft(s) have not been rejected, but declined. Wikipedia is not interested in what your grandfather has to say, but rather what reliable sources have to say about him. If you wish to continue editing, please disclose your conflict of interest on an account with a different name. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 06:16, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Historic mentions of references Hi, I'm creating a page with the name Dr. Bhim S. Dahiya and it has been declined twice with the reason stated as to lack of references. But the thing is that my publications, books, articles, thesis, research papers, talks lack the availability on internet as back in the day there was more prevalence of offline ways and I don't have a track of every where my books were referred, or where my research papers are being used to teach in universities. The data available, my books, articles on google scholars(posted by others), mention of my scholarship, being an MLA, other positions held are mentioned in the references with a link to there website where it is showcased. I needed help as to what more can I do and how can I make changes so that it doesn't get declined again. Dr. Bhim S. Dahiya (talk) 08:08, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

???? This post starts by "...trying to create a wikipedia page for my grandfather..." but the comment immediately above is written in first person "...I don't have a track of every where my books were referred..." Each account must belong and be edited by only one person. Attempts at autobiography are frowned upon (see WP:AUTO) but not forbidden. David notMD (talk) 08:25, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Not declined twice. You put identical content in two places (User page and Draft), and each was declined once. Delete the User page content and work only on the Draft. David notMD (talk) 08:28, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

See Help:Referencing for beginners for how to create proper refs rather than all that https stuff. David notMD (talk) 10:30, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

@Dr. Bhim S. Dahiya: Like David notMD, I'm a little flummoxed with this comment: is Bhim S. Dahiya you or your grandfather? Wikipedia is not a free webhost or a directory. Perhaps you're looking to create a blog or personal notebook to consolidate Dahiya's materials? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 11:36, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Three sites with the same content

, these sites have the same content, but can I use all three of them for citing a paragraph? Excellenc1📞 08:16, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Excellenc1, just use the best one out of all the three because citation overkill ─ The Aafī ^(talk) 09:28, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Excellenc1, if you can figure out which one is the original and which are copies, cite the original publication. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:55, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

References

Correcting error template message

Hello,

Regarding the following Wikipedia page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Woodward), we are seeking some guidance on what needs to be amended to remove this template message below. We do not require a reply specific to working in mobile view or with the VisualEditor.

This biography of a living person needs additional citations for verification. Please help by adding reliable sources. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous or harmful. Find sources: "Roger Woodward" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR (December 2015) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)

We would appreciate any help you can offer, thank you. SueMmc (talk) 08:45, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

@SueMmc: welcome to the Teahouse. There are a couple of points that need clarification before going into the questions about the article. First, when you say "we", what does that refer to? Each Wikipedia user account should only ever be used by one person, and it is strictly prohibited to share accounts. Secondly, what is your connection to Roger Woodward, and to the editor User:TrishLudgate? TrishLudgate asked a similar question which was answered in some detail a few weeks ago, and you can find that discussion in the archives: Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1112#deleting text. Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 10:21, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) SueMmc: the referencing style at Roger Woodward is non-standard – an awkward blend of Harvard-style and the style more usual in Wikipedia. Some of the references, e.g. the first one, are cited in support of no statement. The article could be improved by severely trimming the long lists, some of them unreferenced, that form the majority of the article. Maproom (talk) 10:24, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

I agree that "Selected works" would be of better service than a complete regurgitation of his oeurve. The reference to his complete works is sufficient for readers who want to see everything. David notMD (talk) 10:51, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Moving to draftspace

Hi. How can I move an article to draftspace which is not ready to get published in mainspace. Is there any script or easy methods to do the job? Pillechan (പിള്ളേച്ചനോട് പറ) 12:10, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

@Krishnavilasom Bhageerathan Pilla, use WP:MOVE. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:15, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

That is for renaming the articles right? How can I move an article into draftspace. Do we have an option for it there? Pillechan (പിള്ളേച്ചനോട് പറ) 12:19, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

