Wikipedia:Teahouse

Bonadea, 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

How does rating articles work?

Who rates new articles? (A, B, C, Start, Stub) Is it a specific set of permissions that are granted? TIA. Jmaxx37 (talk) 18:33, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

@Jmaxx37 welcome to Teahouse! There's more information in Wikipedia:Content assessment, the short version though is anyone can make the actual assessment for A, B, C, Start, Stub including the article creators, however for GA/FA (Good/Featured Articles) there is a formal nomination process. Happy editing and rating! ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 19:01, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

@Shushugah @Jmaxx37 I believe A also requires nomination. ― Qwerfjkltalk 21:38, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

according to the already-referenced Wikipedia:Content assessment, this is incorrect.~TPW 17:32, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

added new edit

I've added new info on the cast list of a film, but after twice editing it and publishing it, nothing has changed. How long does it take for new info to be published? LLew8 &()^ Llew8 (talk) 23:21, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

@Llew8: Welcome to the Teahouse! For almost all articles, published edits should appear immediately, just like your post here. However, your post here is the only post you have published on Wikipedia. What article were you trying to edit? GoingBatty (talk) 23:30, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi Is this how I reply? I was trying to add a cast member to the film First Knight.

• &^% — Preceding unsigned comment added by Llew8 (talk • contribs) 23:51, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Llew8, and welcome to the Teahouse. The most common reason for this is that your edit did go through, but then another editor thought it was not appropriate and reverted it: please look in the article's History to see if this is the case. If so, they are likely to have given a reason for reverting in their edit summary. In any case, whether you think their reversion was justified or completely wrong, you should not simply reapply it, but should open a discussion on the article's talk page. See WP:BRD. --ColinFine (talk) 23:53, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you ColinFine very much. Grateful. &^%$ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Llew8 (talk • contribs) 23:57, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi, Llew8! According to the 'View history' tab of the article, the last edit made to the article was on 30 November 2021. If your edit had gone through and then been reverted, those edits would be recorded, so it looks as though something went wrong when you tried to save ('Publish') your edit. Don't worry, we all learn here by making mistakes and trying again.

I notice that no reference at all is cited for the cast list. It should really be sourced, but be aware that Wikipedia does not recognise the IMDb as a Reliable source because its contents are user-generated: something like an authoritative movie industry journal would be preferable. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.209.120.67 (talk) 11:27, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

@Llew8: I suggest you use {{ping}} when you reply to notify the person you're replying to. To learn how to edit, you could view Help:Introduction and The Wikipedia Adventure. Happy editing! {[please}} GoingBatty (talk) 03:40, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Edgar Jepson

I am a recognised authority on crime fiction and added information based on research in the British Newspaper Archive and the British Library Catalogue. While sources are not provided for the vast majority of information on the webpage I am being asked but how can I prove that books exist? 77.97.74.107 (talk) 08:05, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Are you asking how to prove whether specific books exist, or whether a source you cite from the British Newspaper Archive exists? (So for instance, you want to know how to prove that the December 14, 2012 issue of the Yorkshire Evening Post exists.) Fabrickator (talk) 08:29, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

The place to discuss a particular article is on its talk page, in this case Talk:Edgar Jepson. Wikipedia has a policy of verifiability, relying on references to published reliable sources. Your knowledge or original research is not acceptable for this purpose. I notice also that in your recent edits you have continued to violate Wikipedia's Manual of Style by the use of curly quotes, despite the warning which you were given in November; please correct your errors in this regard. --David Biddulph (talk) 08:34, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

It would be useful if you registered an editor name, rather than editing under an IP address as an unregistered editor. If someone challenges the existence of a book, a link to the BL catalogue record is useful (for more recent books, a formatted ISBN verifies). If you use a newspaper article as a source, show it as a reference: it does not have to be freely available online, but your ref should include newspaper title, date, page, article title, author if any. And, yes, the article talk page is the place to talk about an article: adding comments into the article itself might be considered vandalism. PamD 09:50, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

The reason you are constantly getting reverted and warned for making non-constructive edits is because you have so far refused to engage with other editors. You have been told multiple times that references are required, and you have simply refused to countenance it. I offered detailed help (see the section Helping you with the AEW Mason article on your talk page), and your response was "I dont have time for any more of this. If you dont like the information delete it."

It's clear that you are a knowledgeable editor, and that with a very little additional effort on your part you could be welcomed with open arms here. Instead, you are at real risk of being permanently blocked by an admin any day now for continuing to make disruptive edits. Please, please, read WP:SAYWHEREYOUREADIT and make sure you add full source citations (including page numbers, and whether you have looked at an original hard copy, an online image, or a secondary index). As you've seen, many pages are still not fully sourced, often because they were created some time ago when sourcing requirements were much laxer than they are now, but that's not a valid reason to add more unsourced material. Once you've learned how to add a reference they are pretty easy to include, and even if you make good faith mistakes initially that's perfectly OK.

Although you weren't ready last time, let me once again offer to help with these citation issues. With your knowledge, you are capable of making significant improvements to many fiction articles and it would be a shame if your editing career were to end with a block. I warmly welcome you to follow up on my talk page. MichaelMaggs (talk) 10:28, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

As I indicated on your talk page, for a "recognised authority" you're being so sloppy, both in the formatting and in the content of your edits, that you're making it a lot of work for other editors to clean up after you. Sometimes I've spent the time to do so, but sometimes I've become so frustrated that it seemed better just to revert you. In the Jepson article, for instance, you listed among his works "Miss Timmins and Lord Scredington (1940)", when sources such as this and this, show that the work in question was published in 1927, not 1940. When all of your contributions have to reformatted and every bit has to be double-checked for accuracy—and when you can't be bothered to learn the difference between titles that should be italicized and titles that should be quoted (to say nothing of single quotes vs. double quotes or curly quotes vs. straight quotes)—how can you expect others to recognize your edits as the fruits of profound expertise? Deor (talk) 18:10, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

The BL confirms the 1927 publication date. MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:40, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

For reference, this IP editor is continuing to edit without any change in behaviour whatsoever: see further warnings I have posted at User talk:77.97.74.107. MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:15, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Delete

 Courtesy link: c:File:Sddas.png

I have mistakenly noted this image as my own work. Please speedly delete it.

File:Sddas

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Michri michri (talk • contribs) 08:37, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

There is no record of you having uploaded any images to enwiki. If you are referring to a file on Wikimedia Commons, you need to ask there. --David Biddulph (talk) 08:42, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

David Biddulph, kindly see the most recent image uploaded by me in the article Mohammed Shami. Instead of uploading through creative commons license, I have uploaded it as my own work. It is actually a screenshot taken from a video of CRICKETNEXT youtube channel. Now, please nominate the image uploaded by me for speedy deletion and add it as Wikicommons (The channel states reuse allowed). ThankyouMichri michri (talk) 09:40, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

@Michri michri: Could you pelase give the exact youtube video link, preferably with a timestamp? Also, this is not the first time I have to speedy delete a picture upload from you. Would you pelase take more care in the future, and Actually use the upload wizard? It would help all of us. Victor Schmidt (talk) 10:36, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Victor Schmidt, really sorry. I don't know why but I can not post the youtube link here. I have tried it earlier. Whenever I am trying to do it, the edit is not getting published. Anyway, after the deletion of the file, I'll upload it in the Upload Wizard with proper CC licence. Gracias Michri michri (talk) 10:47, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

@Michri michri: When you add links to youtube, please always write the full www.youtube.com link, not the youtu.be shorthand. this is the video. That being said, I am not sure if we can use the picture based on the YouTube video, because the picture seems blurry in the YouTube video as if it was badly cropped, indicating that the YouTube video is not the original source of the image. Maybe try asking at WP:MCQ. Victor Schmidt (talk) 10:55, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

@Victor Schmidt As the article has only two images of Shami, I'll definitely add the image of course with CC license through Common Wizard. Btw, if you can find any copyright free image of Shami in the jersey of his IPL team, please add it to the article. Another request (out of context)- As the report left by the reviewer in the Draft:Sadashib (Fictional Character) states, the draft violates plagiarism issues. Now, it is not possible for me single-handedly to rewrite keeping the content same. I'll be glad if you,Victor Schmidt, kindly help me in this context. The request may sound strange, but please help me as this my second draft, with the first one not getting published. I have requested the same to other two users, but they didn't respond. Now, you are perhaps the last one, whom I am asking for. Thank you in advance. Michri michri (talk) 12:06, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Proposal to block media from rogue website

A specific website is being used to support a particular hoax. For purposes of discussion, I'm going to say that this website has been created for this specific purpose. The website hosts media content to support the hoax along with legitimate media content. By failing to block this site, we would be legitmizing the site (i.e. when they provide non-hoax content), thus also enabling them to add content to suport the hoax that they're perpetrating. How would we go about blocking content from this site? (The site in question is romanovempire.org.) Fabrickator (talk) 08:59, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

I wonder what the hoax is. I've just been looking at images of several hundred pre-revolution Russian beer bottle labels – do you think someone created all those in support of the hoax? Maproom (talk) 10:04, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

@Fabrickator: There's quite a difference between a website being created specifically to support a hoax (whilst legitimising itself with genuine content) and a more legitimate-looking site (Fox News, Daily Mail etc) which carries mainly fact-based stories, but also pushes out occasional garbage or nonsense about major stories for reasons of its own. In the latter case a major national UK newspaper was, after long discussions, deemed 'unreliable' and sadly nothing from it can now be cited on Wikipedia, including many useful minor true stories upon which content I have created has relied. But we are where we are. So it all depends on the precise circumstances. I think you might need to draw together some evidence of said hoax and present it for discussion at WP:RS/N. Without knowing which sites you're referring to it's hard to comment further and, to be frank, it's out of the normal remit of the Teahouse to pass judgement in anything but clear-cut cases, but I hope this helps you a bit. Nick Moyes (talk) 11:16, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

@Fabrickator I have just debunked your hoax theory over an uncited factual statement about the Sagebrush lizard (see here). Or is this about a completely different conspiracy theory? Nick Moyes (talk) 15:43, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

@Maproom: @Nick Moyes: This is not about Sagebrush lizard, it's about "Imperial Silk Crown of Russia" listed under the "Extant for 4–7 years" section of Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia § False statements in articles. A google search of site:romanovempire.org "silk imperial crown" returns over 200 hits, and while the page summaries displayed by Google include this text, it does not appear that any of the hits are valid matches. Fabrickator (talk) 21:55, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

@Fabrickator OK thanks. I took a quick look, but have rather had enough of 'hoaxes' for one day. The blog link on silkimperialcrown.com site is a bit of a giveaway, as is the Whois entry and the 'donate to us' link, and lack of 'About' information. This one does have all the hallmarks of a hoax, possibly using Wikipedia as backup for ridiculously priced gift posters (and cards on Ebay) on an unidentifiable website, or perhaps they were unaware their site's images hsd been uploaded to COMMONS. It looks like the site's owner lives in Houston and claims to be a "Cultural Investigator at RICA" (Russian Institute of Cultural Affairs) whatever that is meant to be, as there's no such organisation that I can find, but he is linked to www.1896coronation.com. This person also appears to live here, although another more upmarket addresses for them can also be found. All very odd, I'd agree. Good luck with your investigations. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:21, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Upon further examination, I've determined that although the romanovempire.org website comes up in a google search for silk imperial crown, it appears that it doesn't actually return any visible content pertaining to silk imperial crown. So although it's operating roguishly, the solution I was proposing would stop them from doing something that they aren't actually doing and hence would be pointless. Please consider the proposal as withdrawn. Fabrickator (talk) 03:31, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Looking for a Reviewer

Hi,

I need some guidance regarding AFC. I submitted an article for review around 2 months ago but still waiting for feedback. I know this process usually takes some time, but I would like to know if there is any further action (such as contacting reviewers individually, etc.) that you would suggest to me to speed up the process.

