Wikipedia:Teahouse

CiaPan, 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

Editors creating paintings for articles

This is an odd one so I thought I would ask here, where odd questions are welcomed. Over at this version of Barbara Teller Ornelas, the infobox image is a watercolour painting of the subject, done by the editor who created the page. I'm sure we would be OK with an editor having taken a photograph and added it to an article they created, since photographs are relatively 'objective', but I am wondering what others think about the portrait being an artistic interpretation? I've asked the editor about possible COI, but that's a separate issue. Thanks. --- Possibly ☎ 00:44, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Possibly, for letting me know via my talk page that you were starting a discussion at the Teahouse. I would also like to add my input to the discussion here, as I have done on my talk page and on the Barbara Teller Ornelas talk page. I am a professional artist. Some of my paintings are in museums. I made a quick painting, I believe a good one, for the article because there was no photo. Please feel free to add a photo to the article if you find one. Maybe Wikimedia Commons and Wikipedia should establish some criteria for paintings used as portraits. Second, I have not met Barbara Teller Ornelas. There is no COI. I created the article for the WikiProject: Indigenous women. Shari Garland (talk) 04:39, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

It seems like the discussion has taken root on the article talk page, which might be the best place to respond if anyone is interested. --- Possibly ☎ 04:42, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Here is my representation of Barbara Teller Ornelas for those who might want to know the source of this topic. Shari Garland (talk) 16:47, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Questions remain:

1) Should I, as a professional artist, continue to make watercolor paintings and upload them to Wikimedia Commons for Wikipedia articles?

2) Should my watercolor portrait of Barbara Teller Ornelas be added back to the article Barbara Teller Ornelas?

3) If the answer to question 2) is yes, then who should add my watercolor portrait of Barbara Teller Ornelas back to the article?

Shari Garland (talk) 18:41, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Barbara Teller Ornelas State Department portrait

I'll give you my opinion: 1) No, based on your painting and the photo I don't think interpretations like this are useful in the WP-context. 2) No, not unless it has coverage in indepentent WP:RS, and if so, not as leadimage. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:54, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Gråbergs Gråa Sång, Why would an artist's own watercolor painting image need to include a reliable source when an artist's own original photography image would not? Shari Garland (talk) 19:03, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

A photo, even if burdened with artistic intentions, will probably resemble the topic. A painting by a random netizen is less likely to do so, and without any independent attention, adding it fails WP:PROPORTION. I see no use in adding, in this case, an image with the text "2021 Watercolor portrait of Ornelas, by pseudomynous Wikipedian/User:Shari Garland." That is my view. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:32, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Another opinion: 1) No. 2) No. (A photograph has been added.) David notMD (talk) 00:12, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

I'll disagree. I think a portrait is fine. We use portraits all the time for people of whom there are no photographs, and I believe I've seen them in articles (not as the main image) that we do have a photo for. At minimum I think @Shari Garland should feel free to upload these images to Wikimedia Commons, but let some other editor decide whether to use it in the article or not. I don't see this as any different than an editor making any other image. Editors at a given article may disagree on whether to use it, but they may all love it, too. Personally I think that painting is wonderful. :) —valereee (talk) 14:47, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Excellent input and insight from —valereee: "I don't see this as any different than an editor making any other image." I agree with that statement because photography and watercolor are both types of art. Both art types are crucial modern means of communication. Shari Garland (talk) 18:49, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Is there a new policy - revert IP users with impunity?

This is happening increasingly: I make a reasonable - but, I accept, as always, debatable - edit, which is reverted so fast, that I can only think that it was done without any kind of checking. (I mean, the edit of mine above, as with similar recent incidents, does not scream "disruptive edit" on the face of it, I believe - So should deserve at least a cursory look to check.)

As in this case, when I check the reverter's history, there are masses of reversions, often solely, or nearly so, of IP editors. There is generally a mix of good and bad reversions, as in this case. It is also quite commonly an editor who does not use edit summaries.

I accept that if I choose not to register, I have to take the rough with the smooth, and I see lots of implicit and explicit suspicion of IP editors. I know there are reasons, too. That has never worried me (too much!), but there seems to be a noticeable upsurge in this kind of thing. And it's getting disheartening. Could there be any special reason for this taking off in the last few months? For example, are there special anti-vandalism projects that newly registered users are encouraged to undertake? Or something like that? Any ideas? I'd like to know how long to lay low for, giving WP a bit of rest, if I have to ride-out an anti-IP reversion campaign. But editing has been a real life-saver for me throughout the pandemic, restrictions, etc.

Also, can anything more be done to try to encourage habitual non-users of edit-summaries to a more collegial approach? I find the discourtesy of being reverted with no edit summary whatsoever, quite in-your-face hostile. I would never behave that way to others on WP, so find it really objectionable in registered users - some of whom seem to think they're superior creatures to troublesome varmint IPs.

Rant ended. Thanks for listening. 49.177.69.7 (talk) 12:04, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

I opened a report on ANI about this particular editor about an hour ago here: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Safari web - mass reverting IP edits without explanation because they seem to be making a significant number of problematic reverts. New editors jumping into anti-vandalism work with little idea of what they're doing is a common problem, you really need a decent grasp of Wikipedia policies before doing it but for some reason it's advertised as being a beginner friendly activity. 192.76.8.74 (talk) 12:11, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

UPDATE: User:Safari web indef blocked as a sockpuppet. David notMD (talk) 13:10, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

The reported case is an outlier, but the underlying problem is real. It is certainly the case that

1. some users are a bit too quick to hit the revert button (especially with automated tools)
2. some users take less precautions when interacting with IP editors

I have no idea if those problems are on the rise, and I do not think anybody has a solution. It occurs from time to time that someone comes to complain about being reverted without an edit summary, we ping the reverter, and they come here to apologize. In the defense of those people, when you have spent the last 99 clicks reverting promotional material, you are not in a mood to carefully analyze the 100th edit that comes through the list, even if you ought to be as cautious as when you started out. Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 13:41, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Indeed, as this reverter appears to have been blocked, they were clearly an anomaly. The occasional over-correction is understandable, and I do not begrudge that from the people you mention in the sort of circumstances you describe. I am concerned that it appears to be accepted that editors exercise less care when reverting the edits of IP users (compared to registered users). I say that, while aware that unregistered users are known for disruptive and clueless editing. I don't think the fact that a disproportionate number of such edits come from IPs should be the basis for a kind of creeping disrespect for all IP users' contributions, though, nor a preparedness to accept this sort of differential approach - even if there are reasonable grounds to develop this kind of implicit bias.

One of the things I was also trying to say, though, was, far from "careful analysis" on the 99th or 100th click, all that was needed was a very quick glance. The edits of mine - and of a few other IPs I've seen - that I have been discussing here, do not even remotely look like disruptive edits. It appears at times, that the extent of the process has been: 'IP made edit; can't see what for in first millisecond; must be bad, even if not, who's gonna pick me up on it?"

I don't want or expect an apology with such events; these things happen, even with the well-intentioned editors who seem to do this. It's just one of those things, but I thought I would bring up how cumulatively demotivating and disheartening it is. With all the massive work done on WP in holding back the tide of low-quality material, while trying to widen the scope and enhance articles, I realise this is very small beer indeed, perhaps to the point of being irrelevant. I thank you all for your attention and responses. 49.177.69.7 (talk) 03:21, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

If anyone with the "rollback" user right is abusing it consistently (not just making an honest mistake now and then), that should be reported at WP:ANI or to the administrator who granted the right. Rollback should be granted only to users who can be trusted with it. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:27, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Errors will of course occur - I make more than my fair share! - but that seems more of an argument for the use edit summaries when reverting - always. And I am not certain if "rollback" was used in the cases I am thinking of. But, even when editors use WP tools to revert, is there still the capacity to briefly mention the perceived issue in the ES?

As for "occasional mistakes": It's more about patterns of reverting and communication (or lack of) that I am thinking of, and what that suggests about WP's real-life approach to unregistered editors. Just to give a flavour of what I mean, note the edit summaries employed by this editor. They extensively revert, for sound reasons from what I can tell, and they are always quite terse in their ES. However, when it's a registed user, there is some brief effort to explain. When it's an IP user, there is only ever one explanation: "Revert IP". And that is my concern, (not from this editor, to be clear, just using them as my example.) I note in passing that I asked on this editor's talk page - and then later, on mine - to discuss a reversion they made; I received no reply, so re-instated the reverted reference repair. (While not very talkative, this editor does usually reply to questions from registered editors on their talk page.) But that experience echoes several I have had. I realise there's no "fix" to all this: I guess I just hoped to raise awareness.

Anyway, thank you very much, @192.76.8.74, @David notMD, @Tigraan and @Anachronist for taking the time to respond. 49.177.69.7 (talk) 03:21, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Although one isn't supposed to edit while not logged in, I have done so deliberately in the past to remind myself of what it's like to edit as an IP address. I encourage every experienced editor to try it: put in a few hours on Wikipedia as an IP address to see what it's like, see how others treat you. It gives you a new perspective that makes you think twice about how you respond in edit summaries and talk page comments, causing you to treat any good-faith editor the same regardless of whether it's an IP address or a username. ~Anachronist (talk) 14:00, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

I might actually do that. Although if I'm allowed to I would use a VPN so that my real IP address isn't revealed Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 14:03, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

@Blaze The Wolf See WP:VPN. ― Qwerfjkltalk 21:26, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Makes sense. Also you got the wrong one. It's WP:NOP Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 21:36, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Oops (I typically just guess the shortcuts and assume I'm right if it's blue). ― Qwerfjkltalk 21:41, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Adding a sentence to edit protected article

2021 Taliban offensive

I was asked to generate consensus here but I don't know how to, so I request somebody to do that. 27.7.10.112 (talk) 19:34, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

You generate consensus by engaging in discussion on the talk page, to convince others why your proposal should be accepted and why it is an improvement. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:35, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Anachronist, I am new to Wikipedia, so please let me know how to use the "Request for Comment" template and how to "ping" editors (and which and how many editors can be pinged).