@Krishnavilasom Bhageerathan Pilla: Moving is renaming, which includes changing the namespace a page is in. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 12:24, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. Will come again if I find it problematic. Pillechan (പിള്ളേച്ചനോട് പറ) 12:27, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

It's for renaming, yes, but also for moving pages from namespace to namespace. When you rename Article X to Draft:Article X by picking "Draft" in a drop-down menu, you move it from articlespace to draftspace. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:29, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

@Krishnavilasom Bhageerathan Pilla Here are some scripts: [4] [5]. ―Qwerfjkltalk 17:25, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Thankyou for the information. Pillechan (പിള്ളേച്ചനോട് പറ) 18:37, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Need help in removing copyrighted material

Hello, I tried rephrasing but it seems like that's not enough. Can somebody help me with my Draft: https://copyvios.toolforge.org/?lang=en&project=wikipedia&title=Draft:Jolyon+Petch&oldid=&action=search&use_engine=1&use_links=1&turnitin=0 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Jolyon_Petch Ainamera22 (talk) 12:37, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Need help in adding picture

Hi, how can I add pictures to an article? Meteorological Person (talk) 12:46, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

@Meteorological Person: Welcome to the Teahouse. You can read the pictures help page for more information, but make sure that the pictures conform to Wikipedia's image use policy. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 12:50, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Wanting to publish a page for someone.

How do I publish, or request for my article to be published? I cannot see anything on my page about this? It just says draft? Thomas.k12 (talk) 13:22, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Courtesy Draft:Craig Greenberg. Not ready yet. You cannot use Wikipedia articles as references, nor his own website. You have a U Mich ref that confirms the university exists, but not that he degreed from there. All this aside, I doubt he meets WP:GNG, nor WP:BIO. David notMD (talk) 13:33, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Thomas.k12 (ec) Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I will be frank, and I apologize. If you were to submit the draft for review using Articles for creation, it would be rejected quickly, as it is just a promotional piece about a political candidate. Wikipedia articles cannot be used to cite other Wikipedia articles, as Wikipedia is not a reliable source. In addition, merely seeking public office does not make someone meet Wikipedia's special definition of a notable politician, so they would need to be notable for something else and meet the criteria of a notable person. Writing a new article is the absolute hardest task to perform on Wikipedia, so you will want to learn as much as you can first, please read Your first article and use the new user tutorial?

If you are associated with this candidate's campaign, please read conflict of interest and paid editing. 331dot (talk) 13:38, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Thomas.k12, and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm afraid that, like many beginners, you have plunged into trying to create an article without understanding how to go about it. It's like saying "I'm going to build a house", and then propping up a wall here and a window there, without building foundations or even checking whether the ground is fit to build on. Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost entirely interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources. Not one of your references meets those criteria. If you write a single word of an article before you have found the independent references that are a non-negotiable foundation for your article, you are probably wasting your time.

My suggestions would be:

1. put aside the idea of creating a new article for a few months, while you gain experience and understanding by improving some of our six million existing articles.
2. read your first article carefully
3. look for sources that will satisfy WP:NPOLITICIAN (remembering that anything written or published by him or his associates or institutions, or based on interviews or press releases, don't count). If you can't find any, give up on this article.
4. Create a draft using the articles for creation process.

And remember that it is not "a page for" someone, but "an article about" them. It is not in any way for their benefit. --ColinFine (talk) 13:42, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Moving A Page