Thank you for your help. Mvcervi (talk) 10:38, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Mvcervi Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. There is unfortunately nothing that you can do to speed things up. Reviewers are volunteers, conducting reviews on their own time based on what they choose to review(the pending reviews are not a queue). 331dot (talk) 10:41, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Your request was granted. Draft:Lee Joo-sung reviewed (after a 5 week wait) and Declined. Or, if you meant Draft:Oil Tank Culture Park, that one is still waiting for a reviewer. David notMD (talk) 11:54, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

.... the latter accepted today (not by me). Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:17, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you~ Mvcervi (talk) 06:53, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Quotation marks and period.

The period has always been inside of the quotation marks. Recently, just about every article I read on Wikipedia has the period outside of quotation marks, including directly quoting someone else's words or speech:

Example: accusing them of "violating his rights". Instead of: accusing them of "violating his rights."

Example: calling him "a moniker of some guy who knows of nothing but swinging a sword". Instead of: calling him "a moniker of some guy who knows of nothing but swinging a sword."

For references, you can read more about this on Purdue University website: https://owl.purdue.edu/owl/general_writing/punctuation/quotation_marks/more_quotation_mark_rules.html

Is this the new writing style Wikipedia employing? 50.35.23.240 (talk) 11:13, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, IP editor. I'm not sure I can agree with your first assertion, nor did you give any links to articles as a demonstration of your concerns. The guidance on quotations can be found at Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Quotations. It isn't hugely clear on the placement of the final full stop/period and that page uses 28 example of one type (.") and 21 of the other (".). My view is that it's not OK to insert a fullstop at the end of a quotation (i.e. before the final quotation mark) where the quoted text was lifted from a much longer sentence, as that would be misleading of you. (I'm now striking my earlier statement, as it is actually very clear lower down that page at WP:LQ)

So, imagine if you wanted to quote a few words from a publication which contained the following text: "...the defendant, Mr Smith, claimed the police were violating his rights by holding him in custody for two months."

• You should write on Wikipedia: Mr Smith accused the police of "violating his rights".^[ref] - that would be valid whether or not he said or wrote those words at the very end of a sentence
• You should not write on Wikipedia: Mr Smith accused the police of "violating his rights."^[ref] - by putting a period inside the quote you would be falsely and misleadingly be suggesting that that was the end of what he said when the source shows it clearly was not.
• If you wrote: Smith accused the police of "violating his rights.".^[ref] that would look very messy, even if it were his final words.

As with so many things, context is everything, and sometimes an individual case should be discussed on an article's talk page after consulting the original source. Does that help, or make things worse? Nick Moyes (talk) 11:45, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

[Edit Conflict] :This might be an example of WP:ENGVAR. While the US default is (I understand) always to place punctuation within the quotation marks, in (for example) the UK (where I am) this is not so – rather, punctuation that is part of the original quotation is so placed, but punctuation added as part of the text containing the quotation is not.

For example, If A wrote of B that B Was a poor painter and an adulterer to boot, and one wished to quote only the artistic opinion, in the UK one would write – A wrote that "B was a poor painter".

If however one wanted to quote the whole sentence, one would write – A wrote that "B was a poor painter and an adulterer to boot."

Wikipedia – a global English-language encyclopedia – tries to apply the principles that (a) a subject with connections to a particular variety of English (whether US, British, Australian, Indian, etc.) should be written about in a style conforming to that variety; and (b) for a subject with no affinity to any particular English variety, the original creator's choice of style should be followed. The consequence of this is that the punctuation and other conventions to be followed are highly dependent on the subject and/or the originator of the article. A good deal of trivial edit warring results from editors failing to understand and follow these principles. At any rate, It's a good idea to become thoroughly familiar with the whole of WP:MoS. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.209.120.67 (talk) 11:57, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Could I offer my €0,02-worth on this point, as a professional writer and editor (retired). This is one of those questions that is usually determined by the individual publication's style manual. In general, UK and Australian publications expect the period/stop to go inside the quotes if the quoted text is one or more complete sentences; otherwise it goes outside. American publications on the other hand favour the period always going inside the quotes. But there is no absolute rule, and I suggest that it is not something to be overly concerned about. Mike Marchmont (talk) 12:09, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi IP 50.35.23.240. This is covered in MOS:LQ. In principle, Wikipedia uses the “logical quotation” style regardless of national variety of English, except in certain cases. — Marchjuly (talk) 12:40, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: Thank you - I'd completely missed that. I've struck my bit about lack of clarity, but am pleased my recommended approach is actually the one our Manual of Style does dictate. To Mike Marchmont I'd say that whilst it's better to encourage the writing of good content than not to write it because of worries over punctuation, Wikipedia does rightly get quite fussy in following our WP:MOS, especially when it comes to the top-level articles at WP:GA or WP:FA status. The problem comes when an individual decides they're going to change everything to their preferred way of doing things, and so for that reason we do have these relatively obscure sets of guidelines on such seemingly trivial matters to ensure we can show a reason for making the alterations that we do, and to work towards the uniformity we ideally want to see across all 6.4 million+ articles here. Nick Moyes (talk) 13:45, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello IP (or anybody else who might be interested). Please try Geoffrey K. Pullum's "Punctuation and human freedom". -- Hoary (talk) 13:16, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

I think this is partially covered in Wikipedia:Lies Miss Snodgrass told you. ― Qwerfjkltalk 20:15, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Backlog

I have seen many editors use the word 'backlog'. May I know what it is? And it sometimes also says 'page has not been backlogged', what is that? Itcouldbepossible^Talk 13:51, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

@Itcouldbepossible: Usally, backlog is an accumulation of identified, but unfinished work. When it says "Page has not been backlogged" (most commonly seen on administrative noticeboards and cleanup categories) it means that the identified work is within the acceptable boundaries. WP:AIV is often said to be backlogged during daytime, for example, because there are too many reports sitting to be reviewed. Victor Schmidt (talk) 13:58, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

@Itcouldbepossible That's a good answer. I often find I have a backlog of things I need to do at home because I spend far too much time on Wikipedia! See also this Wiktionary definition. A close-sounding (but very different) term you may sometimes encounter is 'log-jam', whereby a normally smooth-running process gets blocked up. I believe that derives from the literal use of rivers to transport felled timber (logs) downstream to timber yards and which can sometimes 'jam up' and stop the movement of any of them. Nick Moyes (talk) 14:12, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Appears "backlog" origin dates to 1600s, when a large log was added at the back of the hearthfire in the evening, with the idea that this would be the last to finish burning, providing night heat and leaving embers that the next morning were utilized to start the morning fire. David notMD (talk) 15:30, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

And yes, Nick Moyes had already found the hearthfire origin. David notMD (talk) 19:32, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

@David notMD@Nick Moyes@Victor Schmidt Ok, can I get some examples of Wikipedia backlog examples? I have seen a editor seeking a backlog of dead links to work on? I don't remember where I had seen the edit, but I had surely seen it somewhere. So what is that? And is there something like that really available. I would love to correct all the dead links, by replacing them with their archived versions. Thanks and Regards. Itcouldbepossible^Talk 10:27, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

For more information on backlogs, see WP:Backlog, including a link to Category:Articles with dead external links (where the 300 thousand examples should keep you busy for a while, but of course those are only the dead links which have been tagged). --David Biddulph (talk) 10:34, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation pages with one entry?

Hi, I was wondering what the normal procedure is for dealing with disambiguation pages that only link to one page? I just deleted an entry from the disambiguation page "Qult", leaving the page with only one entry which links to Wiktionary. Would it fall under the criteria for speedy deletion, or should it be turned into some sort of redirect? I did notice that although it appears to be a disambiguation page, it doesn't actually have "(disambiguation)" in the title. Admittedly, I'm also a little skeptical of how much the term's been used, but I'm not familiar with Wiktionary's inclusion criteria. Thanks, Darth Coracle (talk) 22:17, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

@Darth Coracle: The point of a disambiguation page is to distinguish between similarly named Wikipedia articles. If none of the entries are dominant, you might not need to use the word disambiguation in the title. I looked up Qult and it doesn't appear in the QAnon article. I can't find any reliable sources referencing the term, or I'd add it to the QAnon article, bold it, and redirect the term Qult to that section. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 23:10, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Today I learned Wiktionary is as useless as wikiquotes with dubious policies for inclusion of material.Slywriter (talk) 01:54, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

@Timtempleton: I couldn't find any references using the term either. If it's not good for a redirect, would it be better to just nominate it for speedy deletion? I'm not all that familiar with the process for that, but WP:G14 might be applicable, and if so, do I just add the tag? Darth Coracle (talk) 22:48, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

@Darth Coracle: That’s what I’d do - add {{Db-g14}} or {{Db-disambig}}. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 23:36, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Alright, that's what I'll do. Thanks for the help! Darth Coracle (talk) 23:57, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Follow-up to how to balance writing on a website's achievements without sounding promotional?

I'm writing an article on an online poker site Natural8, but it was rejected over and over again for being promotional. I have tried to amend the wordings, as well as information on it, but I keep getting the same reason for rejection. This is after I checked on a few other online poker articles. Can someone please advise me on this?

Would it help if I use articles from Pokernews, which is one of the biggest news channel for online poker?

https://www.pokernews.com/operators/natural8/ Theonlysamantha (talk) 02:58, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi, Theonlysamantha! A lot of the problem with the article also appears to be that they are not notable enough for Wikipedia. To prove that Natural8 is notable, you will need to use reliable secondary sources and not promotional sources like [1] and [2]. This is one way you can improve your article. And if you reflect on what is being said in secondary sources and then rewrite the article, it is typically more neutral, because the people writing the articles aren't trying to promote the company. Thanks, --Ferien (talk) 09:46, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Creating Authority Control

Hi expert editors, I'm new here and I need help on how to add an Authority control to an article. I also need tips on how to include categories so that more people can see this article. Here it is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah_Davidson_Evanega

Thank you in advance

Modestannedi (talk) 04:25, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

@Modestannedi, it appears someone has  Done this for you. Celestina007 (talk) 06:56, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you @celestina007. It seems the template was removed and I'm hoping I can learn how to create one like inputing ISNI code, etc.

Modestannedi (talk) 17:56, 4 January 2022 (UTC)Modestannedi

Have you looked at the documentation? There's Wikipedia:Authority control, and Template:Authority control. To summarize, the {{Authority control}} template will generate a box if it knows of any relevant identifiers, which it can pull from the Wikidata entry (Sarah Davidson Evanega (Q110227178)). You may also add the identifiers as template parameters, but it's better to put them on Wikidata so that all languages of Wikipedia can use the information. (The template is invisible if no authority control identifiers are provided, locally or on Wikidata.) I've just added VIAF and GND IDs to the Wikidata entry, so they should now appear. – Anon423 (talk) 06:19, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Large-scale removal of material

At the Names of the Serbs and Serbia page there may be an edit war brewing. Against my better judgement, I have become involved in most recent push-pull (with latest, first):

• my revert
• Insistent IP 's revert
• revert of Insistent IP by another user
• Insistent IP's revert of my revert
• my earlier (my first) revert
• first in recent batch of Insistent IP's large deletions,

but it was on a slow burn before:

• Soundwaweserb's reversion of Insistent IP's large-scale content removal of 5 Dec
• September content removal by Insistent IP and Cluebot's reversion of that

"Insistent IP", as I call them, appears, from their latest ES, to be objecting to this edit in July 2021.

Myself, I have no idea if that July edit is sound, with good sources, etc., or if it should be expunged forthwith. But the Insistent IP's blanking seems high-handed, which is why I reverted. Won't go there again now, though, as I do not wish to cross any lines, nor earn more opprobrium. (I mean, how do you long term Wikipedians do it? It's so disheartening.) I cannot discuss on the article's Talk page either, as I am ignorant of the topic, but I thought I should let some other editors know, who might know if any action or precautions are needed. My thanks. AukusRuckus (talk) 06:58, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

@AukusRuckus, you can report it at WP:Administrator's Noticeboard. And, don't get WP:Wikistressed about it. Lightbluerain❄ (Talk | contribs) 18:58, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

That extensive original research and pseudoscience were added by an IP on 17 July 2021. The same IP also made an extensive edit on the article on Polabian language where was removed simply because of being "shit". AukusRuckus is incapable of discerning obvious original research and shit of an edit or is the same IP who made the edit and is trying to keep this shit on Wikipedia. There is no blanking, it is a removal of an extensive shit. --93.137.145.118 (talk) 20:19, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Report a disruptive editor

Hi, how can I report a disruptive editor? and how can I protect some articles from him/her ?