As an after thought, I request you to read this thread and add the sentence in question (the source mentioned is the Washington Post) as you are an Administrator. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:4071:4D90:9497:4C15:4EB4:F36F:5685 (talk) 05:50, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

This isn't something that admins do, as they cannot override consensus. There's more information about how to generate requests for comments and pinging. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 15:09, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Tenryuu is correct. To become an administrator means that the community trusts you not to wield administrator tools to exercise power over others. An administrator's job is to maintain the stability of the Wikipedia project. Protecting an article from disruptive edits is one way to do that. Administrators don't get involved in content disputes, and they don't have the authority to override consensus. If an administrator participates in a content dispute, that administrator must behave as a regular editor and abstain taking actions as an administrator. If you cannot build consensus for what you want to add, then you must accept the consensus. ~Anachronist (talk) 14:07, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Atomy - List of Multi level Marketing companies

I am addingAtomy Name in the list .Atomy is a multibillion South Korea based MLM Company|1= boomboom 07:56, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

I have removed your edit as we do not have an article about Atomy.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 09:11, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

@Shantavira:, maybe User:Bishwa 777 meant  Courtesy link: Atomy Korea? --Maresa63 ^Talk 10:39, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Interesting timing: Bishwa 777 first tried adding Atomy to the list article. After that was reverted, Bishwa 777 created the article Atomy Korea. However, that article has now been nominated for Speedy Deletion. David notMD (talk) 11:05, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi There Yes I tried adding Atomy under list of Business , unfortunately it added preexisting Atomy page not Atomy Korea. Hence research about it and then realized there is not Atomy Korea page. I thought it might be useful for the members who are searching about their business to get a neutral idea about it.

Since it has a millions of members world wide, it makes sense to have a wiki page. boomboom 06:17, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi There We don't have much article on Atomy Korea but their research partner KAERI has a presence here. So I thought even Atomy Korea should have a page. That was was my intention. If you check their website they have millions of members and they deserve a neutral portal like wiki. Thanks boomboom 06:07, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Atomy Korea may be article-worthy, but what you created was considered promotional. David notMD (talk) 00:06, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

propose removal of massive unsourced content from Dogpatch?

There seem to be massive amounts of unsourced content in Dogpatch, San Francisco, and to be clear, I have no interest in making the effort to provide such citations. A repeated mantra that I hear on WP is that unsourced content may be removed without notice or discussion. But I still feel kind of cautious about this. So please provide some feedback as to whether it's really perfectly okay for me to remove unsourced content, such as from § Attractions and characteristics and § History. Fabrickator (talk) 19:50, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Go ahead and do so. If an editor disagrees with you they will revert and you can start a discussion per WP:BRD. Although if you would rather propose it then you can do so on the article's talk page. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 19:55, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Unclelam - still an active editor as recently as Sept 2020 (COVID?) - was the person who more than doubled the length of the article back in 2012, so perhaps ask that person to come back and fix stuff. In general, I feel under-referenced place articles are less urgent-fix than biographies. David notMD (talk) 20:09, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

@Blaze The Wolf: This raises a point that (based on your comment) seems to be in dispute. Because it is the responsibility of the person who adds content to provide sources, a revert of unsourced content (without having added the required sources) is interpreted as being against policy, or at the very least, is subject to itself being reverted. What part am I misunderstanding? Fabrickator (talk) 20:15, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

I.... am not actually sure. I'm a bit misunderstanding as well as WP:BRD says that if you think an edit should be made, be bold and do it yourself and if an editor disagrees they will revert which will start a discussion of the edit so a consensus can be reached. However you make a good point that it's technically against policy to revert unsourced content as it is the job of the person who added the content to source it. However this seems to not be heavily enforced as unsourced content is removed all the time and then added back by a different person with sources. So I'm not exactly sure what the correct answer would be in this situation. Maybe another editor could help answer this. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 20:22, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Fabrickator, I think you are technically sound. It is the policy as you have stated. However, I don't think the intent is to have editors running around deleted every sentence on every article that is unsourced. Maybe that is the intent of some, I guess I would be more likely to either add sources or place a citation needed template on a few unsourced sentences, otherwise I would leave it as it is unless it is a clear violation of NPOV or BLP. That is just me. I tend to leave articles alone unless I plan on working on them anyway. --ARoseWolf 20:24, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

FYI - "BLP" is Biography of Living Person, and for those, all content must be referenced, removed if not. David notMD (talk) 22:39, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Here is the sequence of edits to WP:Verifiability which introduced the sort of self-contradictory guidance, stating at once that "the burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material" while observing that "editors may object if you remove material without giving them a chance to provide references".

Notice how this compares to WP:Editing policy which states "unsourced content may be challenged and removed". I would note that "challenging" is distinct from "removing". According to WP:verifiability challenges, a challenge is "a good-faith claim that unsourced material cannot be verified in any reliable source".

In the absence of there necessarily being such a good-faith claim, these statements of policy would seem to be incompatible, and one or both of them needs to be changed. Fabrickator (talk) 00:07, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

There is no significant policy conflict here, though maybe differences in emphasis. All of the relevant policies and guidelines emphasize that we are here to build an encyclopedia and that there are many alternatives to removing content, although it is proper to remove hoaxes, vandalism, WP:BLP violations, copyright violations and obviously non-neutral content immediately. Other good faith content should be kept and tagged "citation needed", unless a diligent search fails to verify the content. In the spirit of full disclosure, I have lived and worked in or near San Francisco for 49 years and worked for nine years quite close to the Dogpatch neighborhood. In those years, I drove through that neighborhood several times a week. The article states that the Irving M. Scott School is an historic school there, that the clubhouse of the Frisco chapter of the Hells Angels is in that neighborhood, and that there is a Caltrain express station in that neighborhood. All unreferenced. Less than two minutes on Google convinces me that all three claims are verifiable and true, and that the former school building is on the National Register of Historic Places, and therefore deserving of its own article, not removal from the encyclopedia. Editors who "have no interest in making the effort to provide such citations" should never remove such content. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:52, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

So what? We don't each get to decide what the rules are that would be best for the encyclopedia, we establish (through some form of consensus) a set of policies that hopefully cover all possible situations. For instance, the underlying premise is that we would like the content to be accurate, but the policy is that it must be verifiable.

Notwithstanding WP:IAR, if you think a policy is not in Wikipedia's best interest, then the solution is to propose changing the policy, not to ignore it. Otherwise, everybody has the excuse that they are doing whatever they think is best, and there's really no challenging that.

So I agree we're here to build a useful encyclopedia, but the policy is that claims must be supported by reliable sources, unsourced claims can be summarily removed (i.e. as an alternative to adding {{cn}}), and such removals may not be reverted unless a source is provided at the same time. So after I remove all this Dogpatch content, you can go ahead and put it back with citations, but if it's not convenient to you to provide citations, then we'll all just have to live without the content because I made the decision to remove it as allowed by policy. When somebody has the time to add in the citations, then they can restore everything. You don't think that's a difference? Fabrickator (talk) 05:00, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

A visit to WP:Deletionism and WP:Inclusionism might be useful. Again, my own opinion is add citations needed over deleting unreferenced content for place-articles, the opposite for biographies. David notMD (talk) 12:14, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

• You would be within your "rights" to mass-remove with an edit summary of "do not revert without sourcing", but it does not mean it would be a nice thing to do, especially if you think (by personal knowledge etc.) that the content is correct.

At the Teahouse (or Help Desk maybe?) we sometimes get someone asking to change the date of death of their wife/husband because the newspapers got it wrong. We often remove the date entirely and leave an invisible comment telling the next editors about the situation, even if the "correct" thing would be to tell them to ask the newspaper to print a correction (which is a nice way to tell them to get lost). Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 10:33, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Userpage redirects

Hello! So after Colin accidentally forgot to capitalize the T in my username, it gave me a thought. Are users allowed to create user pages that are redirects to their own if the only difference between the usernames of the user pages is the case? I feel like this can cause issues if usernames are case sensitive (so for example, if I redirected the user page Blaze the Wolf to mine, it would cause issues if another user could create an account for Blaze the Wolf). Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 19:59, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Blaze The Wolf, I don't believe redirects to cover alternative case are needed. I just tested and searching for:

User:Blaze the Wolf

or

User:Blaze The Wolf

Both provide a link to your user page.

No one else will be able to create a username which is identical to yours but just different by case (At least not without an override which is unlikely to happen)

I just did a quick review of Wikipedia:Redirect and I'm surprised to see that this is not discussed unless I missed something S Philbrick(Talk) 20:22, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Interesting. The weird thing is, when someone links directly to it User:Blaze the Wolf it doesn't redirect to my page. Is this a bug? Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 20:24, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

I know my former user name User:Tsistunagiska redirects to my current user page but it is an interesting question. --ARoseWolf 20:28, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

I think that's because when you change your username, it turns your old user page into a redirect. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 20:33, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Not at first it didn't. A sockpuppet created an account using my old user name and they had to change it and then were blocked upon completion of the investigation. --ARoseWolf 20:44, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Oh that's actually kind of interesting. They were more of an impersonator then than a sock. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 20:49, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

It was very odd. They weren't necessarily impersonating because we never edited the same articles. I have no proof but I did suspect they were watching for account name changes. I'm not really sure about the motive because I never contacted them. I wanted to be as far away from them as possible. This is my one and only account and I never want another one. It was a little unnerving until they were instructed by admins to change their name because of the connection with my account. What's even more odd is when I go to the redirect it says it was redirected the same time the change request was approved and moved. I guess there may have been a glitch of sorts or maybe they created the new account at the same time as the change was being processed, I honestly don't know, but it was weird to say the least. --ARoseWolf 20:57, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

The search bar automatically fixes alternate capitalisations (and a load of other things, like accents on letters) direct links don't and would require redirects. If you want to redirect User:Blaze the Wolf to your user page I think the best thing to do would be for you to register that account as a Doppelgänger account and leave it around unused, to prevent the redirect colliding with a later user. 192.76.8.74 (talk) 20:46, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

I just tried to do that, however it said that it's too similar to my username, so I think it's safe for me to simply redirect it because if I can't create an account with that username, no one else can. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 20:51, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure there's any point in doing that, Blaze the Wolf: nobody is going to search for that user page, and I doubt that creating it will cause a wrong ping to get to you. I've intentionally pinged you using the wrong version of your username just to see. --ColinFine (talk) 10:13, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

That is actually a good point. Nobody is or will be able to search for that specific user page because of the the search bar works. And using the wrong version of my username doesn't ping me. But luckily I don't think redirecting it is going to mess anything up in the long term. If it does I should just be able to request it to be deleted under U1. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 12:58, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Header added

by ColinFine (talk) 10:23, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

You said: Unambiguous: not open to more than one interpretation. So, you are only interested in if and by golly stories. Since truth is narrowly defined, that would mean the truth does not abide in you. 97.115.149.226 (talk) 03:37, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

This is presumably about the speedy deletion of Draft:Biblical Evolution, which was described on your user talk page as "unambiguous copyright infringement". IP user: your draft was rejected because its content was copied from somewhere else: that's all. Note that creating a new article is extremely difficult for inexperienced editors, whatever the subject. You may find that what you want to say is already covered in one of the sections of Rejection of evolution by religious groups#Viewpoints or in one of the articles linked from there. --ColinFine (talk) 10:23, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

article submission process

1. The best way to submit articles for review - as a draft page or as sandbox page

2.Do i need to include tags for easy and quick review, and if i need to what is the syntax going to be like? Prosperhaven (talk) 07:13, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Help:Your first article will help. --David Biddulph (talk) 08:12, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Reliable Sources demonstrating Notability

Morning all - I'm trying to get a page approved (Scott Bateman MBE), and I perceived that my sources were reliable and showed notability. The editors don't think so, but I'm not sure what could be improved with them? I've got a significant number of other sources that I haven't used but I don't want to use trial and error to get it approved. Would rather understand what's actually being looked for. Thanks Katherinealee (talk) 10:21, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Draft:Scott Bateman (British TV and film producer) --ColinFine (talk) 10:24, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Katherinealee, and welcome to the Teahouse. At a quick glance many of your sources do look reliable, but they do not contribute to meeting Wikipedia's criteria for notability, because they are not independent of Bateman. Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost entirely interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources. --ColinFine (talk) 10:27, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

How to link to a 2nd subsection with the same name?