Hi Community my colleague and I worked on a wikipedia article in a user sandbox and we were trying to publish the article to the main space, we've had challenges in moving the sandbox article Ruby D-Brown/Sandbox/AJ Sarpong to AJ Sarpong to the main article space, your help with this is neede. ThanksJwale2 (talk) 13:54, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi Jwale2 and welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia:NBIO covers some relevant information. To publish this article, you need to show significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. WP:NENT also has some useful points for articles on entertainers. Rubbish computer Ping me or leave a message on my talk page 14:45, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi Rubbish computer how do I go about rectifying the move or redirect issue, also the article bio in question has significant coverage, all that its needs is to ensure that a correct move is done, thanks Jwale2 (talk) 16:09, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi Jwale2, sorry I didn't get this ping for some reason. The article needs to show significant coverage first, before it can be moved into article space. The standards in article space are much stricter than in draft space, and could see it deleted. Where it is currently, you have much more time to prepare it. Rubbish computer Ping me or leave a message on my talk page 17:52, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

No, Template:Jwale2, I'm afraid it does not (have significant independent coverage). If you were to submit it for review at this point, I am certain that it would get declined; therefore moving it to mainspace without a review is a bad idea: at best it would get moved back to draft space. The problem is that every one of your sources is information from Sarpong herself or from her employers. Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost entirely interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources. Writing an article starts with finding suitable independent sources - because if you are unable to find any, you know that the subject does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability, and you should give up and not spend any more time on it. If you can find those independent sources, then you can write an article - based almost entirely on what those indpendent sources say, not on what the subject says, or what you know about them. I have added a header, so that when you have added sufficient independent sources to establish notability, you can submit it for review. But doing so now would be a waste of everybody's time. --ColinFine (talk) 18:00, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Courtesy ping: @Jwale2: Rubbish computer Ping me or leave a message on my talk page 18:15, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Article need to be published

How can I get my article published on Wikipedia? I have corrected many things Help me publish it Farahjaved (talk) 13:56, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Farahjaved. Presuming this is about Draft:Muzammil Hameed, unless there are several reliable sources such as newspaper articles or books that have been written about Muzammil Hameed, then I'm afraid there's no way to get the article accepted for publication. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:03, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Literally all your sources are website homepages. This is not acceptable; you need to link to specific articles on those domains. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 15:12, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Farahjaved, and welcome to the Teahouse. Unfortunately, like many new editors, you have plunged straight into the most difficult task there is in editing Wikipedia. This is like starting to train as a builder, and immediately trying to build a house. I always advise new editors to spend several months learning how Wikipedia works by improving some of our six million articles first (I know you've been around for a year, but you've only made a handful of edits). Please understand that Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost entirely interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources. Just as building a house starts by surveying the ground to make sure it is safe to build on, preparing the ground, and building foundations, writing a Wikipedia article starts by gathering the independent reliable sources that the article must be based on. If you write a single word of an article before finding the sources, you may be wasting your time and effort. Please study your first article and NCREATIVE. --ColinFine (talk) 15:35, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Profile deleted

Following the comment by one of the reviewers, the article was thoroughly revised to meet the guidelines. I'm wondering if it is possible to reactive the deleted draft profile? Thaanks. Conrad Rizal (talk) 15:41, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Ask at WP:Requests for undeletion; timed-out drafts are usually undeleted on request without much fuss. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 15:58, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

The Wayback Machine

Is it possible to search archived web pages in the same way that a regular search engine does? I tried searching on the wayback machine for the title of an article that I know is archived on the wayback machine, but it doesn't find that specific article. When I type something in the search bar what is the wayback checking? Is it just looking at URLs that contain the words or is it checking the full webpage for relevant material? TipsyElephant (talk) 16:05, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi TipsyElephant, kindly take note that you can search for the information you want on the wayback machine using the name if and only if you remember the name if not you need to search for the link of the page which would send you directly to the page.Jwale2 (talk) 17:06, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Block Issues

Hi Community,A colleague of mine just got blocked and he asked me for assistant, this was the message he was sent:

Your IP address has been blocked on all wikis.

The block was made by Bsadowski1 (meta.wikimedia.org). The reason given is Open proxy.