Thanks Lasouhq (talk) 07:42, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

@Lasouhq: I asusme this refers to Falah bin Zayed Al Nahyan and MrsSnoozyTurtle. If so, no, its not disruptive Editing to nominate an article to WP:AFD based on failure to meet the notability criteria (or any other violation of Wikipedia policies where improve would be more work than starting from scratch; notability is not inherited). Please do not remove the AFD notice from the article, it will not prevent the AFD discussion from taking place. Instead, you are welcome to make a policy-based argument at the casepage. The original nomination was 5 years ago, so consensus and the currently established policies might have changed during that time.

Protecting articles based on the protection policy is a right only admins have, which can only be used in certain cases. There doesn't seem enough disruption in the article history to warrant protection. Victor Schmidt (talk) 08:56, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Depends on what kind of disruption it is. If it's outright vandalism, you can report it at WP:ARV. If it's less blatant than that and more of an ongoing issue, you might want to consider WP:ANI. Article protection can be raised at WP:RPP. — Czello 08:53, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Note also that you must not edit-war to reinstate material which a user has removed from their own user talk page, see WP:BLANKING. If the editor removes a warning, it is assumed that they have read it. --David Biddulph (talk) 09:02, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

At Falah bin Zayed Al Nahyan, I see two recent disruptive edits, both by Lasouhq. One removed material which said "do not remove", and the other added a reference unrelated to the preceding content. Both have now been reverted. Maproom (talk) 11:18, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Dear Teahouse folks, thank you all for your assistance here. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 00:32, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Muninnbot test numero uno

I want to check something about bot notifications. Please do not reply to this thread or the next. Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 10:42, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Muninnbot test 2

I want to check something about bot notifications. Please do not reply to this thread or the previous one. Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 10:43, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Article Declined

My article was declined and the reason basically was referencing. I don't know if you could look through and guide me. It is my first.

Thank you Felixshammah (talk) 11:08, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Felixshammah Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. You may wish to read Referencing for Beginners. Please also review the comments left by reviewers on the draft. 331dot (talk) 11:12, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Source editor

Is there a way to color code the source editor to separate stuff like references or templates? Or, alternatively, would this be possible through scripts? – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 12:02, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

@AssumeGoodWraith: yes there is. Press the pencil icon in the toolbar left of "Advanced" to activate (or disactivate again). Victor Schmidt (talk) 12:06, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

I was thinking about this because of the size of references but it honestly doesn't look much better. Back to normal. – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 12:12, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

@AssumeGoodWraith Have you also considered switching between Source editor and Visual Editor if Victor's advice hasn't helped you? Nick Moyes (talk) 13:14, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes: I prefer wikitext. Although I'm not using that colour code thing, all it is is that it takes a bit longer to find text in the middle of refs. – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 13:20, 4 January 2022 (UTC) .

No worries. Funnily enough, I can't manage without the colour code thing. I find it really useful just having to look for black text as real page content. But each to their own, of course. Nick Moyes (talk) 14:02, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Archiving my talk page

Hi! I would like to create my first archive talk page, but I will only archive the recent discussions at my talkn page, cause the oldest discussions are already removed and it is hard to retrieve them. What do you think? Is it ok? Ctrlwiki • 13:29, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

That's fine, Ctrlwiki. There is no obligation to create any archive. All previous contributions to your Talk Page are in its history if anyone needs to look and you can start archiving from now. Archiving just makes searching a bit easier. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:42, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Using a person's own website as a reference

Hello, fairly new here, but slowly getting the hang of it! I sometimes go in and update the "post-show careers", such as cookbooks/TV appearances of previous contestants on shows like the Great British Bake Off. Is it appropriate to use a contestant's own website or amazon page as a reference? I've used these sources only to reference things like a list of their published cookbooks when I cant find an article or independent third-party website that lists them. Is this appropriate given the rules around reliable sources and NPOV? Its a bit of a basic question but want to ensure I'm doing this right before I go in and do too much of it! Thank you! Schwinnspeed (talk) 14:05, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

You can as long as it's only about the person themselves e.g. "I was born in Bilston and have two children". Whilst the book list wouldn't be a controversial claim per se, you'd need to double check it with a reliable source, because what if they published a book that was an absolute stinker and "forgot" to mention it on their website? - X201 (talk) 14:13, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you! Schwinnspeed (talk) 14:21, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

@Schwinnspeed: You don't need to have a web site URL to cite a book - you can use {{cite book}} without it. However, having an independent review of the book helps to demonstrate notability, whether it's online or in a respected magazine. Hope this helps, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 04:29, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Creating a page for individual who is referenced thoroughly on Wikipedia

I'm trying to create a new page for an individual but the draft keeps getting rejected for citations not being reliable enough (even though these are mostly interviews in big music magazines). They are credited across Wikipedia on multiple musician's pages and I want to link those pages to a new page with details about the subject. What else can I do to make it more reliable? Can I upload photos of physical record sleeves / printed interviews / articles without them being public (or should these just be in the references list, even though they are not citations?)? Kateewilliamson (talk) 14:17, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Is the draft in question Draft:Jolyon Thomas (Producer)? - X201 (talk) 14:26, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

It would appear that you are being paid to create an article. The problem is not so much that your sources are unreliable but that they don't show this person is notable enough to warrant Wikipedia being interested. Interviews with someone are not considered independent enough and even then you only quote one of them (although you use it twice in the current draft). You need to find significant coverage in outlets completely unconnected to Thomas. If these don't exist then neither can an article. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:37, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Article was deleted but need it to re-submit

I had an article that had some copyright issues which have now been resolved yet I cannot get to the article in question anymore. Here's the info I do have. I also reached out to the user who deleted it but no reply as of yet. What else can I do?

Aamat-webeditor (talk) 14:17, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

A page with this title has previously been moved or deleted.

If you are creating a new page with different content, please continue. If you are recreating a page similar to the previously deleted page, or are unsure, please first contact the user(s) who performed the action(s) listed below.

20:10, 29 December 2021 Amortias talk contribs deleted page Draft:Emtrain (G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement of https://emtrain.com/founders-story/, https://emtrain.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Emtrain-Press-Release_Workplace-Culture-Report-1.pdf, https://emtrain.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/Emtrain-Press-Release_2021-Workplace-Culture-Insights-Report_Respect.pdf) Tag: Twinkle (thank) Aamat-webeditor (talk) 14:17, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

The draft was here: Draft:Emtrain. As for reaching out to Amortias: I can see no message from you to them on-wiki, so @Amortias:. Lectonar (talk) 14:37, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

That is the current version. Any content that was copyright infringement has been removed from the editing history of the draft. David notMD (talk) 18:21, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Relevance of "Nicolás Atanes"

Good afternoon, actually I am here because there are some articles that have been deleted so many times and still I don't understand why. For example, Nicolás Atanes, I see the article has been deleted many times, I don't know him personally, nor I haven't met with him, but I think he has as relevance as Kikas_(Angolan_footballer), Jake_Bickelhaupt, John_Ryan_(Australian_politician) (as random selected). I think Wikipedia should admit articles like this, relevant grassroots people doing something, I mean, to post about encyclopedic people. I say Nicolás because I have read about him recently, but many others happen the same. Atanes is author on Diario 16: https://diario16.com/author/nicolas-atanes-santos/, is relevant in Spain: https://www.elmundo.es/madrid/2020/07/29/5f205975fc6c83cb478b4644.html https://www.diariodenavarra.es/noticias/navarra/2021/07/28/el-virus-extendio-navarra-495529-300.html https://www.rtve.es/play/audios/las-mananas-de-rne-con-inigo-alfonso/matematicas-coronavirus-salud-espana/5731358/ https://www.eitb.eus/es/television/programas/navarra-directo/videos/detalle/7004935/video-nicolas-pie-guerra-impulsar-aprendizaje-matematicas/ has been nominated for a local prize https://www.navarratelevision.es/noticia/Z01842D7D-B1D5-1977-50E0EE09CE98E0A5/La-juventud-un-valor-primordial-para-Navarra-Television organized several initiatives https://cadenaser.com/emisora/2021/07/27/radio_pamplona/1627390029_693321.html https://www.cope.es/actualidad/noticias/juegos-matematicos-ocuparan-las-calles-ciudades-espanolas-julio-20210723_1417895 and created a social movement https://www.abc.es/ciencia/abci-virus-matematico-extiende-desde-pamplona-no-deja-crecer-202107292028_noticia.html. He started in 2020 with a mediatic protest: https://www.laopiniondezamora.es/zamora/2020/01/22/pasion-numeros-2498974.html and met with senior officials https://ec.europa.eu/newsroom/eusciencehubnews/item-detail.cfm?item_id=703538. I have just made a quick search and I founded all these. Last week I posted a text on the discussion of Atanes and it got deleted. Don't ask me why. I have made a research on this, and I am aware of sockpuppets doing vandalism on Wikipedia, people creating and others deleting pages without relevance, but, I think that we should start creating articles like this one, (check relevance, links, coverage...) to improve Wikipedia. Although this article I mention has been many times deleted, I think it's because of something. Can anyone start the article?--2A0C:5A80:1B0B:3F00:6C2D:BEAB:6234:9B37 (talk) 14:55, 4 January 2022 (UTC) 2A0C:5A80:1B0B:3F00:6C2D:BEAB:6234:9B37 (talk) 14:55, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

This is the deletion discussion: WP:Articles_for_deletion/Nicolás_Atanes_(2nd_nomination) It would appear that spammy articles about him have been created and deleted even more frequently on the Spanish-language Wikipedia, which is the first place I'd expect an article on a Spanish person to appear if they were notable by Wikipedia standards. He clearly isn't. To answer your question, only extended-confirmed editors will be able to try creating that article in future, to avoid anonymous folk wasting all our time. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:41, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

There have been multiple attempts at creating this article by one persistent sockmaster, these have all ended up being deleted because the sockmaster has evaded their ban when creating the drafts/articles under G5 of the speedy deletion criteria. Pahunkat (talk) 15:56, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

I understand all this you are saying, but I think some Spanish people do not have English Wikipedia (Enrique Zuazua, Consuelo Martínez López). I personally think someone should fix this, not just because of Nicolás, I say Nicolás because it surprises me that even all his coverage (in academical societies of Spain, on other encyclopedias, on websites, blogs, news articles, his activity, he has no Wikipedia. And I do want to fix that. What has a person has to do to have relevance? Kill 100 people? Solve a hard math problem? What Nicolás (as example) has made is even more important than what Sjeng Schalken did. Sorry, Sjeng, but relevance goes as example.--2A0C:5A80:1B0B:3F00:6C2D:BEAB:6234:9B37 (talk) 20:32, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

To have relevance (we call it notability), someone has to be the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:45, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

And he isn't?--2A0C:5A80:1B0B:3F00:6C2D:BEAB:6234:9B37 (talk) 21:13, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

• IP is now blocked. Drmies (talk) 21:18, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Notes instead of References

On occasion I come across a Wikipedia article that has what I consider to be References that are categorized as Notes. For example, I was just looking at Queen Anne style furniture, and all of the article sources are found under Notes, and References consists of one book that, I'm assuming, one editor found to be especially useful. In the past I have edited similar Notes' sections by changing the heading to References, but I thought I should check to see if there is ever a reason for categorizing article sources as Notes. Karenthewriter (talk) 15:22, 4 January 2022 (UTC) Karenthewriter (talk) 15:22, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Karenthewriter MOS:NOTES says we shouldn't worry much about this. Personally, I'd rename them "References" and "Sources" but article styles do vary and many have all of notes, references and sources. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:12, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Am I correct in assuming that you meant MOS:SO? _Signed,Pichemist ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 16:24, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