I know how to link to a (sub-)section of another article. I need to link to a subsection that has the same name as a subsection of another, earlier section in the same article. How do I make sure it doesn't link to the earlier subsection? Dutchy45 (talk) 10:36, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Please read up on, and use, Template:Anchor: this will solve this problem (and other problems too). And it's very easy to use. -- Hoary (talk) 11:15, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

@Hoary: "it's very easy to use" lol, no it's not! It might as well be Chinese. --Dutchy45 (talk) 11:44, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi Dutchy45. Please give the full title or URL of any page you're asking about. You can usually add " 2" to the end of a section link to link a second section with that name, but Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Section headings says section headings should be unique within a page. A link with " 2" will break if the first section heading is later renamed or removed. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:57, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

@PrimeHunter: Here 2005–06 UEFA Women's Cup is 1 where different subsections have the same name (times 4). Other seasons articles have the same thing. For this "2" do I need to do that after a pipe? --Dutchy45 (talk) 12:07, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

@Dutchy45: No pipe is needed but there is a space in " 2": 2005–06 UEFA Women's Cup#Group 1 2. It's confusing to have two "Group 1" in the same tournament. The second external link [1] says A1 and B1 like 2007–08 UEFA Women's Cup. I don't know whether such group names were officially used in 2005–06. The UEFA link [2] is dead. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:21, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

@PrimeHunter: The second link may be dead, but I got more info by clicking further inside the first link. Thanks for your help. I probably am gonna try to straighten everything out. --Dutchy45 (talk) 12:35, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Dutchy45, the "Anchor" template is very easy to use; however, its "documentation" is indeed confusing and soporific. Let's suppose that an article contains two instances of "===In collaboration===" and you want to point to the second and think that later you might also want to point to the first. Then change the first and the second to "==={{Anchor|collabo1}}In collaboration===" and "==={{Anchor|collabo2}}In collaboration===" respectively. Point to the second via "[[#collabo2|exhibitions in collaboration with others]]" (if within the same article) or "[[Hieronymus Bourbaki#collabo2|Bourbaki's exhibitions in collaboration with others]]" (if not). (Incidentally, there's no need for the names "string1" and "string2". You could call them "tweedledum" and "tweedledee", or "pork" and "cabbage", or whatever. They just have to differ.) Above, PrimeHunter points out that "A link with '2' will break if the first section heading is later renamed or removed." A link to any section heading will break if the heading is later renamed or removed; however, links using Anchor don't carry this risk. -- Hoary (talk) 21:24, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Aside: unlike in-text section links, the /* section name */ in an edit summary can't be changed after the fact. So once it's broken, it stays broken. :( ⁓ Pelagic ( messages ) 00:12, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks @Hoary:, I think I get it now. I'll do some practising in my sandbox later to make sure. Dutchy45 (talk) 05:11, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Good, Dutchy45; and if you were thinking, "Jeez, more instructions I'm supposed to read; no!", I sympathize. I hadn't used Anchor for some time before I needed to do it recently and I realized I'd forgotten how to use it; so started reading how to use it, dozed off, looked at an article in which I'd used it previously, figured it out in mere seconds, and applied it successfully. -- Hoary (talk) 06:31, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia page is not searchable

I have created a wikipedia page in hindi wikipedia but it is published but it is not searchable in google this is the link plkease make this link searchable in google https://hi.wikipedia.org/wiki/बृज_किशोर_शर्मा 110.224.177.35 (talk) 10:37, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Hello, IP user. This is the English Wikipedia, which is a separate project from Hindi Wikipedia: you need to ask at hi:विकिपीडिया:सहायता. Each Wikipedia has its own policies, but in English Wikipedia new articles are not searchable by external search engines until they have been reviewed. That might also be the case at Hindi Wikipedia: I don't know. --ColinFine (talk) 11:10, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

The Hindi Wikipedia allows search engine indexing right away but we don't control how quickly an external search engine like Google visits and indexes the page. It was created a few hours ago. Just wait. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:46, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

No surprise that it's been G11ed. Usedtobecool ☎️ 17:16, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Who is the best dancer in the world

 Bandile Mabaso (talk) 15:00, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

The purpose of the Teahouse is to answer questions about editing Wikipedia. Your question is, of course, entirely a matter of subjective opinion. --David Biddulph (talk) 15:03, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

I agree with David, but the answer is of course, me. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 15:30, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

They're not asking; they're sharing. The answer is "Who", probably a PhD in everything. Usedtobecool ☎️ 04:45, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Can I someone please review this article?

This article now has 118 citations (You're welcome). Can this have any upgrade on its quality scale? (Note: The citations may not cite the "Since" column of the table in the "List of presidents.." section. Also, the sites France Bleu and actu.fr are used 10 to 12 times each in the article). Excellenc1 (talk) 15:35, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Excellenc1. Unlike typical articles with grades of Stub, Start, C, B, GA, A, and FA, "list" articles are restricted to two grades: List and Featured List (FL). Featured articles and featured lists have very rigorous standards and undergo a lot of scrutiny in the peer review process. Thus, the only way to move a List-class article up a grade is to prepare it according to the featured list criteria to the best of your ability, submit it to the page for featured list candidates, respond to and amend criticisms, and see if the list article passes or fails. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 16:38, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Is it OK to make a Wikipedia page's name start with Wikipedia:?

Answer my question. EditJuice (talk) 15:36, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

@EditJuice: I am not an experienced editor, but as per my knowledge, Wikipedia: is for articles regarding Wikipedia's policies and stuff related to users (like the Teahouse). Have you read WP:TITLE? Excellenc1 (talk) 15:39, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

You can try it, but it won’t be a regular article. Wikipedia:Youtube is not the same thing as Youtube, so it will be subject to different policies. Shushugah (he/him • talk) 15:41, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Hello, EditJuice, and welcome to the Teahouse. There are two different things that may be going on here. Wikipedia has a number of namespaces, such as User:, Draft:, and Template:: the namespace appears at the beginning of a page name, followed by a colon. Encyclopaedia articles, in the main-space of Wikipedia' have no prefix; for example Germany. So a page should begin with the prefix Wikipedia: only if it is a page about the workings of Wikipedia, or is used to manage Wikipedia: examples are this page, Wikipedia:Teahouse, policies such as Wikipedia:Five pillars, discussion pages such as Wikipedia:Village pump/Proposals and essays such as Wikipedia:an article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing. If what you are talking about is (or is intended to be) an encyclopaedia article, it should not have Wikipedia: on the front (it might have Draft: on the front, if it is a draft article).

Separately, a few encyclopaedia articles which are about things related to Wikipedia have names that begin with "Wikipedia", but without a colon; for example Wikipedia community. Does that answer your question? --ColinFine (talk) 15:50, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Short answer: yes it OK to create something in the Wikipedia: namespace, but it is extremely unlikely that a new user would have any valid reason to do so. See WP:WPNS. I suspect that ColinFine is correct and that you meant an article name starting with "Wikipedia" Meters (talk) 16:03, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Clarify and Dead Link templates broken?

I'm a long-time reader of Wikipedia and I've made lots and lots of minor edits here and there. Only recently, I've started going a little deeper with more involved edits, including things like templates and citations. Just in the past few days, I've needed to add a Dead link tag to a citation on the article for Hugo Boss (fashion designer) (the person, not the company); and a Clarify tag on the page for the movie Evil Eye (2020 film).

I don't know if I did something wrong, but when it actually showed up in the editor, it added all of it's bare mark-up code to the text of the article, followed by the "clarification needed" tag. I tried both visual and source editing and I got the same result.

What am I doing wrong?

PS. Right before I posted this, I did a quick check on those pages to see if they were both still showing the bare code. They aren't, but that only raises a different question. Why do those templates show up as bare code in the editors, but not on the actual pages? JDspeeder1 (talk) 15:58, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

@JDspeeder1: when you added the template in this edit you entered the date as {{Dead link|date={{subst:Aug}} {{subst:2021}}|fix-attempted=yes}} This means that the "date" you entered was actually a copy of Template:Abbreviated user group (which has the shortcut {{Aug}}) and a copy of Template:2021 ({{2021}}), which is a error catching template for people accidentally entering the year as a template. When you use the dead link template you either need to enter the date without the template brackets ({{Dead link|date=August 2021}}) or use the DATE template ({{Dead link|{{subst:DATE}}}}) which the server will automatically replace with the date when you save the page. The templates were fixed automatically because there's a bot that runs around fixing dates in maintanance templates 192.76.8.74 (talk) 16:21, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Renaming Graphic charter of government communication in France

Shouldn't this article be named "Logo of France" or something like that, because anyone interested in the topic wouldn't find this and even Google won't show this article for logo of France (it shows the Emblem)? I know that this logo is not offically recognised as a national symbol but it is used in governmental communication. Excellenc1 (talk) 16:16, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

@Excellenc1: I suggest posting your question on the article talk page. If you don't get any response in a few days, then I suggest asking Wikipedia talk:WikiProject France to comment. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 17:25, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Can get some help?