Start of block: 20:25, 11 Kutawonsa 2021 Expiry of block: 20:25, 11 Ɔsannaa 2021 Your current IP address is 102.176.94.145. Please include all above details in any queries you make.

a quick overview on how his account can be worked or how he can get his account back on track to start editing on wikipedia would be much appreciated. Thanks, Jwale2 (talk) 16:22, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi Jwale2, open proxies are frequently used for vandalism and disruption; as a result, any open proxy can be blocked for any period of time. It is easier to use a closed proxy to edit. Try using secure internet, such as most home wifi. Hope this helps, Rubbish computer Ping me or leave a message on my talk page 16:38, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

See also WP:OPENPROXY. Rubbish computer Ping me or leave a message on my talk page 16:38, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

@Jwale2, hello there, and a warm welcome to you, The Teahouse is not a proper venue to seek for an unblock request(and even worse, if you are appealing on behalf of a friend) it is generally incompatible regarding how unblock appeals are handled on Wikipedia, Having said, your friend is most likely caught under a IP range hardblock, I’m not so sure what I can say to you, but thankfully, I do know who can help out, the sysop 331dot is an expert pertaining this sort of problems. Celestina007 (talk) 18:02, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Jwale2 Celestina007 is correct that it is usually not good to ask that another person be unblocked, because we have no way to know who is sitting at the computer, if it is the same person. That is less problematic here if it is only a proxy block, but it is still better for this other person to request unblock, they can read the unblock appeals guide for more information. 331dot (talk) 18:14, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Draft question

 Courtesy link: Draft:Warchild Bezzy
Hello; please i need your help on the article am writing. I submitted it 3 months ago and it was declined but i was not given a clear reason to why it was declined. Can any revise that article and fix the errors please Kendoma (talk) 16:28, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

@Kendoma: Welcome to the Teahouse. You have been told at the draft that it will need to pass the criteria at WP:NSINGER. You're going to need to find reliable sources that significantly cover the subject. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:25, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

extra colon in an edit summary

I included an extra colon in an edit summary so now there is a grammar mistake. Is there any way the colon can be removed? Thank you! 73.167.238.120 (talk) 17:02, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi 73.167.238.120, you can't change an edit summary once it's been made. A grammatical error in an edit summary isn't much of a problem. If you want, you can add or remove a space to perform a WP:Dummy edit; this will enable you to clarify previous mistakes. I don't normally do this if I make typos in edit summaries though, unless the meaning of the edit becomes unclear. Dummy edits can also be used if you forget to include an edit summary. Thanks, Rubbish computer Ping me or leave a message on my talk page 17:22, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Removal and restoration of NATO codes from rank pages

There is an user that has been removing NATO codes from military rank articles and templates. While only NATO uses the codes, they serve as a way to know the equivalents in other militaries, and removing them from the pages here in Wikipedia only hurts and not helps.

Is there a way to restore the codes without starting an edit war?, which is what I predict the user who blatantly deleted the info will do if we restore them.

(I already asked on their talk page why they removed them, no answer yet.) Mistah B (talk) 17:11, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi Nikolai.Loskov, I would wait a while longer to give the user more time to reply. Generally it's better to move content disputes to talk pages, which is what you have rightly done here. Rubbish computer Ping me or leave a message on my talk page 17:24, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Possible Wiki Projects

Hello, can anyone help me to add Draft:Anthon Bosch to possible Wiki projects related to sports, snowboarding, Olympics? Thanks! DyingLightquests (talk) 18:41, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

@DyingLightquests, have you checked "Improving your odds of a speedy review" in the "Review waiting, please be patient." template at the top of the draft? Click the blue button. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:12, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång Got it. Added, thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by DyingLightquests (talk • contribs)

publishing an artist Article

hi. I submit twice for publication of "Hesam Fetrati" Article. he is an Iranian Artist. I received: "Possibly notable, but still cites nonindependent sources." I cite some data, (like picture of his artworks) form his website. if I delete the nonindependent cites, would it be accepted? thanks and best regards. Sepehr san (talk) 19:15, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Courtesy Draft:Hesam Fetrati. You have paragraphs in the Lead and body of the article that are not referenced. His website should not be used as a ref (last ref). David notMD (talk) 20:28, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Mark organization as having infobox?