No, I was indeed thinking of MOS:NOTES, which is listed as part of the "Main article" linked at your shortcut. Mike Turnbull (talk) 18:24, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

@Karenthewriter Hello and welcome to the teahouse. As far as I know, references are usually categorized under a References header, but sometimes authors switch them around a bit. For example, I've seen "Bibliography", "Citations", "Notes" amongst others. Before changing them, (which I recommend), I suggest you contact the author on their respective talk page to see if there was any specific reason behind their edit. _Signed,Pichemist ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 16:19, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

@Karenthewriter This is one of the handful of really obvious and quite ridiculous differences in style (like citation style itself) which Wikipedia seems utterly incapable of resolving, so leaves in a variable and very noticeable mess. And yet it can spend ages defining the right and wrongs ways of using of en and em dashes, and many other unnoticeable trivia. Whilst Mike Turnbull is right that MOS:NOTES says it doesn't matter - I think it does. So personally I'd prefer to change Notes->References, and References->Further reading, though I'm not giving you specific advice to actually go and do so ...unless you were making major edits to improve the article. Nick Moyes (talk) 16:30, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello Nick Moyes! Wouldn't the problem with changing the name to References be that they would then fall under the much more stringent rules governing what sites can be cited as sources? Like the extensive prohibited list in Sources. Whereas Notes seems to be for things that don't have to fall into that rather strict category, somewhat akin to External Links. So Notes would be supporting non contentious topics raised & References would be for citing reliable sources to back up possible contentious things. Not that I'm saying the specific case mentioned above, Queen Anne style furniture, is wrong to change to References. I'm just honestly curious about whether Notes can be used as less strict supporting material links. The strict rules for References are fine for contentious things but prove overkill when one wants to support a cast listing or plot point. You are right about it being something of a mess as References & Notes is frequently written about interchangeably in the lengthy rule pages on the subject. LooksGreatInATurtleNeck (talk) 17:47, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

@LooksGreatInATurtleNeck, & Karenthewriter, I believe Nick Moyes, is very apt when they say “I'm not giving you specific advice to actually go and do so ...unless you were making major edits to improve the article.” They aren’t necessary the same and I would learn that when creating this this article, I initially grouped everything under References but a prominent GA reviewer Goldsztajn would specifically categorize and classify meticulously each source more appropriately. Celestina007 (talk) 18:10, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello Celestina007, thanks for replying! To be clear, I wasn't intending to impugn your sources in any way. I was wondering more broadly about how Notes tend to be used as compared to References around Wikipedia and that changing the name could open them up to the stricter rules for Sources that may not have been the original Editors intent. I noted Nick Moyes was a very experienced Editor &, as a newbie, was curious for their take. There so often seems to be many different takes here. :) LooksGreatInATurtleNeck (talk) 18:26, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @LooksGreatInATurtleNeck You make an interesting point, but it's not one I would accept as being valid at all. What we're really saying is that irrespective of whether the sections are named 'References' or 'Notes', they are synonymous and serve the same purpose. We just allow (for some reason) more than one title to be used. It 100% does not mean that citations listed in one section or the other can get away with being 'less reliable'. The issue of good or bad sources (listed at WP:SOURCES applies equally to either word being used as a References title. Personally, I would always use 'References' for, well, references, and a Notes section for, well, notes. By 'notes' I'd mean annotations that don't directly support a factual statement, but help a reader understand something about the article's content that is perhaps too trivial to include as article text. By way of example, see Mont Blanc massif#Notes for how I have used them.

But now you see the problem: we are all different. We have all been taught different ways of doing things, or different meanings for something. We even come from many different cultures. So that's where a rigorous Manual of Style needs to work across all articles and be accepted by all Editors, irrespective of what they would do on another site. (I, for one, would and do capitalise the first letter of all commons names of species in publications I produce, but I'm not allowed to do that here. I have to accept that the consensus is against me on that. )So understand that I'm giving you my views, not advocating mass changes that go against what the consensus in MOS has ruled or, indeed, has not ruled. Nick Moyes (talk) 18:18, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello Nick Moyes, thanks for your reply! Though it's still a little unclear, Notes & References are the same except when they are not. :) As for less reliable, I'd certainly never use a site that I believed unreliable. It's just that the Sources listing has cast a wide net on many useful sites, that are understandable when citing something contentious but less so for more basic obvious things such as episode info. When I said less strict I simply meant more along the lines of External Links rules. For instance some sites are fine & indeed standard to include in External Links but considered no go for References. I was simply wondering if Notes were sometimes used for these less stringent links. I guess one could reference External Links, just Notes would feel more accurate. Probably stretching the scope of this conversation, so thanks for taking time to reply! LooksGreatInATurtleNeck (talk) 18:41, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

It seems as though I've asked a question with a lot of gray area and opinions. So my plan going forward will be that, if I'm just going to an article for some quick research, such as Queen Anne style furniture, I'll leave the references headings alone and move on with my life. But if I'm putting a lot of time and effort into researching and improving an article I'll probably change the reference heading to References. Since I tend to specialize in non-controversial subjects, such as 19th century children's magazines & mostly-forgotten actors from rather obscure old TV shows, there's little chance of problems stemming from whether my sources should be divided into Notes and References. Thank you for all the input. Karenthewriter (talk) 18:35, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello Karenthewriter! "It seems as though I've asked a question with a lot of gray area and opinions." Don't worry, I think that's pretty much any question on Wikipedia's workings. :) Your question was an interesting one, it's quite fascinating to see the subjects raised here. My apologies if I strayed it off your topic a bit with my question. Mostly forgotten TV shows, sounds like my cup of tea! take care and best of luck in your endeavors! LooksGreatInATurtleNeck (talk) 18:48, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

LooksGreatInATurtleNeck to me "gray area and opinions" means stress, and that is one thing I do not need more of. I'll spend weeks researching an obscure topic without a care in the world, but when it comes to Wikipedia protical, if a topic isn't covered in Help:Your first article or Help:Referencing for beginners I become cautious, and tread lightly. I had what I thought was a simple question, but received various "it depends" answers. Time for me to walk away. Karenthewriter (talk) 19:42, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

It's 'grey', not 'gray'. Shall we have a philosophical discussion on how we deal with that one? Nick Moyes (talk) 00:23, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

I apologize for using 'gray' instead of 'grey'. If anyone wants to philosophically discuss this they may do so, but my (supposedly) simply question has become too confusing for me to deal with, so I don't plan on taking part in further comments. Unfortunately, I have difficulties in life, and come to Wikipedia to work without encountering complications. Karenthewriter (talk) 01:49, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello Karenthewriter! You've nothing to apologise for! American English vs British English. Hopefully Nick Moyes was just joking in their response. It can be tricky to tell here sometimes. Sorry to hear about the difficulties & truly hope we did not add to them. I too had hoped to just quietly edit here. Take care. LooksGreatInATurtleNeck (talk) 08:42, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Weeeelll, it depends on which side of the pond you're on. a for America and e for England. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 04:16, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello Nick Moyes! I was quoting Karenthewriter, who is quite correct in the use of "gray", it's just the preferred American English spelling of "grey" which is the preferred British. There's even a Wikipedia page including that info. Since Wikipedia has that page, I feel we can avoid a philosophical debate on it. :) LooksGreatInATurtleNeck (talk) 08:32, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

@LooksGreatInATurtleNeck Just to be clear: that was my attempt at humour/humor! Nick Moyes (talk) 10:27, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello Nick Moyes! Thanks for clarifying, I figured it was in jest as I noted the smiley at the end. :) Though I have seen some people genuinely get heated about American vs British spellings, usage of z vs s seems to be a particular bugbear to some. I've always been chill about the subject myself. Take care, LooksGreatInATurtleNeck (talk) 11:18, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Singapore 2020 Revised Edition of Acts

Singapore published the 2020 Revised Edition of Acts last week. All chapter numbers were removed and the years of enactment were added to the short titles. Should we add years to the articles in Category:Singaporean legislation? (e.g Women's Charter→Women's Charter 1961) Some Acts extended from Malaysia may have the same title to their counterparts (e.g Internal Security Act (Singapore), Internal Security Act 1960) Mike Rohsopht (talk) 16:57, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

@Mike Rohsopht Sorry Im kinda confused on what your asking, but I know the article's name for Women's Charter should not be changed to Women's Charter 1961 because thats not the name of the charter. the only reason it would need to be changed to that is to distinguish it from another article with that same name. Even then 1961 would be put in parenthesis. ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 02:30, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

@Kaleeb18:, Almost all Acts of Singapore were enacted with the the year included in the short titles (Like UK, be unlike Canada). Before the 2020 Revised Edition, the year in the short titles would be omitted in revised editions. Women's Charter was originally enacted as the "Women’s Charter, 1961" It became the "Women’s Charter" from 1970 Revised Edition.[3]. But it is now the "Women’s Charter 1961" in the 2020 Revised Edition. Most article titles in Category:Malaysian federal legislation and Category:United Kingdom Acts of Parliament by year contain the year regardless whether they are distinguishable.--Mike Rohsopht (talk) 03:32, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

@Mike Rohsopht: If you think the name needs to change you can start a discussion at Requested moves. I think your requested move would fall under a controversial move so I would follow the instruction at Requested controversial moves. I hope this helps. ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 13:34, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

@Kaleeb18:, OK, Thank you.--Mike Rohsopht (talk) 04:01, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Regents

Hello, I added a succession to Miguel I of Portugal about him being regent for Maria II but I don’t want it to say reign because that’s not correct the correct term is tenure if you look at Philippe II, Duke of Orléans it says tenure so I wanted to know how they did that so I can do the same to Miguels regency succession. Orson12345 (talk) 19:55, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Never mind I figured it out you had to add

| reign-type = Tenure

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Orson12345 (talk • contribs) 20:44, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Checking notability before creating page

Hello everyone. Before I create a new page on Wikipedia I want to check if the topic is notable enough.

I would like to create a page about The Rowling Library, which is a publisher of a monthly magazine and books about Harry Potter / JK Rowling. The Rowling Library has been cited by large media (from The Independent and Entertainment Weekly) because it published exclusive news in the past (such as the publication of the eight Harry Potter film), it has been recognized by JK Rowling herself on Twitter, and I said before, it publishes a monthly magazine and books about those topics.

I had this idea because I found out that The Rowling Library is mentioned in this article as a source (2nd reference): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potterless. If The Rowling Library has its own Wikipedia article, it wouldn't be the first Harry Potter fan project / fan site to have its own Wikipedia article.