I need some help with Draft:Great Lakes Fleet because I don't know how to cite sources. Could you help me with that? Yours truly Z.M.ZorroMothim (talk) 16:17, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

@ZorroMothim: The three sources in the draft appear to be formatted correctly. The reviewer is asking for additional reliable sources that have significant coverage of this company. See all the links in the gray box at the top of the draft, which starts with "This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article..." Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 17:32, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Notifications on my phone - all the time

Just the past week, anytime I check my watch list, the list of notifications slides in from the right, and I have to click it to get rid of it. There are no pending notifications; I've read them all, and unticked the little circles, so they're grey. Any thoughts on how to make it stop? Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 16:28, 21 August 2021 (UTC) Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 16:28, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Hello @Mr Serjeant Buzfuz, you should have got an answer already, if it were coming. So, I might as well give it a shot (before recommending some other place to take your question):

Have you tried opening an incognito window/private browsing or whatever else it's called, and logging in? If you do that and the problem is still there, something is different with how Wikipedia handles your account; something to do with your preferences or other modifications you may have made, or just a bug. If it is not there in incognito mode or a different browser, then your current browser data is stuck, so you'll have to clear your cache and cookies. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 17:30, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, I think that's it. I'll give it a try. I think maybe that I was checking the notifications so much on a GA/DYK project that my phone has cached that notifications check as the automatic response in my memory. I'll try clearing things. (I am not a tech guy, so appreciate the help. I didn't even think it was a cache problem until your post; thought I'd accidentally turned on a setting somewhere.) Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 19:23, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, that seems to have fixed it. Appreciate the help. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 20:52, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Cheers! Usedtobecool ☎️ 04:46, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Stories for kids?

Can l create a stories for kids in Wikipedia article Amossimphiwe1 (talk) 16:48, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Gave this query its own title. David notMD (talk) 16:54, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Amossimphiwe1 Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, so not a place for stories. David notMD (talk) 16:58, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

@Amossimphiwe1: You already asked this question in the "Activities in Wikipedia" section above. Instead of creating a new section, you may post a follow-up question in the same section. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 17:35, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Rishton Ka Manjha please fix a issue

I am having an issue in Draft:Rishton Ka Manjha please anyone help because we need to get the article to the main page soon Raviana48 (talk) 17:29, 21 August 2021 (UTC) Raviana48 (talk) 17:29, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

@Raviana48: You may not copy text from another website and paste it into Wikipedia. Instead, you should find reliable sources and summarize/paraphrase what they say. If you haven't done so already, I suggest reading Help:Your first article. Who is "we" and why do you "need to get the article to the main page soon"? GoingBatty (talk) 17:38, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

We need means our production team needs as all the viewers how is going to watch our Tv show needs additional information such as overview cast etc. Please help us to get the draft on mainspace. Raviana48 (talk) 17:44, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

No, you (plural) absolutely do not need to have a Wikipedia article in main article space. Wikipedia is never to be used as a publicity medium. Emphasis on never. If you want to publish information about the show, do it on your own website.

Furthermore, you are evading your block by creating new accounts, and until you get your original account unblocked, you will get no more traction with your help requests. Your block is the only thing that matters now. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:07, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Article Not Appearing in Google Searches/Results

Hi, the recently created article Jeremiah Lisbo for some reason does not appear in Google search results, and I am wondering why this is so? The only page that does appear is my Request for Peer Review of the same article. The Lisbo article is relatively new, but there are even newer articles that do appear on Google search results (e.g. Angela Ken). Is there anything I can do to make it appear on Google? Koikefan (talk) 18:02, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

@Koikefan: You can ask Google about it. What Google chooses to list or not list in their search results is entirely out of Wikipedia's control or influence. I'd say give it a month. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:14, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

New articles are hidden from search engines until they have been patrolled by WP:NPP or after 90 days, whichever comes first. Please remember that this is an encyclopedia, and not a venue for promotion. There should be no rush to get it into Google. RudolfRed (talk) 18:33, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

I feel like that's a factoid I knew a long time ago but somehow escaped from my memory. Thanks for bringing it back. Looks like the page was patrolled about 3 weeks ago, though. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:03, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps there is something strange with the logs, maybe because at one time the article was redirected, then redirect removed. Special:NewPagesFeed shows the article as unreviewed, & the article source shows <meta name="robots" content="noindex,nofollow"/>. --David Biddulph (talk) 19:30, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

@David Biddulph: The redirect was replaced with an article on the 3rd, which was then reverted back to being a redirect (also on the 3rd) due to not demonstrating notability. The redirect was then automatically reviewed by DannyS712 bot III. The redirect was turned back into an article on the 4th, which has not yet been reviewed, hence why it isn't showing up in google. 192.76.8.74 (talk) 20:09, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. In that case, do you think the delay in being reviewed since the 4th is a normal occurrence, or do you think, as has been suggested above, that something strange has happened with the logs, thereby causing an unnecessary delay? If that is the case, should there be something I do or a proper place this delay should be reported? Koikefan (talk) 00:08, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

@Koikefan: There's nothing weird going on in the logs - the page has just been reviewed multiple times as the article has been repeatedly created and turned back into a redirect. The delay is also completely normal - there are pages from 2005 in the queue still awaiting review. Your page will be added to the list of indexed pages either 90 days after creation or when it is reviewed by a new page patroller, whichever comes soonest. 192.76.8.74 (talk) 00:19, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Understood, thank you! Koikefan (talk) 00:20, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Confirmation That I Created New Article Correctly

Hello, I recently created the article Petersen Vargas. I am not sure if I created it correctly, as I first drafted it on my userspace and then moved it into mainspace (I am not sure if I created it as a draft, or if creating it as a draft is required). I would like to get some feedback on whether I did anything incorrectly, or if there is anything else I should do about the article. Thank you! Koikefan (talk) 18:17, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Koikefan. Everything looks fine. Drafts are optional, so you did nothing wrong. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:43, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

From technical point of view, looks correct to me! You may want to add Template:BLP to the talk page at Talk:Petersen Vargas and any other relevant WikiProjects, so that they get notified of its creation. A Wikipedia:New pages patrol will formally review it and tag it, if there are any issues. Shushugah (he/him • talk) 18:56, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Drafting Edits

Feels like a trivial question, but can I use my user sandbox to draft edits that I want to copy over into pre-existing articles, rather than for building new articles? PlasticStylus (talk) 18:25, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes! That is exactly what your sandbox is for, happy editing. Theroadislong (talk) 18:29, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

@PlasticStylus: Welcome to Wikipedia, and thanks for wanting to improve it. Yes, you can use the sandbox for most anything related to Wikipedia, such as learning how to edit or to work on some changes to existing articles that you will add to the article later. RudolfRed (talk) 18:31, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Change draft article url (category?) from Draft to User

Hello. I have a few draft articles I am working on and have not been able to get to them in several months. A bot has reminded me about one of them. I noticed it has a different URL than my other drafts. Does anyone know whether it is possible for me to change the url name or category from Draft to User? And if so, would you please explain how? Currently it is:

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

and I wonder if it would make more sense to have it as

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ballet_Florida

similar to my other drafts? I would just like to keep it in a safer draft format until I have had more time to develop it. Many thanks. Remando (talk) 20:10, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Remando, and welcome to the Teahouse. User:Ballet Florida would be the user page of a non-existent user called "Ballet Florida". Nobody but that user should use it, and it should not contain an article or a draft of an article. Draft:Ballet Florida is a good place to draft an article about "Ballet Florida". An alternative place would be a user subpage of yours, that you could call User:Remando/Ballet Florida. In my view, Draft space is a better place to prepare drafts, but user subpages were where it was done before Draft space was added, and many users still use them. (Note that I have specified these pages by putting their names in double square brackets, eg [[Draft:Ballet Florida]]. This is more concise than writing a URL, you can retain most spaces and punctuation that is in the name, and it shows you, as a redlink, if any of the pages don't exist). --ColinFine (talk) 20:20, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks @ColinFine. I think I did mean to ask how to change it from Draft:Ballet Florida to User:Remando/Ballet Florida. So you recommend I keep it as-is? I was worried that it would be deleted before I have a chance to spend time on it after seeing this note on my talk page User_talk:Remando#Concern_regarding_Draft:Ballet_Florida. -Remando (talk) 21:02, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Remando. Unedited drafts are subject to deletion after six months of inactivity. All you need to do is make a minor edit to any such draft, and that gives you another six months. Moving drafts is also an option. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:19, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Remando! If I understand correctly, you can make a small edit to the draft and that will reset the 6-month timer(?) But if it's something you want to set aside for yourself until "someday", you could move it to your user space. The goal with Draft: space was that other people might find drafts there and work on them, but in practice that rarely happens. (Disclosure: I'm not a big fan of the 6-month limit on drafts, but that's a whole other discussion.) ⁓ Pelagic ( messages ) 03:12, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks @Pelagic and @Cullen328! All very helpful. Remando (talk) 19:12, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Automatic soft redirects to Commons on all pictures?

Sometimes when an image becomes the subject of discussion it takes place both on en-Wikipedia and on Commons. However, most images are hosted on Commons, you can't directly edit or replace the image on en-Wikipedia etc. so the talk page on en-Wikipedia doesn't seem to add much.

Does it make sense to somehow add soft redirects to Commons on all pictures automatically?

(e.g. have File talk:Jack London Lake by bartosh.jpg redirect to c:File talk:Jack London Lake by bartosh.jpg.) Egroeg5 (talk) 20:53, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

@Egroeg5:. This could be a good topic of the idea lab at WP:VPI. Since neither of those talk pages has any content, I suggest you provide an example of pages with the problem you are trying to solve RudolfRed (talk) 00:25, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

@Egroeg5: Good idea. I have jumped straight to suggesting code at MediaWiki talk:Newarticletext#Talk page of a file hosted at Commons. We can implement it here at the English Wikipedia without a MediaWiki change, and we can tell whether the file exists at Commons but not here. I suggested use of {{Did you mean box}} which is also used in other situations on non-existing pages. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:44, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Edit a page - how to adit a. Wikipedia page

 Radha Raju Ahmed (talk) 01:13, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

@Radha Raju Ahmed: Welcome to the Teahouse! I added a link to an editing tutorial on your user talk page. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 03:00, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Great Highway

Can anyone help to stop activism NPOV violation s and it's being sneaked mid sentences? Great Highway BikeExpertCA (talk) 01:13, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

@BikeExpertCA: Welcome to the Teahouse! I see that you have made some edits to the Great Highway article, which have been reverted. Per the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, I suggest you post on the article's talk page - Talk:Great Highway - where you can discuss your suggestions and concerns, and come to a consensus with your fellow editors. Please also provide reliable sources whenever possible. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 03:04, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

UPDATE: BikeExpertCA has been blocked from editing Great Highway for one month. David notMD (talk) 04:19, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Rejected

FYI

 – added section header GoingBatty (talk) 03:28, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Jaintnp (talk) 03:26, 22 August 2021 (UTC)my article is rejected Jaintnp (talk) 03:26, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

@Jaintnp: Draft:Sushma Adhikari was declined, not rejected. This means you can continue working on it and resubmit. Each award needs an independent and reliable source. Wikipedia isn't looking for links to her videos, but news articles that provide significant coverage about her. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 03:32, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Numbers in infobox being forced to be links without double brackets

In the infobox at the top right of LEARN journal , the ISSN and eISSN (under "indexing") are forcing those numbers to be links, even without the double brackets. I'm certain that the numbers are correct, yet the pages that the numbers themselves link to don't look like the intended effect. Is there a syntax for forcing text/numbers to NOT be links?