Hi! I made an infobox for an organization off the "Organization articles needing infoboxes" list* (American Cheese Society). Now I can't figure out how to remove "American Cheese Society" from the list of "Organization articles needing infoboxes". How do I mark American Cheese Society as having an infobox? Did I make the box so poorly that some automatic system isn't registering it as such?

• also can't get the "Organization articles needing infoboxes" link to work, so it's here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Organization_articles_needing_infoboxes

I would also, of course, welcome any feedback on the infobox itself, if I messed something up.

Thanks for your help! ForHeCanCreep (talk) 21:55, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

@ForHeCanCreep: On Talk:American Cheese Society, I removed |needs-infobox=Yes from {{WikiProject Organizations}}. GoingBatty (talk) 22:02, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

@GoingBatty: Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by ForHeCanCreep (talk • contribs) 22:05, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

My professional baseball career

I'm omitted when searching my name Robert S. McGuire los angeles dodgers and boston red sox? 2600:1700:A020:DB80:8509:DD1A:1228:B2F8 (talk) 23:32, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello, IP editor. Are you this Robert McGuire? If so, minor league players are not automatically considered notable. Please read WP:NBASEBALL for the notability standards for baseball players. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:11, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

USING WIKIPEDIA BIOGRAPHICAL MATERIAL IN MEMOIR

I AM WRITING A MEMOIR TITLED HOW TO TALK TO FAMOUS PEOPLE. MAY I USE WIKIPEDIA MATERIAL IN THIS MEMOIR? IT IS IMPORTANT FOR MY READERS TO KNOW WHO MY FAMOUS ACQUAINTANCES WERE OR ARE, AND WIKIPEDIA DOES GREAT BIOS. 2601:648:8400:6400:3CDB:5DA8:A25C:F10 (talk) 23:36, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello, IP editor. Please do not type in all caps. Yes, you can re-use Wikipedia content, but you must attribute the content properly. Please read Wikipedia:Reusing Wikipedia content for complete details. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:02, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Creation of page "Perth International Jazz Festival"

Hi! I created a new page titled "Perth International Jazz Festival", originally in my sandbox, then moved it into the mainspace with that title. I can find it via my sandbox (the link is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perth_International_Jazz_Festival) but it doesn't appear in search or the New Pages Feed for review. Can anyone shed any light?

Thanks for your help! Fleur0402 (talk) 01:33, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

At Perth International Jazz Festival. Appears for search on title within Wikipedia. David notMD (talk) 02:51, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Fleur0402. When I search using the Wikipedia search box, your new article comes up instantly. If you are taking about searching on Google or other search engines, then please be aware that new articles are "no-indexed" unless created by users with the autopatrolled user right. Search engines cannot find such articles. The hidden no-index tags will be removed when a new page patroller looks it over, or when 90 days has passed. That's a very good effort as a first article. Thanks. Please add some categories. I am not knowledgeable about the technical details of the new pages feed. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:57, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

It does appear in the new pages feed. You need to filter out all articles created after 2 July to find it. Kleinpecan (talk) 03:22, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Dr. John Pombe Joseph Magufuli

There's a biased article on Wikipedia about the late President of Tanzania, Dr. John Pombe Joseph Magufuli. The article is biased with a Eurocentric world view about an African issue. I have made two edits which were repelled by one German editor and one Scandinavian editor.

I am Tanzanian. And I know there's no way a European can correctly portray an African leader and African issues. This is from the deep-seated disdain and ridicule that Europeans harbour about Africans.

How do I resolve this and make sure the late President of Tanzania, Dr. John Pombe Joseph Magufuli gets an accurate account on Wikipedia, without resorting to an editing war?

Here's the Wikipedia page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Magufuli AfrikaMoja (talk) 04:13, 20 July 2021 (UTC)