Thank you very much for your time. 190.231.95.115 (talk) 21:06, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse! Creating a new article from scratch is extremely challenging, and new editors are strongly recommended to spend a few months learning how Wikipedia works, by making improvements to some of our existing six million articles before trying it. When you do decide to have a go at a new article, you are highly encouraged to read WP:Your first article. If you haven't already also check out WP:TUTORIAL; it's a lot of fun! Happy editing! I myself couldn't easily find 3 independent sources about the Rowling Library. What are the three best independent sources you could find? ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 21:55, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello Shushugah, thanks for taking the time to reply. There are a few sources that mention The Rowling Library: BBC Radio 4 (https://www.bbc.com/mediacentre/proginfo/2020/45/can-i-still-read-harry-potter and https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/articles/5DdBBnrBnQt6vD2pVjZFs1Z/is-it-still-ok-to-read-harry-potter), Harry Potter Wikia (https://harrypotter.fandom.com/wiki/The_Rowling_Library), HogwartsProfessor talks about the new projects by The Rowling Library (https://www.hogwartsprofessor.com/book-review-secret-history-of-the-wizarding-phenomenon-tarantino/), Entertainment Weekly mentiones an article by Rowling Library as well (https://ew.com/movies/2018/11/17/fantastic-beasts-credence-dumbledore/) among otheres. Are these indepedent sources enough? 190.231.95.115 (talk) 00:15, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

The first BBC article doesn't talk at all about Rowling Library, merely mentions a person is affiliated with it. That's not WP:SIGCOV, 2nd BBC makes no mention of any library. The other links are fan sites, not reliable/secondary sources. Worthwhile reading WP:Fancruft to see what WP:Wikipedia is not. I appreciate you asking though before creating the article. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 00:24, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Significant coverage by reliable independent sources of The Rowling Library would be required. Passing mentions are insufficient. Wikia is not a reliable source. It does not appear to me that any of these sources devote significant coverage to The Rowling Library. Cullen328 (talk) 00:25, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

I understand it is not significant coverage. I appreciate your help. Just to clarify so I don't look like crazy people, the first link is to a BBC Tv Show where The Rowling Library is mentioned. The second one mentions The Rowling Library, but they did a typo so it reads "The Rolling Library", lol. Again, I appreciate your time. Happy new year to both of you! 190.231.95.115 (talk) 02:36, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

190., based on their press page, the cupboard is pretty bare. Seems WP:TOOSOON atm. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:36, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Save the article nominated for deletion back to as Draft in personal account for future

Hi, after a discussion with the wikipedia help desk, it seems that the artist wiki article that I have requested for submission may not eligible for a notable musician yet and may be nominated for deletion. Is there a way that before its deletion that I can change it back to a personal draft inside my own account so that I can go back and work on it again when there are any changes in the artist's activity in the near future (about 6-12 months)? Please advise. Thank you. DKingWorldwide (talk) 21:55, 4 January 2022 (UTC) DKingWorldwide (talk) 21:55, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

DKingWorldwide You may just copy the draft and add it to your sandbox(User:DKingWorldwide/sandbox) or you may just leave it as a draft. No one owns Wikipedia content so there really isn't a need to move it. 331dot (talk) 22:12, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

I think you have chosen the wrong action, even if that (Sandbox it) was advised above. The bio was once an article, long ago, but resurrected by you as a draft in June 2021. Drafts do not get AfD'd (although an Admin may decide that a draft is so promotional that it has no potential, and so delete. The problem now is that the draft Draft:Kim Dong-hyuk exists AND your Sandbox copy exists. Pick one and get rid of the other. David notMD (talk) 03:40, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

FOI Requests as citations

Hello!

I don't know if im just terrible at searching the Wikipedia guidelines, but does anyone know the view about using government responses to FOI requests as citations? Im planning to work on a section of the article about Ely, and the only way I can really get the full record from the council archives is with a FOI. If I use what do they know, I can have the response left on the internet and thus easily citeable, but im not sure of the policy here.

Cheers Apparently j (talk) 00:21, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

@Apparently j Welcome to the Teahouse. Crikey, that's a really good question! The obligation on UK public sector organisations to provide timely responses to 'Freedom of Information' (FOI) requests is a legal one and, 'What do they know' doesn't, I believe, alter any government responses that are given. (How they actually get them, I have no idea). So, my gut reaction is that content there is probably Reliable. My concern could be more to do with what you were using those government responses for. I would certainly wish to use it sparingly as a source, and in support of other sources such as newspaper outlets, and definitely avoid any campaigning or NPOV issue-raising. Others might take a different view, but I hope my answer is at least of some help to you. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:31, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

What they know is a non-profit charity which is, at its core, just an email forwarding service which then makes the emails publicly available, so I reckon that satisfies reliable. Unfortunately my request is rather mundane: I just want a list of people awarded the freedom of the city award, which the council has on record. I could visit the archive myself but then citing it as "a book I found in a council basement" probably wouldn't satisfy reliable.

Cheers for the quick response!

Apparently j (talk) 00:38, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

@Apparently j greetings, I'd treat it like any government document and generally a WP:PRIMARY source, although that can be used in limited cases, for non controversial claims, especially about other subjects than itself. Some FOI requests may include scholarly analysis, but rarely. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 15:32, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Can someone please help get some resolution.

A draft page "Systogram" was removed by an editor called Diannaa citing that a similar piece of work was found in a blog and that somehow I have infringed copyright issues. BUT I have tried explaining to her that the blog is mine and if only she bothered to look at the title/author of the blog she would see it's mine. Now she's not even replying to my emails/messages. Jack Dikian (talk) 00:29, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Jack Dikian. Copyrighted material cannot be copied and pasted to Wikipedia even by the copyright holder unless the material is freely licensed. Have you read the messages that Diannaa left on your user talk page, including very recently? She explained things quite clearly and she is probably the leading copyright expert on Wikipedia and is highly respected. Cullen328 (talk) 00:35, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

What you might think of doing, Jack Dikian, is to summarize the content of the page (or that part of it that seems necessary for the draft), in different words. Doing so would avoid the copyright problem. But that wouldn't answer the question of why the content of a blog needs to be reproduced in Wikipedia, let alone reproduced in Wikipedia by the author of that blog. Once recognized by and reproduced in reliable sources, your contributions can perhaps be added to Wikipedia by a third party. -- Hoary (talk) 00:49, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

@Jack Dikian: Welcome to the Teahouse, I agree with both of them and also almost all the time blogs are considered unreliable sources. So the stuff you put in would most likely get removed even if you were the author of the blog because it is sourced with an unreliable source. See reliable sources for information on what kinda sources to use. Also like Cullen said please read what Diannaa has said. you can read the here. Happy editing! ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 01:14, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Another problem is that the draft contains a figure that appears to be original research, i.e., your creation. OR is not allowed. David notMD (talk) 03:47, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Footnotes

Is my use of a footnote (fn 1) inappropriate in Woody (Toy Story). ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 01:01, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

@Kaleeb18: The use of a footnote is fine, where you placed it. Also see WP:FOOTNOTE for additional information. Severestorm28 01:14, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

@Severestorm28 But is it good for a "source"? ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 01:15, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

@Kaleeb18: I think so. Since there are also two other references right next to your footnote, I think it should be fine for now. However, a different editor may express their feelings about this footnote, and so IMO, Yes. Severestorm28 01:18, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

@Severestorm28 Wait, but there is no reference after fn 1 ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 01:41, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

@Kaleeb18: Two choices-delete the footnote, or leave it where it is. I think, (IMO again) readers will understand when the end credits of A Bug's Life will contribute to the footnote. However, your choice-I think you should delete it. However, the rest of the footnotes look fine. Severestorm28 01:45, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

@Kaleeb18: On the other side, however, maybe the readers will understand when you put the footnote, because at the first sentence, it reads, Woody appears in the animated mock outtakes of A Bug's Life as the clapperboard holder. That could be understanding to readers. Severestorm28 01:49, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

@Severestorm28: Thanks for the help, I think Im going to keep it and if the GA reviewer says get rid of it ill do so. ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 01:54, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Weird request, but...

Can you teahouse people answer this person's question?

"Hi, I want to start by saying i am no tech savvy in the least and I just didnt know how else to contact you, I dont understand the Talk Page because I can't seem to add to the conversation :(

My name is Sabrina Pires and I'm June Preston's daughter. She was a child start in the 1930's onward and then an Opera singer in the 50's onward and there was a wiki page on her. I feel I have really messed things up but dont know how.

i just wanted to keep my mom's legacy alive through wiki and I thought I did a good job backing up information with proof with photos and newspaper articles from the 30's and 40's.

Now I just found out i have 3 accounts on wiki and have no idea how i did that (brokenmeow is my email address and is an account) Pires is my last name and apparently that's an account but I thought I only had one account. I don't know how to delete the other 2 accounts. I only need one account and feel I did something bad/wrong without knowing.

I'm so sorry... Now my poor mom's page is devoid of all information i worked so hard on. Even her birthdate and birth pace is wrong on there. What can I do to help fix things? I can send you a copy of her birth certificate to prover her dob and place of birth and any type of proof you need to back up all that is said on her page. I can scan and email it to you.

I just want her page back up the way it was, i dont know what i did to have all her info stripped from her page... i'm so sorry can you please help me? I can't tell you how excited she was when she saw her name on the wiki page and not he web in general again, she is 93 now and feels forgotten, this was my way of giving her her legacy back in a small way.

If you would like to speak, i can give you my cell.. or you can email me directly... just please help me get her page to look the way it did before. I'm not sure what to do at this point but I saw you name int he talk page and hope this reaches you and that you can help me. I'm really sorry for all this confusion.

Thanks so much, Sabrina P. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Idoonie (talk • contribs) 21:21, 4 January 2022 (UTC) "

Make sure to ping Idoonie instead of me. – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 01:34, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

@Idoonie Because you are related to the article it is best you do not edit it and put on your userpage that you are related to the article June Preston. If you want edits to be made to the article you can say that on the article's talk page. If you give information on the talk page make sure you back it with reliable sources. ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 01:48, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Also a birth certificate would not help as a source and would be considered original research and Wikipedia cannot use that information, ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 01:56, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Last thing i have to say is your use of multiple accounts is fine if you follow the instructions at Alternative account although it is highly suggested you have one account because you could end up being considered a sockpuppet. If you want to delete two of the accounts you can ask somewhere but I cant find where right now. I hope this helps. ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 02:10, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Kaleeb18, we all make mistakes at times, but when you realize that you don't have a clear idea of what it is that you might talk about, it's often better not to talk. Accounts cannot be deleted. -- Hoary (talk) 02:57, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

@Hoary My bad I could have sworn I saw that one time thanks for telling. ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 03:00, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Hoary - Accounts cannot be deleted.. Soft block the alts?--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 03:40, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, Rocknrollmancer, that's possible; but it's not obvious that doing so would benefit anyone. -- Hoary (talk) 07:13, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Sabrina - As June's daughter you created the article in 2007 using account Piress, edited 2011-16 using Brokenmeow, and 2012-2022 using Idoonie. Going forward, I recommend that on your Talk page you promise to never use the two older accounts again. Per the reply above and all the comments on your Talk page, as June's daughter, you are to not edit the article directly because you have a conflict of interest. I took the liberty of putting the standard COI declaration on your User page. David notMD (talk) 03:59, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

As for the content you added to June Preston, subsequently removed, all of it may be true, but none of it was referenced. The proper step is to on the Talk page, propose some content to add, providing references in proper reference format at the same time. See Help:referencing for beginners. Pinterest is not a valid reference format. Posting Pinterest images of documents is probably a copyright infringement. David notMD (talk) 04:09, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Idoonie. I quite understand that you want to keep your mother's legacy alive, but Wikipedia is not the place to do this - see NOTMEMORIAL. If reliable independent sources are keeping her legacy alive, then Wikipedia can summarise those sources, but not otherwise. --ColinFine (talk) 12:16, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Wikiproject

Hi, I would like to know how to make my own Wikiproject, and if possible send a link to a tutorial, thank you! Yodas henchman (talk) 02:17, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

@Yodas henchman: Yes you can, but make sure there isnt already one similar to the one you want to make. read Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide this will give you all the info you need on Wiki projects especially read this part. ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 02:41, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

@Yodas henchman As, I see from your user account, you are quite new here. I suggest you to focus on other things like creating new articles, or improving the once that already exist, becoming familiarized with the Wikipedia policies, and using that knowledge to join in community discussions. The thing that you are asking is quite complex. You can join other wiki projects, but please wait before creating one new yourself. As you may see, the other Wiki Projects had been made by really experienced users, so first become experienced as a Wikipedian, and then you can think of making your own wikiproject. I am saying all this, because the community might not accept your new wikiproject idea, and that might as well get deleted. So, please be acquainted with the community, then you may think of making something new. Thanks.

PS: Just wondering, what new Wikiproject do you want to make? Would you mind telling me? I would be happy to help. Itcouldbepossible^Talk 04:16, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

One that talks about Conscription and Military Policies in Countries Yodas henchman (talk) 16:51, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

When I looked quickly at the list of your non-minor edits to articles, Yodas henchman, I didn't notice edits to articles about conscription or military policies. But perhaps I didn't look carefully enough. Do you have much experience in this area? -- Hoary (talk) 01:29, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

What to do if source is locked behind login screen?