Thanks in advance for any guidance. Mmiklas (talk) 05:17, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: LEARN Journal - GoingBatty (talk) 06:39, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Mmiklas, it's a feature of {{Infobox journal}}. The intention, I presume, is that a reader can click/tap through to Worldcat and find a library that holds copies of the journal. There doesn't appear to be a way to suppress it. ⁓ Pelagic ( messages ) 11:08, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the prompt response. Mmiklas (talk) 12:42, 22 August 2021 (UTC)mmiklas

File:O hudyma cr.jpg on Olesya Hudyma (BLP person), no fair usage template on file

i usually find fair usage template, however there is no such words. can somebody please look into it. 28july21 (talk) 06:26, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

I don't understand what the problem is. The file is hosted at Commons. Saying that it's their own work, Lyubomyr76 uploaded it there. If it really is Lyubomyr76's own work, then there's no issue about fair use. If on the other hand you have reason to think that it is not Lyubomyr76's own work, then you should bring up the matter at Commons. (On the page commons:File:O_hudyma_cr.jpg there's an option to nominate the file for deletion.) -- Hoary (talk) 06:39, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Image Alignment Help

Hello, I am looking for help adjusting the image alignment in the Kangxi Emperor article. As you can see from the article, there are some weird effects on the sections "Personality and Achievements" and "Family", due to the two left-aligned images, making a large white space on the left and making the bullet-point list difficult to read. I looked through a couple of the WP help articles and I played around with it a little myself, but I wasn't able to get the formatting right. Part of the issue is that I really don't understand how the placement of an image in the source text translates into the placement in the article. As far as I can tell, all the images are placed completely randomly in the text but somehow show up more or less where they should. Anyway, I would appreciate any help you can provide. Thank you. Shmarrighan (talk) 06:44, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

@Shmarrighan: This is referred to in MOS:SANDWICH. Left aligned images are known to mess up the display of some structures, and there should never be text between a left aligned and right aligned image because it doesn't display well on narrow displays (like phones). looking at that article there honestly seem to be far too many images in use - 14 seems excessive. I would be tempted to remove a couple of the less relevant or duplicate images or move some of them into a gallery section. 192.76.8.74 (talk) 07:05, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

@192.76.8.74: Thank you! And thank you for the edit you made on the article, it looks better already. --Shmarrighan (talk) 07:14, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

VisualEditor

Hi, I come from the Italian Wikipedia and I'm used to using the VisualEditor, without it I work really badly. I tried to activate it here too but I can't, if I go to my preferences under "beta features" no VisualEditor appears. I have activated all the experimental features but I have not solved anything, so even if I want to, I cannot work on the pages. Beaest (talk) 08:15, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

I think you can change it in Special:Preferences under Editing. Set the edit mode to "Use Visual Editor if possible". ― Qwerfjkltalk 09:24, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

How to resubmit 'declined' article Victor Ross (businessman)?

I have responded to helpful comments to improve my article and follow the recieved formatting (I think!), but canmot seem to resubmit...the 'Resubmit' button does not activate. New links and sources have been added. Victor Ross (Rosenfeld) recieved a significant half page Obituary in The Times (London) and was an internationally known public figure, particularly active within the Jewish community. I ould also like to remove '(businessman)' but cannot (Rosenfeld) would be more apt as a title, as VR was asked to anglicise his name when serving in WW2 to avoid reprisals if captured. (I am working in Visual Editor.) Many thanks for your help, hopefully! From RondDeJambe RondDeJambe (talk) 10:08, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

You don't have any inline citations. See Help:Referencing for beginners. Until you have any, it would be pointless to try to submit. As far as the title is concerned, that is something to be decided if/ when the draft is accepted for publication in mainspace. Victor Ross is currently a redirect to another article. - David Biddulph (talk) 10:17, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Victor Ross (businessman) has a resubmit button. Before you do, fix the referencing mess. David notMD (talk) 11:05, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

If possible, is there someone who can help me and modify it or approve it

[3:49:37 PM] <EmeraldRhino84> An article with many sources, why did you not agree with it?

If possible, is there someone who can help me and modify it or approve it

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Moamel_Ahmed_Shakeer If possible, is there someone who can help me and modify it or approve it Muamalq (talk) 12:52, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

@Muamalq: Hello, welcome to the teahouse! Part of the issue you have here is that you've included too many citations which is making the page hard to review - this is called citebombing. A simple statment of fact like "This person is a programmer" does not need 11 citations. A statment like "He found a security issue for the department of defense" does not need 21 citations. Cut it down to 1 or 2 really high quality, substantial sources for each fact - googling the name of most of theses sources suggests that there are a few good quality citations here, but there's also a few citations to stuff like press release sites? 192.76.8.74 (talk) 13:29, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

In my opinion, reduce to about 10 citations. David notMD (talk) 14:21, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Article for creation

Hi there,

Could someone help me make my draft better please.

Thanks TickTokTickTok (talk) 14:22, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

The problem is that you are attempting to create an article about the 2021 Greenlandic Football Championship, with each previous year being the subject of an article, BUT THE 2021 SEASON WAS CANCELLED. (Yes, I shouted.) An article cannot exist about a season of games that did not occur. David notMD (talk) 15:17, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

@David notMD: So I think this brings up an interesting point: how notable would a sports season need to be for it to be an article despite being canceled before ever beginning? If the cancelation did (for whatever reason) gain international attention, would the article then be '20XX Blahblah Sport Cup', or would it be 'Cancellation of the 20XX Blahblah Sport Cup'? Not asking specifically about this article, of course; it seems clear that this is well behind whatever that threshold would be. I should also note that TickTokTickTok may not have considered this a problem given 2020 Greenlandic Football Championship was created without much ado by a very active soccer editor. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 16:18, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

@David notMD: I'm not f*cking stupid, I am aware that the competition is cancelled and so was the 2020 competition as well. And games did occur but the Football Association of Greenland ended up cancelling it. I do research before I start writing you know TickTokTickTok (talk) 16:27, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

My point is that an article about a season of games that did not take place does not meet Wikipedia's concept of notability. I would differentiate this from 2020 Greenlandic Football Championship because that year the qualifying games took place before the championship was cancelled. David notMD (talk) 17:03, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Dieu Et Mon Pais

So my first attempt at making a wikipedia page for the McCurdy Scottish clan family motto was declined. However the Dieu et mon droit page is allowed.

My intention for the creation of the McCurdy Motto page, Dieu et mon pais, is for anyone interested in researching the ancestry of the McCurdy (MacKirdy, etc.) may find this page and be directed to the correct family motto, and the source material for this family motto (Ancestral McCurdys) Figmtnmatt (talk) 15:01, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Sorry but I have tagged your draft for speedy deletion as it is a copyright violation of https://ia800905.us.archive.org/27/items/ancestralmccurdy00blan/ancestralmccurdy00blan.pdf Theroadislong (talk) 15:06, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Figmtnmatt: Hello, welcome to the teahouse! Your article appears to be a chapter copied out of a book - you can't upload copyrighted material owned by other people to wikipedia, that's a copyright violation - please see WP:Copying text from other sources. You can use books as sources of information, but you need to write the article in your own words. Pages also need to be structured as an encyclopaedia article with enough information to identify what the article is about, as a single chapter out a book with no introduction or conclusion it doesn't make a lot of sense, e.g. it starts with a sentence which clearly relies on you having read the other chapters of the book to understand - this is why your draft was declined. 192.76.8.74 (talk) 15:13, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Isn't the work in the public domain per UK copyright laws since the author died in 1939 and more than 70 years have elapsed since then? Of course, copying from a PD source still needs to be acknowledged using {{PD-notice}}, etc. DanCherek (talk) 15:19, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Yep, you're right, it's out of copyright. Still needs acknowledgement though. 192.76.8.74 (talk) 15:40, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Furthermore Dieu et mon droit is the motto of the Monarch of the United Kingdom, not just a family motto. I suggest you simply add your information to the McCurdy (surname) article, in your own words, citing a reliable source for the information.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 15:15, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

"not just a family motto". That is possibly the most insulting verbiage I have ever read, considering my family's contribution to the Untied States of America. I understand the viewpoint of the copyright of material, however the book I copied from was written in 1930 and is most likely out of copyright. I have removed the copied material. I do not see how any additional context must be included for a McCurdy searching for anything regarding their family name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Figmtnmatt (talk • contribs) 15:20, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Figmtnmatt, whether or not a subject meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability or not, and hence whether or not there can be an article about the subject, has little directly to do with the quality, importance, popularity, fame, significance, or any other intrinsic or consequential property of the subject, save one: it depends almost entirely on whether there is enough material, written and published wholly independently of the subject to ground an article. I take Shantavira's comment as meaning not that the family is unimportant, but that there is not likely to be very much material published about the McCurdy motto (as opposed to the family), unlike the British Royal motto. --ColinFine (talk) 16:53, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. I was able to edit the McCurdy surname page and the links I added were further edited by someone to be External links. Much appreciated. Figmtnmatt (talk) 19:28, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Greenlandic Football Championship

A recent query about the 2021 season led me to Greenlandic Football Championship. I saw that each season has its own article (each with only on ref, from the league), and each team is the subject of an article, mostly with either no ref or only one ref. I have no feelings one way or the other for either football or Greenland, but do wonder about the validity of this collection of articles. Do any Wikipedia-football-knowledgeable editors want to comment? David notMD (talk) 15:29, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

@David notMD: Might be a better question for Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 15:56, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Posted there. David notMD (talk) 17:10, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

an account is vandalising an article by removing verified information

Hello-- new to editing. I have verified all of my edits with credible citations but an article on a living person is being monitored by either themselves or their publicist. This account is deleting entire paragraphs of verified information that is unfavorable to the public image of the subject. What are the rules for this? Does this qualify as vandalism? the article:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angela_Rye Blindsocialist (talk) 15:43, 22 August 2021 (UTC) blindsocialist

Hi Blindsocialist,

Thanks for asking. The relevant policies are:

• No edit-warring,
• Proper dispute resolution, first on the article's talk page (Talk:Angela Rye). A helpful essay: WP:DISCFAIL
• If there's a dispute about whether material should be within the article, the onus is on you to gain consensus for inclusion (WP:ONUS); you have not done so yet.

You have been blocked from editing the page for two weeks to prevent further edit warring, and to encourage proper talk page discussion at Talk:Angela Rye.