Cited source behind log in Hello, I was recently reading EMD SD90MAC and saw that it cited an extrnal source. The source led me to log-in portal. I would either like to replace this or place some sort of notification, but I couldn't find the correct template. Any particular guidelines? Thanks in advance. Sethcampbell7293 (talk) 04:03, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

@Sethcampbell7293: Reference #7 has a note stating "(subscription required)", which is sufficient notification. Is that the external source you referred to? GoingBatty (talk) 04:44, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Sethcampbell7293, please read WP:PAYWALL. There is no policy requirement that says that any reader can access the source with a click. I have sometimes cited books that were issued by major publishers in the 1950s, and have little or no online presence. When ample high quality, readily available online sources are available, they should be preferred. But more obscure yet still notable topics may be referenced to less accessible sources, and there is nothing wrong with that. Cullen328 (talk) 04:57, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Images

How do I upload an image on wikipedia. Can anyone please help me with this problem. Ijick (talk) 05:19, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

It is hard to claim "fair use" for images that are neither in the public domain (as the term is used in IP discussions, not as in everyday conversation) or copylefted under one of the licenses acceptable to Wikipedia. Assuming that the image either is in the public domain or is copylefted under one of the licenses acceptable to Wikipedia, you go to Wikimedia Commons and click on the link to "Upload file". Once it's at Commons you can use it in Wikipedia. -- Hoary (talk) 06:25, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

@Ijick Can you provide a link to the image you want to upload? If so, we can then guide you a bit more - especially as you look to have been getting into trouble with uploading images incorrectly in the past. If it's one in your camera that isn't just a photograph you've made of of somebody else's work, such as a film poster, then Hoary's advice above should be followed. The more information you tell us about what you want to do, the more we can help you avoid understand if there are copyright issues involved.

Perhaps one key thing to tell you: Wikimedia Commons will only host images where the owner of the copyright has released it under a licence that permits free use, even commercially. It cannot host 'fair use' images (although Wiipedia itself can, providing you clearly justify why it should be retained. To avoid all the complexities, only upload images that you have taken yourself (but nt of anyone else's work as they still own the copyright in their work even if you re-photographed it) Does any of this help? Looking forward to hearing back from you. Nick Moyes (talk) 10:46, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes Thank you. The link to the image I want to upload is https://twitter.com/BayViewProjOffl/status/1478387292226138125. The second image.

Ijick, I don't suppose that you are the author of that file, and I'll assume for now that you are not the author. There is no reason to think that the file either is in the public domain or is copyleft. Therefore it may not be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons. Would you like to claim that addition of this image to a particular article would be "fair use"? If so, which article? -- Hoary (talk) 12:27, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Hoary By which article do you mean which article do I want to put the image in? Assuming you're talking about that, I want to put it on Valimai.

The article already contains File:Valimai_Poster.jpg (with the proper paperwork for use of a non-free file). (Someone might argue that the current version is not low-res enough to meet WP:NFCC #3.b.) Adding a second poster is probably not acceptable, unless the article has some critical discussion of the differences between the posters (which would need to be sourced of course). I would not expect such a critical discussion to exist, but then I am no expert of cinema much less Tamil cinema. Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 16:01, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

@Ijick: Both Hoary and Tigraan beat me to it, and I do not disagree with them. 'Fair use' is just that - a fair justification here on English Wikipedia for using a single low resolution version of a copyrighted photo or image on one specific article to help illustrate it. I think it would be 'unfair' (= not justifiable) to attempt to add a second one without the express consent of the copyright owners - presumably the film company. Now, should you feel that the non-English version of the poster for that film is not the best one to use here, I feel you could recommend it for deletion and, once it's gone, upload the English version to English Wikipedia under the same 'fair use' rationale. (We really do have to put the rights of the image owners before anyone's desire to make a lovely article about anything here on Wikipedia - this is one of our founding pillars.) If you were to remove the Tamil-language poster from the article, I, or another admin, would be happy to delete it for you (probably under a WP:CSD F1 or WP:CSD F7 rationale), and then you could upload the alternative image under a fair use rationale. Does that seem reasonable?Nick Moyes (talk) 17:12, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

ask for advice about the musical notability criteria at the Teahouse.

ask for advice about the musical notability criteria at the Teahouse. फ़िज़ा3 (talk) 07:04, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the teahouse. Are you looking for guidance regarding one (or more) of the musical notability criteria? Pichemist (talk) 08:37, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Oh dear - editor blocked as a WP:SOCKPUPPET! Nick Moyes (talk) 10:37, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Seems to still be created more sockpuppets. Started an investigation at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Support2022 _Signed, Pichemist ^{( Contribs | Talk )} 11:53, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

My article

Hi, I made my new article Samsung Galaxy M31 . How is the article? Should I improve it more? If yes, so what should I improve? Blue Mango Juice (talk) 08:53, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

One obvious point is that the references are bare URLs which need expanding. A smaller point is the syntax for images in the infobox template. Other editors may have further comments. --David Biddulph (talk) 08:59, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Blue Mango Juice, one relatively minor additional thing is that references should come after punctuation, not before it. See MOS:REFPUNCT. You've got this right in places but wrong in others. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:23, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Also, references should appear where they are associated with the statement they support - not all in a group at the bottom of the Infobox.--Gronk Oz (talk) 10:40, 5 January 2022 (UTC) - Forgot to ping Blue Mango Juice--Gronk Oz (talk) 10:41, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Commons speedily removed the file of the phone itself while I was editing the page. I do not know the reason (the public Wi-Fi I'm on has Wikimedia Commons blocked), but it seems like you might need to take a picture of the phone itself. Explodicator7331 (talk) 16:04, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Congratulations on getting past your earlier frustrations. David notMD (talk) 14:07, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Iam a New user.

Not a new user (socking). Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 11:16, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

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

---

 Curassow (talk) 10:14, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

@Curassow: Do you have a question? – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 10:24, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

@AssumeGoodWraith: how can I help wikipedia, suggest me...

@Curassow Welcome. It's great to have you here. Yes, it can seem a bit daunting at first, so I've left you a welcome message on your talk page. You might like to work to work through this introductory guide, or try our interactive tour The Wikipedia Adventure and see if you can collect all 15 badges whilst gaining experience.

But if you fancy simply trying to help by improving articles that have been identified as needing a bit more work, check out section 3 (Help Out) at Wikipedia:Community portal. Some tasks there are quite simple, and others are more complex. I hope you find something that interests you. Fixing grammar and spelling, or finding and adding references to support uncited statements are two good ways to start slowly and get the feel of things - a bit like driving a car for the first time. Nick Moyes (talk) 10:35, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

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

Feedback about Ingrid Carbone’s draft page

Hi, everybody! The user @Tamingimpala: suggested me to write you because I made my first draft in the English version of Wikipedia and I need some help. My draft is about the Italian pianist Draft:Ingrid Carbone For the notability of the page, I followed the guidelines for musicians and I thought that there were enough reasons to create it. In fact, as I underlined, she and her work have received independent international reviews, such as Pizzicato magazine and Belgian magazine Klassiek Centraal.

Speaking about the point no. 12 of notability guidelines, she has been interviewed or has been the subject of radio program of the Swiss national radio in Italian RSI Rete Due (ReteDueCinque program) and the Italian national radio Rai Radio 3 (Primo Movimento and Piazza Verdi programs) At the same time, she has been awarded in the 2015, 2016 and 2017 editions of the IBLA International Competition with the Scarlatti Special Mention and the Piano Special Mention. In 2021 her last cd has been nominated by the International Classical Music Awards, the music awards sustained by many important music magazines and public institutions, such as the MDR Kultur (Germany). In the same nomination we could find Beatrice Rana, Maurizio Pollini and the Berliner Philarmoniker Orchestra. In fact, this is the main reason for my submission. Any further references about what I've wrote are in the draft page. Please, could you tell me constructive feedback to improve the page and, hopefully, to make it published? Thank you very much in advance! --Fedeflute (talk) 13:05, 5 January 2022 (UTC) Fedeflute (talk) 13:05, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

To bring context: The message I left on the user's talk page: Hi. Hope you're doing well. Looking back at your draft again, I noticed even bigger problems than the notability established. The draft needs to rewritten to comply with Wikipedia's encyclopedic tone. Please see: Wikipedia:Writing better articles. The lead is a single line. There are poor grammatical use, lot of original research. Unsourced materials. For example, the entire early life and education section is unsourced. At wikipedia, we do not accept statements without proper sourcing. And also it has NPOV issues. Some lines are not suitable for a neutral encyclopedic entry. The draft currently reads like an essay. There are use of puffery sentencing and wording to promote the subject. For example, in the Critics section: "Among the most prestigious, we find the Belgian magazine Klassiek Centraal which awards her five stars and where Ludwig van Mechelen says about her in 2020." That doesn't by any means read like an encyclopedic statement. There are problems in the discography section (unconventionally written). There are problems with punctuations, for example you used ":" a lot, which were unnecessary. I thank you for your efforts to contribute on the wiki and making it better, but unfortunately, I or no other reviewer can accept the draft at its current form. You need to make substantial amount of changes before re-submitting it again. I recommend requesting editors from teahouse to help you out. Have a great day!. Tame (talk) 13:23, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Uploading Mistake

I was uploading an image for Unorthodox (podcast) and accidentally overwrote a file located here. I tried to undo my edit, but I'm not seeing any changes. Is there an easy way to fix this mistake? TipsyElephant (talk) 13:45, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

I think I figured it out, but it would probably be good if someone double checked my work. TipsyElephant (talk) 13:47, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

TipsyElephant, I'm seeing the original version so I think your revert did the trick. --ARoseWolf 13:55, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Archive Talkpage

Pretty basic question, I just want to know how to archive my talk page. I would research it myself but I have never been to good with the technical side of things. Thanks in advance. Gandalf the Groovy (talk) 13:59, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

@Gandalf the Groovy, you could try this: Help:Archiving (plain and simple). Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:03, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

@Gandalf the Groovy, hello and welcome to the Teahouse, I totally understand your predicament whilst I’m proficient with/in wiki coding, I’m absolutely no good at other core technical areas, courtesy ping to Buidhe who is beyond proficient in coding and all things technical no matter how difficult, hopefully they can assist you. Celestina007 (talk) 15:05, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Vandalism

User asking the question is a sock. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 11:25, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

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

---

Hello. What is vandalism on Wikipedia? Normally, it means the action involving deliberate destruction of or damage to public or private property. (Vandalism). Thank you. Jellybread (talk) 14:45, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

@Jellybread: it's somewhat similar, specifically: "editing (or other behavior) deliberately intended to obstruct or defeat the project's purpose, which is to create a free encyclopedia, in a variety of languages, presenting the sum of all human knowledge." Nosebagbear (talk) 14:57, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

@Jellybread: The sentence kindly provided by Nosebagbear came from Wikipedia:Vandalism. Hope this helps, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 16:49, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

@Jellybread: Do note that the difference between vandalism and good faith editing is that vandalism is when the person doing it is trying to screw things up and mess with things. Good faith editing is when the person editing may not exactly be doing things correctly, however they mean well and are genuinely attempting to help out the project. (see WP:AGF for more on good faith editing) ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 17:32, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

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

Email can't be reached

Email! 66.189.107.222 (talk) 15:08, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

You are going to need to be more specific. Are you referring to an account? 331dot (talk) 15:08, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Allan Maraynes

Here is the confusion. There is (was) an article posted about me 7 years ago by someone named Dylan (can't locate him). I have since had editing capability. No issues for seven years. Then --- request for citations. We have added 40 plus that validates the veracity of all content. Now- those citations have been questioned. For instance "CBS Connected." Not sure what that means - CBS would be the source that validates my association with the company. In any event, some have looked at pages for other "American Journalists" and found far fewer citations/references. If I am suddenly no longer considered "notable" (which is fine) then please erase/delete all traces of the page. I am all ears for anyone willing to help. Thank you for your valuable time. Amaraynes (talk) 15:18, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Draft:Allan Maraynes. Hello Amaraynes you're welcome to make suggestions/feedback on the talk page, namely Draft talk:Allan Maraynes but you cannot edit the Article itself directly. The notability criteria for journalists is WP:NJOURNALIST. I haven't had time/interest to look into the specific claims of notability though. Regards ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 15:27, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Shushugah Someone can create and or edit a draft about themselves, that's how they are supposed to contribute about themselves. 331dot (talk) 15:32, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Amaraynes If you are referring to Draft:Allan Maraynes, it is a draft, not an article. It is not actually part of the encyclpedia and unless someone knows it exists it's very hard to find. CBS does confirm that you work for the company, but to establish notability there must be significant coverage of you in independent reliable sources, sources not affiliated with CBS and/or that don't write based on what CBS tells them. Regarding other articles, please see other stuff exists; it could be that these other articles are also inappropriate but have not yet been addressed. As this is a volunteer project, people do what they can when they can.