Best regards,
~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:47, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

I don't understand-- when I see the talk page notifications is doesn't take me to a talk page Blindsocialist (talk) 15:51, 22 August 2021 (UTC)blindsocialist

@Blindsocialist: Welcome to the Teahouse! I agree that the notifications on User talk:Blindsocialist don't seem to explicitly link to Talk:Angela Rye. You may also wish to read about the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. Happy editing! 16:02, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

@Blindsocialist: It appears that the IP you were referring to (in this case, not an account, but rather an anonymous editor) has been partially blocked from editing Angela Rye for two weeks. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 16:43, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

It's August. Think of the two-week block as a vacation. An editor reverted the IP's cuts, so for the moment, most of your added content is present. I believe you can make a case on the Talk page of the article for more content to be added, or existing content edited, even though you are blocked from editing the article itself. David notMD (talk) 17:19, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Submission declined due to inline citations and footnotes

My submission has been declined due to inline citation and footnotes. I am dumb when it comes to these IT stuffs and referencing. Please, can anyone help? Jdunkwu (talk) 16:35, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Added a title for this post. Also, Jdunkwu, I'll take a look. I'm assuming you're referring to a draft at AfC. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 16:40, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

@Jdunkwu: If I'm understanding this correctly, you're referring to Draft:Peter Adinma Dunkwu, which was rejected by Theroadislong. I'll start by saying that it appears – based on the nature of the article and based on your username – that you may be the subject in question. Your username, Jdunkwu, lines up with the first initial of the subject's stated nickname honorific in the article ("JP") and the subject's last name. If this is the case, I highly suggest you read WP:AUTOBIO for why what you're attempting is not a good idea. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 16:55, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Declined, not Rejected. Autobiography is allowed, but all factual statements need to come from reliable source references. If this is about you, and you know some information about you is true, that is not sufficient to be in the article unless you can cite published content not written by you. See Help:Referencing for beginners for ref instructions. David notMD (talk) 17:27, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

@Jdunkwu: If you are Dunkwu or related to Dunkwu or have any other conflict of interest, you must declare this on your user page. GoingBatty (talk) 21:40, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

There might well be a challenge on WP:NOTABILITY grounds, even if the other issues are sorted out. Johnbod (talk) 14:45, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

How to Edit a post

Moved from Wikipedia talk:Teahouse § How to Edit a post

 –  Qwerfjkltalk 19:00, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Hello everyone... So when I wanna edit a post, I'll just click on "home" and then read posts, and edit posts that are contrary to what the real thing is..?? Emmy Rey (talk) 17:13, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Unclear what you mean by "home". If you find content at an article that you believe to be not true, AND you can provide a reference supporting your conclusion, you can edit the article and add the reference you found. If, on the other hand, you believe you know what is true but do not have a reference, do not change the content. David notMD (talk) 19:23, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Starting a page for Zara Rutherford.

I was hoping to start a page for Zara Rutherford to help track her round-the-world solo flight as a 19 year old female. Is this not possible? Packers76 (talk) 19:12, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

You have perhaps not read the feedback on your user talk page, or on your draft at Draft:Zara Rutherford? In those feedback messages the words in blue are wikilinks to detailed advice. --David Biddulph (talk) 19:17, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not news (hence, not tracking her multi-month effort, and WP:TOOSOON). Resubmit only after she has completed her mission. David notMD (talk) 19:33, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Pinging Packers76.

I see some advice above by David notMD and at the draft by AngusWOOF to "resubmit after she has completed the trip". Just to be clear, this is not because completion of the trip is required, but because we tend to put a low weight on routine reporting of mildly interesting events; if new articles pop up after the trip, it would show some sustained media coverage.

Another question is where to put the article. After reading both WP:BLP1E and WP:BIO1E, I am under the impression that the article should be for the event (something like 2021 circumnavigation by Zara Rutherford) rather than the person. Somehow it feels wrong to me and I would rather have the article at the person name, though. Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 10:15, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

My article was deleted for invalid reasons

The response received is that the article is promotional and its not. How can we address this? 68.199.119.211 (talk) 19:45, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Hello. This is the only edit from this IP address. What was the title of the deleted article? As an administrator, I could look into it. You can appeal the deletion at Wikipedia:Deletion review. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:51, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

(ec) Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I think this is about Draft:Dancehall Divas. Wikipedia is not a place to merely tell about something. That is considered promotional here. Wikipedia is a place where articles summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about a subject, showing how the subject meets the special Wikipedia definition of notability. Pleass see Your first article. 331dot (talk) 19:52, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

How to join this ongoing voting.

Hello, I learnt that there is a Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees elections going on. Please how can I join..?? And what's it all about..Coz I learnt that there are rewards attached to it at the end of the voting exercise. I need help. Emmy Rey (talk) 21:16, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

@Emmy Rey: Hello, welcome to the teahouse! You are not eligible to vote in this years election - to vote you must have made a minimum of 300 edits before the 5th of July 2021 and a minimum of 20 edits between the 5th of January 2021 and the 5th of July 2021. These elections occur on meta, here's the page for this year's election: Meta:Wikimedia Foundation elections/2021. I'm not aware of there there being any rewards for voting. 192.76.8.74 (talk) 21:23, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

edit with a source included

If I made an edit, and there is already a source included, why is the edit changed without any explanation? 73.61.22.198 (talk) 21:17, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. You have no other edits associated with your IP; it is difficult to give a good answer without knowing the edit at issue. 331dot (talk) 21:41, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

When someone reverts an edit, they should explain in the edit summary their motivation. Sometimes their edit summary contains links to policies or guidelines to help you understand their motivation. Other times, it can be hard to understand. Per the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, I suggest you either ask the editor directly on their user talk page, or post on the article talk page and {{ping}} the editor to join the conversation. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 21:55, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

I have made edits in the past, so I am not sure why there is a different IP address. OK thank you for the feedback! 73.61.22.198 (talk) 22:06, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

IP addresses can change over time, even if you are using the same access device. David notMD (talk) 22:46, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Encyclopedia.com

I was planning to work on the article about the cult-film journalist and author Danny Peary, and his birth information is footnoted to Encyclopedia.com. From what I read at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_279#Encyclopedia.com, Encyclopedia.com aggregates reliable-source material. Here's my question: Rather than cite Encyclopedia.com, shouldn't we cite the reliable source instead? I've seen "via=" in some footnotes. Would that apply here?

I'll be specific. This Danny Peary Encyclopedia.com page https://www.encyclopedia.com/arts/educational-magazines/peary-dannis-1949 says at the end that the material comes from the reference work Contemporary Authors, New Revision Series. So should the current footnote ("Peary, Dannis 1949-". Encyclopedia.com. 2009. Retrieved August 19, 2019.) be more like ("Peary, Dannis 1949-". Contemporary Authors, New Revision Series. Via Encyclopedia.com. 2009. Retrieved August 19, 2019.)

Also I don't see "2009" anywhere on the Encyclopedia.com article. Should the 2009 come out?

I'm sorry to keep asking questions, and thank you everyone on Teahouse for helping me many times.

Now that I think about it, I'm not sure any of this even matters. The footnote goes to the same place. Am I being too persnickety? The Horror, The Horror (talk) 21:52, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

@The Horror, The Horror My quick passing observation is that you should not cite anything unless you have personally seen and checked that the information stated can be verified from that citation. If you can't do that, perhaps you should not be the one trying to create the article. Or try to find other reliable sources yourself that do support Notability. My point being that if Encyclopaedia.com can aggregate sources, you ought to be able to go out and find those sources yourself. Nick Moyes (talk) 22:00, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

@The Horror, The Horror: On the Encyclopedia.com page, click the "Cite this article" button (which looks like curly quotation marks), and you'll see citations that are similar to your proposal (without the 2009 year). Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 22:02, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

The Horror ×2, I completely agree with Nick Moyes. I'm not sure if GoingBatty is making a suggestion rather than just stating a fact, but if there's a suggestion that you should believe what the encyclopedia.com page says about its sources and then cite these sources on encyclopedia.com's say so rather than either citing encyclopedia.com or checking its ostensible sources for yourself, then I strongly disagree. (Incidentally -- and though not relevant to your question -- I bought Peary's Cult Movies trilogy when freshly published and found the three books to be most enjoyable reads. They go into fascinating detail. However, I gradually realized that, for those films that I happened to know well, the details were rather often mistaken.) -- Hoary (talk) 22:25, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

@Hoary: Sorry I wasn't clear. I was suggesting using a citation with "via Encyclopedia.com". I would do something similar with Newspapers.com. If The Horror, The Horror wanted to make the extra effort to find Contemporary Authors and then cite that directly, that would be fabulous. GoingBatty (talk) 22:32, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Hoary likes this.

Have I adequately resolved this template message?

I've updated the source for the Emmy awards for https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Autobiography_of_Miss_Jane_Pittman_(film); will someone please concur or further guide me in the process? Thanks. Joeythegimp (talk) 22:14, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

@Joeythegimp: Looks like you've solved the problem to me, there's no information on that page referenced to IMDB anymore! You can go ahead and delete the clean-up template if you want. 192.76.8.74 (talk) 22:28, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia shows 2 family name sheets for 1 genus: "Ariolimacidae" & "Arionidae" for Genus Ariolimax

FYI

 – removed broken template --Maresa63 ^Talk 05:02, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

As noted above. Regards, LWms

Ariolimax redirects to Banana Slug and only shows one family. Which article are you referring to that shows two? RudolfRed (talk) 23:31, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Insert image

How do I download images Comrade Fabian Livinus (talk) 23:43, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

@Comrade Fabian Livinus: Welcome to the Teahouse! To insert or upload images, see Wikipedia:File Upload Wizard, and take care to carefully answer the copyright questions. You can't just upload any picture you find online. To download images to your device, use the same process as you would to download an image from any other website. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 00:51, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Can I delete an entire section on "cultural identity" if it doesn't have a source after 1997?

I got a wikipedia and started editing some misinformation about things I care about. I can understand the impulse for people to edit in their own experiences for something as personal as Alcoholics Anonymous but I'm pretty serious about sources in general. As much as I want to delete the entire "cultural identity" section just because I know it isn't true, I think there's an argument for deleting it because it only contains three sources from 1983, 1985, and 1997. How would it be possible to have accurate information about a group's culture with information from 24-38 years ago? Can I delete this entire section while I work on a more modern section with sources from the last 5-10 years? I have a ton...see the talk page of my last edit. Thank you MxLysistrata (talk) 00:32, 23 August 2021 (UTC)MxLysistrata

@MxLysistrata: Welcome to the Teahouse! You can be bold and delete it, but it's possible that someone will revert your edit. Instead, you may want to ask this question on the article's talk page - Talk:Alcoholics Anonymous - to gain consensus and give a better explanation than you can in a short edit summary. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 00:54, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

MxLysistrata Since it’s properly sourced, it doesn’t matter how old the information is. I would simply add more updated information to the end of that section, if you can find it. We strive for balance here. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 01:18, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Personally, I think the entire subsection is crap, and warrants deletion. Per GoingBatty, can delete with a clear but concise explanation Many editors watch this article, so if you are reverted, start a discussion at the Talk page. David notMD (talk) 02:52, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

I am not sure what the basis is for such derision about this section. It has multiple sources, and not only that, the sources present different sides of the issue. Would it help to retitle the section from "cultural identity" to "effect on cultural identity"?