Drafts are deleted after six months of inactivity. As you are not the main or only contributor, you can't request immediate deletion as the main author. If you think that there is little to no prospect that you would be shown to meet the definition of notability, it would need to be proposed for deletion as a deletion discussion. 331dot (talk) 15:32, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

@331dot FYI it was in the Article namespace and then moved on December 15 2021, with a redirect deleted. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 15:35, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, I was wondering why a draft had existed for that long. 331dot (talk) 15:46, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

BIG PROBLEM: As Amaraynes, you have been editing this article about you (presuming Amaraynes is Allan Maraynes, no proof), which you should stop doing, as you have what Wikipedia calls a conflict of interest. See WP:COI. You are supposed to limit yourself to posting requestion changes on the Talk page. However, your first sentence above "We have added 40 plus that validates the veracity of all content." appears to refer to content being added by Ash3684. Is that you? A person who works for you? Someone you know? COI applies, and possibly WP:PAID. David notMD (talk) 16:43, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

BIGGER PROBLEM: Most (All?) of the references that Ash3684 added are completely worthless. Either there is no mention of Maraynes at all, or a name-only mention. David notMD (talk) 17:05, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Amaraynes UPDATE: Draft has been undraftified, so now at Allan Maraynes. And nominated for deletion review. That process involves a period of 7-14 days for Keep or Delete recommendations being left by anyone who wants to evaluate the article, followed by an Administrator making a decision. Unless all the horrific references are removed, and real, independent refs to content written ABOUT Maraynes can be found, I agree this should be delete. David notMD (talk) 17:17, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Visual editor for WP: and H: namespaces.

I'm currently looking to enable VisualEditor on the Wikipedia: namespace. Is it possible? And if so, how? _Signed, Pichemist ^{( Contribs | Talk )} 15:50, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

@Pichemist: The visual editor doesn't work very well on non-article pages, and hasn't been made to use it, so it's not an option by default, though you can manually enable it. To enable it, you can go to any project page and type "?veaction=edit" after the url. For example, to edit this page, you would navigate to "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Teahouse?veaction=edit". Note that as I said earlier, it's not made to work well on these pages, so there might be some visual errors / discrepancies in how it appears. ― Levi_OP^Talk 16:19, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, much appreciated. _Signed, Pichemist ^{( Contribs | Talk )} 16:24, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Adding voice sample in article?

I was looking at edits made at Destiny (streamer) and I saw that someone had added a section in the userbox that said "Destiny's voice". (diff) It is a file in which you can hear a clip of him talking from a video on his YouTube channel. Is this is normal/commonplace thing to do? I've seen parts of songs be in articles about albums/singles, to show what part of it sounds like, but I don't think I've ever seen someone just putting a clip from one of their YouTube videos in the userbox of the article. Should this potentially be removed? File deleted? Thanks a lot, ― Levi_OP^Talk 16:08, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Levi OP, and welcome to the Teahouse. If you click on the voice file, it will take you to File:DestinyGender.ogg, which says that This video, screenshot or audio excerpt was originally uploaded on YouTube under a CC license. Assuming that licence is compatible with Commons' rules (which I think it is), then uploading and using the clip in a Wikipedia article is acceptable. And it would seem to me that a clip of his voice is a reasonable thing to put in an article as well. --ColinFine (talk) 16:53, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

@ColinFine: I understand that uploading things is fine, because most youtube videos are under creative commons licenses, but I was just wondering if it was commonplaces to put people's voices in articles like this. Are there any other pages or examples where this happens? Maybe on a good article? Or maybe a part in the MOS that says this is normal? Thanks, ― Levi_OP^Talk 17:03, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

@Levi OP: I am afraid I have to correct you in one point: Most YouTube videos probbably won't have a CC-license. Publishing a YouTube video under a CC-License is not the default option and has to be explicitely selected by the creator. The default YouTube license, which is described in the YouTube T&C, is more restrictive and not allowed on commons. To find out wether YouTube video is under a CC-license, read its description. The license is always included at the bottom of the description. Victor Schmidt (talk) 17:32, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

To put it simply: Yes, I know. I wrote that out quickly and wasn't too worried about how correct that was because it's not the focus of my question. Thanks for the correction anyway for any others reading. ― Levi_OP^Talk 18:11, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

I've no idea why you would want to delete it, Levi OP: to my mind it is a bit of decoration in the article like a photo. But if you think there's some reason not to have it, by all means either remove it or open a discussion on the talk page. I've no idea how common it is to include, but I suspect that it is the lack of freely licensed clips that limits this rather than policy. --ColinFine (talk) 19:29, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Making a WP:Project

Is there any tools into how I make a Wikipedia Project?
Thanks! Tailorbird134 (talk) 16:49, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

@Tailorbird134: See Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide. Hope this helps, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 16:51, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

@Tailorbird134 Welcome to the Teahouse. I don't know if you are genuinely thinking about proposing a new WikiProject right now, but I think you would get a lot more 'traction' if you waited a while so that you could demonstrate your own commitment to editing within that sphere before you approach other editors. You've only made 32 edits in total since you joined us last month, and people are far more likely to support any proposal you make if they can see your existing commitment to any given topic over a number of months first. Of course, if you're just thinking about things for the future, then GoingBatty has definitely pointed you towards the right page to read. Either way: good luck! Nick Moyes (talk) 17:27, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes (talk) Yes I am planning in the future. Cheers! Tailorbird134 (talk) 22:03, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

• Socks don't have the privilege of starting a WikiProject.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:19, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Even check?

Hi, I was Wondering if admin even check This, Please review the requests. Thanks! Yodas henchman (talk) 17:02, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

@Yodas henchman I was a bit confused by the link you gave, but assume you meant this, didn't you? You only posted there yesterday and there are still a few others to review that were made before Christmas. You do look to have the necessary experience, but give it a few more days before 'jumping the gun' like this. Best wishes. Nick Moyes (talk) 17:20, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Alright, thanks! Yodas henchman (talk) 17:23, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Why is the article not getting published in Wikipedia?

I tried uploading this page on Wikipedia. But it is getting deleted many times. Can you help me out as to how to get my article published in Wikipedia.

Streaming Online". OTT Raja. 2021-10-16. Retrieved 2021-11-29.

External links[edit] Instagram Htnahsarp2021 (talk) 17:25, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

@Htnahsarp2021 Welcome to the Wikipedia Teahouse. At the moment your article is under preparation in your sandbox. It will remain there until you 'submit it for review' as a Draft at Articles for Creation. You can add the code {{subst:submit}} to add a big blue button to submit it when it is ready. BUT, it it nowhere near ready right now. Where did you get all the factual statements about Sheriina Sam from? They certainly aren't in the one reference that you cited.

As your sandbox draft states, she appears to be making her acting debut in 2021, so I doubt an article about her would be acceptable at this time as she would not meet our notability criteria, found at WP:NACTOR. So, unless she happened to meet our other broader criteria for notability (WP:NBIO), I fear this is a case of being WP:TOOSOON. Nick Moyes (talk) 18:10, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

You have drafts at too many places. Your Sandbox is a good place, but delete the content at User talk:Htnahsarp2021/sandbox and User:Htnahsarp2021. David notMD (talk) 03:02, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

How-to for Article Pictures, and Article Formatting

Hello there! I've just recently joined in editing articles for Wikipedia, and I have a question concerning how adding pictures for articles work.

I can see that, if I type in a keyword into the search box for "photo" when editing an article, tons of jpegs and images come up. How can I add a photo that hasn't been added so I can use it in the article?

Additionally, I've come across some articles that don't have all that much information to them, and the need for sections and whatnot are unnecessary. Is leaving the majority of the information on the introduction page fine, or would I be better off just creating a new section for the information despite it only being a few sentences? I'll refer to this page as an example.

Thank you! Lucalogy (talk) 18:43, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello Lucalogy and welcome to the Teahouse.

• I assume that you're using VisualEditor for inserting pictures into articles. I find that it's easier to go directly to where the images are hosted, which is at Wikimedia Commons (commons.wikimedia.org). The search bar there will show a lot more pictures than the limited ones VE shows. Also consider digging through some categories, where you'll see a button that says "Good Pictures" on the top right that will display the better pictures that are identified by the community. On a separate note, I suggest that you learn how to edit Wikipedia through source editing when you're comfortable; it gives you a lot more control over what you want to do.
• Generally, anything that is longer than a stub (5 sentences ish) should have sections because they help readers locate information. The introduction is supposed to be an overview of the subject, highlighting the most important aspects, and leaving less important information to the body. Your example should definitely have sections, by the way.

Hope this helps! ◢  Ganbaruby!  (talk) 02:35, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

No response from Article Creation Help Desk (later inquiries from others have been answered)

Hello! I posted my question to the Article Creation Help Desk, and as near as I can tell, most if not all questions posted after mine have been addressed, but I don't see a response to mine. Is there any way to know if it is likely to get an answer, or do older, unanswered questions get buried as new ones come in?

My question is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk#00:03:34,_4_January_2022_review_of_submission_by_Amysisson

Thank you in advance for any assistance! Amysisson (talk) 19:19, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Amysisson Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. All discussions are responded to by people who choose to respond with the ability to respond. Please be patient. I will look at it in a moment. 331dot (talk) 19:22, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Follow-up to Didwho Welleh Twe

What do you mean that my tread has been archived because there was not a follow-up discussion for days. I was not feeling well and could not keep up with Wikipedia. Is there anything I can do now to correct the situation?

Dagbayonoh (talk) 20:24, 5 January 2022 (UTC) Dagbayonoh (talk) 20:24, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Dagbayonoh. It just means that, to avoid the Teahouse page getting unusably long, items on it are archived. You've seen where the archive is, and you can read the answers that people gave you; but if you want to reply to them or ask further questions about the draft, don't edit that archive page, but start a new section here exactly as you have just done, linking to the old discussion, and explaining that you are continuing that discussion. --ColinFine (talk) 20:56, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

create article button

why don't you make a create article button to create an article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ram buddharaju (talk • contribs) 20:48, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Ram buddharaju Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. You may visit Articles for Creation to find such a button. Be advised that it is highly recommended that you first gain experience and knowledge about Wikipedia by using the new user tutorial and editing existing articles first. This will reduce the chances of frustration and anger that may come with efforts to create a new article. 331dot (talk) 20:51, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

And if the editor wished to create Draft:Hairlice in article space instead of draft space, well, that's a good example of why new editors cannot create new articles directly. We already have an extensive article on the topic, Head_louse. Meters (talk) 21:03, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

@Meters: and @331dot: Would that be under WP:A10, or is that strictly for articles? TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 02:43, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

The A criteria only apply to article space. Meters (talk) 02:47, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Is there a way to get wikipedia watchlist updates sent to your email or phone?

Thanks in advance for your help Aleena98 (talk) 21:33, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Aleena98 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. If you saw my earlier reply, please disregard it, you may go into your account preferences and under the "User profile" tab you may check the box which says "Email me when a page or a file on my watchlist is changed". 331dot (talk) 21:41, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

I forgot about that option at first because I turned it off, as I would get a massive number of emails. However, if you have a small watchlist, that is no problem. 331dot (talk) 21:43, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Got it and done, thanks for your help Aleena98 (talk) 21:45, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Contributions lag

Hello,

when I click contributions at the top of the website, it shows that I have no contributions. I had 2,909 edits, however, it was all erased, and the only words read "No changes were found matching these criteria." Can someone help with this? Thanks. Severestorm28 21:51, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

It is fixed, but if it happens again, what steps do I take to fix the problem next time? Severestorm28 21:54, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

You could make sure that you're logged in as Severestorm28 when you look for your contributions. -- Hoary (talk) 23:17, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

WikimediaMapsBeta

Is there anyone out there familiar with the WikimediaMapsBeta project and where it went following the Hacker News blog at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10236057, which tailed off in September 2017?