Rejecting content merely because you disagree with what it says, that does not sound like an objective reaction. Have there been changes to the AA program that makes these sources irrelevant to the present-day AA program? If there's a source indicating that the methodology of those studies is considered "deprecated", then that would be relevant to the article. Maybe I have a blind spot about something, but removing the current content would suggest to me that we're moving away from NPOV. Fabrickator (talk) 03:39, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

The age of sources is only one of many factors that should be evaluated when determining which sources should be used. A 25 year old academic source may be preferable to a two year old source in the popular press. This is an organization or movement that is over 85 years old so high quality sources published a half century or so after its founding should not be ruled out. MxLysistrata, you say that you want to delete the content "because I know it isn't true" but the section in question presents two different and almost contradictory views of AA, which to me aligns with the core content policy, the Neutral point of view. If you can find high quality and newer sources that address these issues, then bring them forth on the article talk page. An individual Wikipedia editor's opinion about what isn't true carries no weight, unless accompanied by solid evidence to the contrary. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:30, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

• For reference, here's a before-after diff of OP’s edits to the section, which were rather light.

I made a couple of edits myself to the whole "criticism" section. I do think the "cultural identity" subsection title is weird but it does look like a serious source (I have not performed a bibliographic search so maybe it is WP:FRINGE but the onus is on those who want to remove it to prove it). Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 10:00, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

I think the issue here is that the AA program has shifted over time, at least to be expecting that participants would hold religious beliefs. That might make those older studies less relevant, but at the very least, this historical content is itself highly relevant. But for the purpose of maintaining encyclopedic content, we should not "pave over" this fact. If AA started out as heavily based on religious beliefs and has become a completely secular program (or at least less religious), it's hard to overstate the significance of this. If we were to ignore the historic changes in an organization like AA, we would be doing a great disservice to the WP community. Fabrickator (talk) 10:32, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

More opinion on Draft:Sourajeet Majumder

Hey everyone, I had declined this draft and had requested for WP:THREE which were provided by Wikicontributor12369 here [3]. Since I am still getting back from my break, I thought it will be best to bring here for more diverse and informed opinions. Please help. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 01:39, 23 August 2021 (UTC) Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 01:39, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Editing an existing book citation

Hello, Thanks for providing and servicing this help forum.

I cited the book source #4 on this Wiki page on the Gion Matsuri: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gion_Matsuri# Book: Pawasarat, Catherine (Nov 2020). The Gion Festival: Exploring Its Mysteries. self-published. ISBN 978-0-9985886-6-7.

I used a template for the citations.

I'd like to add a URL for the book (http://www.gionfestival.org/book/), but can't find a way to edit the citation.

I have read numerous wiki help pages on editing and on citations, but have not found examples that match this citation (it has a cog symbol in the upper right window that pops up when I hover over it). And when I click on the article edit tab, I don't get access to the template and the URL field that I'm looking for. (Just to let you know I tried resolving this on my own before writing you).

Any help much appreciated. Thank you. AkasaCatherine (talk) 01:42, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

@Akasayeshe: Hello, welcome to the teahouse. The little cog that shows up in the corner of the box when you click on a citation contains the settings for the citation popups (i.e. the boxes that show up when you're reading the article). To actually change the citation you need to click the edit tab at the top of the article then alter the citation template. How you do that will depend on whether you're using the source editor or the wikitext editor. In source editor you need to add an url parameter (i.e. add |url= http://... to the template) in visual editor you click on the citation, click edit then enter the url into the box that appears. 192.76.8.74 (talk) 01:55, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Citing the same source? When to use citations

An example. [It was also reported that New South Wales Police had denied entry to ticketholders at the “A State of Trance” music festival in April.16 Speaking to the ABC in June, promoter Richie McNeill estimated that “about 40 people” were turned away from the event after being stopped by a drug detection dog. 17McNeill’s company, Hardware Corp, was also responsible for organising the upcoming Above and Beyond performance at Sydney Showground that weekend. 18When asked about the proposed decision to deny entry to patrons, McNeill acknowledged that his company had given police approval for the plan. 19 “We have to or there’s no event basically” he said.20]

This is a paragraph from an article I'm writing. I've put numbers in where I thought citations might be needed but they'd all be from the same article. Would it be acceptable to put a citation at the end of the paragraph? OpticalBloom241 (talk) 03:32, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Hello, OpticalBloom241. A citation at the end of a paragraph in a well structured Wikipedia article is presumed to verify all of the content in that paragraph. If you want to use the reference in various parts of the article, then carefully follow the instructions at WP:REFNAME. Once you assign a name to a reference, you can invoke it repeatedly with a brief snippet of properly formatted code mentioning that reference name. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:10, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

New Pages Reviewer tag

Hello 👋

i am reviewing Special:NewPages, i need a tag that helps me on showing Articles which hasn't been Patrolled yet.

thanks. —— 🌸 Sakura emad 💖 (talk) 05:27, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Sakura emad, You are not a New Page Reviewer and you won't be able to run the tool that helps in this process. ─ The Aafī ^(talk) 06:37, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

@TheAafi, dear i think you misunderstood. —— 🌸 Sakura emad 💖 (talk) 06:39, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

i need it for other projects. —— 🌸 Sakura emad 💖 (talk) 06:39, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Sakura emad, I'm sorry if I misunderstood. Can you please explain in detail the thing you exactly need? Do you want to tag new articles with any related tags? For example any article being an orphan, or failing notability or cleanup tags etc. Such tags? or anything else? ─ The Aafī ^(talk) 06:42, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

or you simply want something that helps in showing articles not patrolled yet? ─ The Aafī ^(talk) 06:44, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

by Tags i meant Tag Filter, it helps me to only see unpatrolled ones, and they are marked (like that) —— 🌸 Sakura emad 💖 (talk) 06:48, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your warm reply, i am currently reviewing new Pages on CKB wikip in special:NewPages but without the Tag it shows me all the new pages includes Patrolled ones that i don't need them. —— 🌸 Sakura emad 💖 (talk) 06:44, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Sakura emad, So you are basically seeking assistance for another Wikipedia project. I don't think anyone here would be able to assist. But yes we use the Page Curation tool while reviewing new articles. It doesn't come up with the articles that've been already patrolled but it does show articles tagged with CSD. If that doesn't help, phabricator is the best venue to seek assistance. ─ The Aafī ^(talk) 06:52, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

uhmm i think all the projects are linked together? nothing wrong with helping other projects it's wikipedia after all. —— 🌸 Sakura emad 💖 (talk) 06:55, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Sakura emad, Each Wikipedia project is different. The only common thing is that they all are hosted by the WMF. If we have some issues here we don't ask at the helpdesk of Arabic Wikipedia. Such issues are seen at Phabricator and perhaps at Meta as well. ─ The Aafī ^(talk) 07:00, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

ok i got it, sorry 🙏. —— 🌸 Sakura emad 💖 (talk) 07:03, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

@Sakura emad the Teahouse is for help with editing the English Wikipedia. Unless someone who also happens to edit ckb and is more experienced than you happens to come through here within one and a half days that this post is going to be on this page, you are unlikely to get the help. In the English Wikipedia, it seems this list shows only the unpatrolled pages. There's a page when you change the "en" to "ckb" and press enter, but I wouldn't know if it's what you want. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 07:00, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes! it is (&hidepatrolled=1) thank you alot both of you. —— 🌸 Sakura emad 💖 (talk) 07:05, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Cheers! Usedtobecool ☎️ 07:31, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

i have seen it somewhere before a way to only show Articles that's not been Patrolled yet. --—— 🌸 Sakura emad 💖 (talk) 06:57, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

WikiProjects

Why are some WikiProjects marked inactive? I know it's not a big deal of a doubt, but I would like to know why they happen. Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 07:26, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Hello @Ken Tony! It does not take many people or wide consensus to create WikiProjects. When they are niche or narrow, they are liable to die, when the few editors who are a part of it stop editing or decide to do something else, or realise they didn't need to create the WikiProject at all and could have just edited under the parent WikiProject. Some WikiProjects may be so narrow in scope that they may have gone inactive because they accomplished most of what they wanted to accomplish. See WP:WikiProject. If you want to activate one, you can do it, but it's better if you have at least a few more editors willing to do it with you. Best, Usedtobecool ☎️ 07:36, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation! Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 08:57, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Can someone explain in detail what reliable secondary sources mean?

I do not understand how to find reliable secondary sources for gaming news and media that is not released outside Japan, specifically if it's printed media (I don't see any in both US and Japan for printed physical media content tbh). According to Wikipedia, secondary sources mean either books, magazines, or physical media, which I have a hard time finding (I do not see any physical magazines that have content about the game on it, nor do I know which companies/gaming magazine business still print physical magazines). I have searched the internet and online libraries for content related to the game on physical media, but there isn't anything related like Brady Games guide or some Times printed magazine that covers the game and information about it. Because of this, I am not sure how to find Secondary sources in that case. Also, for primary sources, (I believe that the reviewer for my article doesn't consider non-english sources as reliable at all, from their tag review of my submission), I do not find much information on english websites for some, but mostly Japanese/non-english (which I don't speak or understand. According to another person, the sources are reliable, so I am confused on that part as well.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_a_tertiary_source (I'm basing on this) Misser420 (talk) 07:46, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Misser420. Whether a source is considered secondary doesn't really have anything to do with its format. An electronic source could be secondary just as much as a book. Have you read WP:PSTS, which explains the distinctions between primary, secondary and tertiary sources? Cordless Larry (talk) 08:15, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

@Misser420: I assume we are talking about Draft:Tagatame no Alchemist. See above for secondary vs. primary.

Whether a source is reliable depends on what claim it is used to support, but generally speaking sources with an established reputation for a strong editorial process, issuing corrections when they get things wrong, etc. are preferred. This is true for English, for Japanese, for Swahili etc. sources.

Non-English sources are OK although English sources are preferred if available with the same quality, but they still need to be reliable. The decline comment by IceWelder says many of these sources appear to be from unreliable outlets; I do not know if that is true, but for sure it does not say or imply that being in Japanese is the problem. Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 09:42, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Being of a foreign language is not a problem. In the current draft specifically, onlinefanatic.com and appzin.tistory.com are personal blogs, while myanimelist.net is user-generated (a tertiary source); these are by default unreliable. The content from some of the listed sites—sensortower.com, anilist.co, movies.yahoo.co.jp, and satelight.co.jp—are, while potentially from reliable outlets, generated from a database, rather than authored. Additionally, the Satelight one does not appear to show any content. A third of the sources are primary sources (either the dev's or the series' site), which is an issue for notability. Regards, IceWelder [✉] 10:39, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

can you tell when the wikipedia page is visible in google search ?

 Pushhkar (talk) 08:13, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Pushhkar Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Articles(not "pages") are searchable by outside search engines once they are formally marked as patrolled by a New Pages Patroller, or after a period of time(30-60 days I think). Do you have a particular need for something that you wrote to be searchable? 08:16, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

90 days if not reviewed automatically by WP:NPP but it can take longer for Google, as it’s a third party service. Overall it’s not the primary motivation for editing Wikipedia. Shushugah (he/him • talk) 10:44, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

@Pushhkar: Please also note that user pages and drafts are not indexed by outside search engines - see Wikipedia:Controlling search engine indexing. GoingBatty (talk) 13:50, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

How to message somebody on Wikipedia??

How to message somebody on Wikipedia??

Hello, 06nighthawk60. You write a message on that person's "user talk" page -- just as your own, User talk:06nighthawk60 already shows messages addressed to you. Add your message to the foot of the user talk page (not to the top), and at the end of the message sign it and date it: hit "~" four times in a row. -- Hoary (talk) 12:06, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

regarding editing chitragutavanshi kayastha

My edits regarding Chitraguptavanshi Kayastha were reverted. I want a clear explaination from the person who has done it. If it is clearly stated that person who has srivastva as his surname is a srivastva kayastha then why my edits were removed? LALAJI1234 (talk) 11:26, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

LALAJI1234, the person is SpacemanSpiff, on whose talk page you pose the same question (in a somewhat belligerent tone) but conclude "ok i have understood it". That's good to hear. I hope that part of what you've understood is that non-Indians are welcome to write about Indian subjects, as long as they do so in accordance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, just as Indians are welcome to write about non-Indian subjects, as long as ditto. -- Hoary (talk) 12:13, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

A time will come when INDIA will be a superpower and we will dicatate things on our own terms. Just wait for that day to happen.LALAJI1234 (talk) 12:46, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't associated with any specific country. Also, this seems like a threat which is against Wikipedia's policies (I don't actually remember which one). Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 14:15, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

IABot

Why I can't run IABot tool? It is showing here that it is unable to handle this request. Is this problem only me or is it a common problem? Waiting for a reply. Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 11:28, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

@Ken Tony: The server that runs the tool is down, see Phab:T289447. 192.76.8.74 (talk) 12:21, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

I know this is a bit unrelated, but what is IABot? Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 14:06, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Blaze The Wolf It's InternetArchiveBot, and it's used to find/create archives of sites (so that if the site goes down or moves all the pages on the website around, we can still see the archived copy of it). Joseph2302 (talk) 14:10, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Ohhh! Ok. I didn't know there was a specific tool for it. I thought it simply ran automatically. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 14:13, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

How Check Editors

Hi everyone, I will like to find out how I can check and search for all editors in my community (old or new and also unknown). Thanks, Jwale2 (talk) 12:51, 23 August 2021 (UTC).

There are relevant categories at Category:Wikipedians in Ghana and Category:Ghanaian Wikipedians, but I don't believe that there is any further subdivision to specific localities within Ghana, and of course there may well be editors who have not declared their locality. --David Biddulph (talk) 13:00, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

@Jwale2:. Welcome to the Teahouse. You could also use a Google search for "ghana ip range" to find likely IP addresses that correspond to Ghana (e.g. 41.74.80.0 and so on) and look for editors here who don't have an account. However, there won't be a reliable way to find all such editors. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:17, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

I need help understanding why none of my sources qualify accord to Wikipedia guidelines.

Hi! First time here at the Teahouse. I would really appreciate if someone can help me with this draft I'm working on:Articles for creation: Praxis Electronic Medical Record. I thought that after my last submission the references I added met all the criteria established for notability of the subject, but the most recent review did not agree. Since I got no comments on why the sources weren't valid, I thought I'd come here to get some guidance. Any comments on how to improve the article in general is much appreciated as well. Astropolar13 (talk) 14:56, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

@Astropolar13: Welcome to the Teahouse. The latest decline seems to also raise concerns of promotional language, which the reviewer may have felt existed because of editorial words like "hence" and "finally", giving it a sense of being instructional. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 15:05, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

@Astropolar13, it looks like you've gotten several declines on that article. I definitely sympathize with how frustrating that is, and we'll help you out here as best we can. Creating any new page is hard, and that's especially true for company pages, where there's an extra level of scrutiny. First, could you tell us what you consider to be your three best sources for establishing the notability under our relevant guideline? We can give detailed feedback on those more easily than all 15 in the draft. Sometimes reviewers make mistakes and miss qualifying sources, but also sometimes a topic just doesn't have enough available sourcing and isn't ready for inclusion yet; be open to either of those possibilities here. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 17:22, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Removed a lot of content and refs that in my opinion not relevant to Praxis. Not sure if what is left justifies an article. David notMD (talk) 17:34, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

I took a look at several of the sources which appear very low quality, and almost certainly the result of public relations efforts by the company. One reference labeled Small Business News is actually Mini Business News. Interviews with company executives are not independent coverage. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:43, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Astropolar13, what is your relationship, if any, with Praxis Electronic Medical Record? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:48, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

How to incorporate a video game's opening text into its wiki plot summary?

I am writing the plot summary for the game ULTRAKILL. The first sentences are as follow:

"In Ultrakill, the player controls V1, a machine that uses blood as a fuel source. After the extinction of humanity, the player descends through the layers of Hell in order to harvest the blood of demons..."

However I want to incorporate a series of computer messages that appear at the beginning of the story that serve as the game's unofficial tag-line:

"MANKIND IS DEAD.

BLOOD IS FUEL.

HELL IS FULL."

How would I best do this? Or should this just be left out? EnzoTC (talk) 18:14, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

@EnzoTC: Welcome to the Teahouse. The Manual of Style discourages an in-universe point of view, so that should be left out. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 18:24, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Are you usually allowed to remove entire discussions from your own user talk page?

I know that removing notices from Wikipedia administrators is not allowed, but does that apply to discussions? Someone just did it and I thought I'd revert that, but I don't know whether it is actually against policy or not. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 18:28, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Hello, MarioSuperstar77. You are allowed to remove such discussions from your talk page, but archiving is preferred. Please see Help:Archiving a talk page. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:31, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

@MarioSuperstar77 {{subst:Setup auto archiving}} may also help. ― Qwerfjkltalk 19:02, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Newspaper Accessability

I recently got a newspapers.com account. I'm wondering if it's okay or useful for me to put block quotes from the newspaper articles I'll be citing on the talk page so other editors can read the source material regardless of whether they have access to the newspaper. Similarly, can I simply include the text in the quote parameter of the citation template, and if so, how much text is too much? TipsyElephant (talk) 18:42, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Submission rejected

Hi, my article draft I wrote was rejected because I included a link to an external SEC report. How can I include the report and not get rejected? I was under the impression that citing an external source is actually helping the article instead of dinging it? Please advise.

Thanks,

Tom Tnoack1 (talk) 18:48, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

@Tnoack1: Welcome to the Teahouse. You did not work on an article draft; rather, you edited If this is about Electrical Transient Analyzer Program, your changes were reverted as the additions seemed promotional. The source you used does not appear to be independent from the subject, and as such has been reverted. Please find a reliable source, and if you have a paid relationship with ETAP, please disclose that on your user page.

ETA: I'm not seeing any draft in your contributions, which suggests it has been deleted, if that is what you are referring to. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 18:55, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Draft:MCY.com was deleted, not because you had a link to an external report, but because the draft text was a copyright violation. Wikipedia contributions need to be in your own words. --David Biddulph (talk) 19:17, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Review sandbox article

how do I submit my article for review from my sandbox re? I'm working with the mobile view Olugold (talk) 18:49, 23 August 2021 (UTC) Olugold (talk) 18:49, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Please, see WP:AFC for detailed description of the process. Ruslik_Zero 18:57, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

My first article

 Courtesy link: Draft:SkateBird Miami
Hi, I’m a skateboarder and I’m trying to reference a new skatepark that’s being built in Miami. My article has been reviewed and not approved because I need more sources about it. I got articles in the press mentioning it … the thing is new so it’s not easy to come with references JP305 (talk) 18:50, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi and thanks for contributing to Wikipedia! If the skate park is in construction, it might be best to wait until the park is completed, before creating an article. See WP:TOOSOON Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 19:01, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

@JP305: Welcome to the Teahouse. This may be a case of the subject being written about too soon, and as such might not satisfy Wikipedia's general notability guidelines. You may wish to take the interactive tutorial if you haven't already, and read up on how to properly cite references. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:01, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

@JP305: both of the people who've replied to you are correct, and I'd add to that that sentences like "cabanas to rest and enjoy the place" read like an advert, and most (all?) of your sources are just press releases. These are not independent from the subject so they don't count towards notability (to count, it needs to be independent, in-depth and reliable). — Bilorv (talk) 19:04, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

When I tak about the cabanas it’s because usually you dont even have a bench to sit when you skateboard and want to rest. The specs of a skatepark are important to skateboarders. I visited the location and wanted to share the information

Hi JP305. I can tell you are passionate about skateboarding. I think that is amazing and I'm very glad you are active and also able to get out in the community to visit some of these parks. Unfortunately, your experience while visiting is considered OR or original research. Wikipedia is only concerned with what reliable independent secondary sources say about the subject, in this case SkateBird Miami. As pointed out, it may just be too soon to write about the park. I'm not throwing in a lot of links because most all of the links provided by my fellow editors will get you where you need to go. What I will say is that I empathize with you and understand how important the subject is to you and that you just want to inform other skateboarders about the park and its amenities. Maybe writing your own blog about it or going to a website that features the park and sharing your experience will be better and allow you to share with others. It might just be too soon to meet the criteria here but, in time, maybe more will be written and eventually it will be appropriate to include an article. I hope this helps and I really hope you don't take offense to what my fellow editors are telling you because we all are just here to help. Be encouraged, much wikilove and happy editing! --ARoseWolf 19:51, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Calculating the elevation of a mountain and also distance between two places

1.Hello house, Please having the geographical coordinates of a mountain location, what tools can I use to measure the altitude of that mountain?

2. How do I measure the distance between two places on s map. Is there a tool to do that?Boadu Emma (talk) 19:48, 23 August 2021 (UTC) Boadu Emma (talk) 19:48, 23 August 2021 (UTC)