One of the comments – from emw on Sept 18, 2015 reads: "There is a ton of potential for awesome applications involving geotagged images and geographic maps. I'm glad to see the Wikimedia Foundation stepping up its investment here." However, https://maps.wikimedia.org/ returns the following error message, which doesn't look promising at present

Help with this would be greatly appreciated so we can crack on with a Climate Central User Story Maps Beta Project for the Silicon Fen-Edge Villages of Cambridgheshire UK, under threat from rising sea levels.

Caerhys (talk) 23:26, 5 January 2022 (UTC) Caerhys (talk) 23:26, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

@Caerhys: I followed some of the links in the ycombinator post you linked to. I think this is the page you want: https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Maps. It links to several map related pages. Also https://maps.wikimedia.org/ works fine for me. If it gives you errors, try asking at https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Project:Support_desk RudolfRed (talk) 01:34, 6 January 2022 (UTC) RudolfRed (talk) 01:34, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

"abbot and costello meet the creature from the black lagoon"

I don't understand this. I am VERY knowledgeable about film history though, especially horror films. I have seen all 3 "Creature From the Black Lagoon" films from Universal Studios. I have also seen all the Abbot and Costello Meets..... movies. I bought this DVD on Ebay and can send you a picture of the cover. It is not on IMDB or Wikipedia, so now I'm really curious!

e 2600:1700:3C60:6920:164:700C:3ABC:C417 (talk) 00:33, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Welcome, IP editor. Looking at this and this review on eBay, it sound like this is a DVD carrying a short TV 'skit' by Abbot & Costello, rather than a proper movie. That's why its not on IMDB. If you can find reliable sources that talk about it, you could briefly use them to expand that entry, or maybe the one at Cultural impact of Creature from the Black Lagoon.

Because editing Wikipedia can seem a bit scary for a complete novice, I'll pop over and leave you a welcome message on your talk page with a few helpful links in case you decide you want to improve the content already here. Don't write from your own knowledge - but find good, published sources that you can use to support additional material. Good luck! Nick Moyes (talk) 00:45, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

How can I contribute to Wikipedia?

 217.180.250.162 (talk) 01:41, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Try the WP:TUTORIAL and WP:ADVENTURE. After that, check out Wikipedia:Task_Center for some ideas. RudolfRed (talk) 01:51, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

You can also create an account yourself. There are lots of benefit when you create an account. Itcouldbepossible^Talk 06:22, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Random Questions

1. Does capturing an image from TV by mobile breach copyright issues?

2. How can receiving messages from bot that 'your thread has been archived' be stopped?

3. Can anyone help in rewriting the Draft: Sadashib (Fictional Character) keeping the content same in order to avoid plagiarism issues as reported by the reviewer?

Please answer in the order asked.

Thank you Michri michri (talk) 04:55, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi there, answering your questions in order:

1: It most likely would fall under Wikipedia:Non-free content. Read that page for some details on what is eligible for uploading on Wikipedia that isn't freely licensed.

2. Per the bot's documentation, you can put {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} on your talk page.

3: Interested editors will participate eventually, however, I strongly recommend trying to reword it yourself first.

Cheers! 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 05:34, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

🐶 EpicPupper, thanks a lot. Please check whether I have correctly disabled the feature of receiving messages. Btw, I asked my first question because most of the Wikipedia articles regarding sportsmen lack genuine images. So if I capture images from TV, then can I upload them as my own file, or through Common Wizard? And yes, I'll definitely try to reword the draft myself, but the problem is that as my native language is not English and most importantly I am just a little lad and not a grown adult, I may make mistakes regarding the language. So, it can be better edited by a person having a sound knowledge in English. Anyway, I'll try of course and thank you again, 🐶 EpicPupper.--Michri michri (talk) 11:14, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Michri michri, and welcome to the Teahouse. Well done for contributing in a language which is not your own! In answer to your question about images: no, those would almost always be copyright violations, and so not permitted on Commons. This is why so many articles about living people have no image, unfortunately. In some cases it may be possible to upload them to Wikipedia itself (not to Commons) as non-free images; but all the criteria in the non-free content criteria have to be met, and one of them ("Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose") is hardly ever satisfied for living people, because it is usually possible that somebody could take a picture of them and upload it themselves. --ColinFine (talk) 11:23, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

ColinFine, so you mean that adding images of a not so well-known cricketer is virtually impossible? Anyway, gracias.--Michri michri (talk) 17:18, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

review time

 Vinitraj (talk) 04:58, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

@Vinitraj Hi and welcome to the Teahouse. What do you want to know? If you are talking about the time that it takes to review articles, then let me tell you that articles are viewed in no specific order. It could take as well as months. So, what you have to do is wait, until someone reviews your draft. Thanks. Itcouldbepossible^Talk 05:11, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Book Page

Hello! I'm new to Wikipedia and I'm sad because my first article just got deleted :( I practiced editing and thought that my first page could be about a book. I searched other books, saw tutorials and guidelines and I thought that it was a good contribution. It was deleted very fast because it was seen as promotional. I am lost and need help on how to work. I don't want to be discouraged I was very excited to start contributing to this encyclopedia. Can you give me suggestions on what to do? Marianti21 (talk) 06:44, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

@Marianti21: I'm sorry that happened to you at the start of your Wikipedia career, and I am happy to read that you're determined not to be discouraged. That attitude, and the willingness to learn, will take you far.

Creating a new article from scratch is one of the most difficult things to do. You might find it helpful to start out small - fixing typos, adding good references, etc. Build up to the big stuff like a whole article. (That is just my personal suggestion, not a rule.)

Because the article has been deleted, I can't see it to make any specific comments. If you check your User Talk page, as well as helpful guidelines, there is the notice of this deletion by Admin 49ersBelongInSanFrancisco. If you contact them directly, they may be able to do a couple of things to help. First, if you ask they can restore the article back into User space so you can work on it without having to start again from scratch. Secondly, they might be able to give you some specific indication of the kind of thing that was problematic.

I also fixed the "help me" template on your User Talk page, so that may also attract other advice.--Gronk Oz (talk) 07:16, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

@Gronk Oz: Thanks so much for your feedback. I am worried because two related articles that I used to reference my article were deleted too at the same time. Is this right? These articles have been there for a long time and they were deleted. I read the guidelines and an article that is on wikipedia can't be deleted unless its candidate for deletion in all its history, if not the edits should be discussed. One of the pages is the author's page of the book I was making an article about. I feel terrible. I had a hard time making my mind to contribute and now I feel that other valuable articles were deleted too. Today I didn't make any edits on them. One of them I added a last name and actualized some verified info with citations that was wrong and that I found while creating my article. Do you know who can I talk to to restore these two pages? This doesn't seems right! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marianti21 (talk • contribs)

Marianti21, on WP, you can never use a WP-article as a reference, see WP:RSPWP. What sources do you have that satisfies the demands of WP:GNG/WP:NBOOK? Say the best 3-5 you know of. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:40, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

@Gronk Oz: I'm sorry I explained it wrong. I didn't use those pages as reference but the name of the author in my article was linked to her wikipedia page. I read in the guidelines that this prevents a page from going orphan and that should be done when topics or people mentioned have their own page. Thanks for all your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marianti21 (talk • contribs)

Marianti21 fixing ping. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:40, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

@Marianti21: Again, I'm sorry this has all happened to you at the start of your Wikipedia career. One day you'll look back on it and say "that was weird". I would need to know what the article names are, to look up the deletion log and see who deleted them and why. So either put them here or if you prefer, you could check the log yourself and see who deleted them - it is at Special:Log?type=delete and you can specify various criteria to find the one(s) you want.

Then similar to your own article, they can be restored to User space (or to Draft space) if the Administrator thinks there is scope for them to be improved and whatever their problem is can be fixed. Once we know what happened and why, we can look at what the next steps are.--Gronk Oz (talk) 09:42, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

CORRECTION: The deleting Admin was Athaenara.--Gronk Oz (talk) 10:43, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Athaenara courtesy ping. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:19, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

SITUATION: The Official Bright Line Eating Cookbook: Weight Loss Made Simple was Speedy deleted for being promotional, so there is no chronological history of it being created by Marianti21. It appears that there were also articles about the author Susan Peirce Thompson and her program Bright Line Eating, not by Marianti21, also Speedy deleted on 6 January 2022. Marianti21 denies COI. David notMD (talk) 14:21, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Now, Susan Peirce Thompson has some WP-useful coverage like [4]. I'm not saying there's enough to satisfy WP:BASIC, but there may be. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:30, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Need help undoing a move by a disruptive editor

Chuyuiman (whom I'll be reporting soon at the vandalism noticeboard if an admin here can't block them) recently moved Tiky to Tiky (soft drink) and then turned Tiky into a disambig page to promote some shitty, non-notable Newgrounds meme. I've moved the content back (though I haven't yet moved the talk page content), but unfortunately, I can't do so while preserving the article's revision history and that of its talk page. Is there an administrator who could help with this? And maybe block Chuyuiman in the same breath because they're clearly a troll? TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 07:23, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Also, they moved 'Sussy baka' (a redirect to Among Us) to 'Sussy Baka' for no good reason. Once again, however, I can't move it back since "a page of that name already exists". TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 07:26, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Update: They just swapped my name with theirs because they lack the requisite 50 brain cells to come up with something more clever. 331dot, ColinFine, Cullen328, Lectonar, Cordless Larry, or Writ Keeper, if any of you are around, would you be able to sweep the trash out the door really quickly? You can check the Teahouse's edit history if you don't know what I mean. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 07:47, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

I reported the editor at WP:AIV, for his vandalism here & his personal attack on your user talk page. He has been indefinitely blocked, but I think you'll need an admin to sort out the article history; it's not normally wise to copy content where it should have been moved. --David Biddulph (talk) 11:45, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Regarding Submission of Sandbox Article

Regarding Submission of Sandbox Article

I wrote an article on a company (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Chakraborty_Saikat/sandbox) in the sandbox that was rejected along with a comment as to why it was rejected. I modified the article based on the given comments but I'm now unable to resubmit it. How can I submit this article again? Chakraborty Saikat (talk) 09:48, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

First, you will need to fix the article so it does not read like an advertisement. Phrases like "the unique strength of deploying technology in all its services" or "CIEL couples its subject matter expertise in Recruitment with Natural Language Processing based machine learning methods to find talent" etc. have no place in a Wikipedia article.--Gronk Oz (talk) 10:49, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Once that is done, and ONLY once it is done, you can add the code {{subst:submit}} to the top of your draft (remember to switch to the source editor first). This will add the button "Submit for review" button, which you can click.--Gronk Oz (talk) 10:53, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

@Chakraborty Saikat:, please read your first article carefully. It is a waste of everybody's time starting to write an article before you have found the independent reliable sources that are required to establish notability. The article should contain hardly any statements which are not supported by reliable sources unconnected with the subject. 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) 15:24, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Submission

Hi, goodafternoon everyone, my article Ahmed Al-Harrasi is still in AFC area, i made all possible changes. can anyone please review it ?

Draft:Ahmed Al-Harrasi Ahmed Al Harrasi (talk) 11:04, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Ahmed Al Harrasi Hello and welcome. As noted on your draft, "This may take 2 months or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 2,555 pending submissions waiting for review." Please be patient. 331dot (talk) 11:08, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

If you haven't already, please review the autobiography policy. While not forbidden, writing about yourself is highly discouraged. 331dot (talk) 11:09, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

@Ahmed Al Harrasi You might also want to look at WP:DISCLOSE for templates you can place on the talk page and your user page to express that you have a conflict of interest. -- asilvering (talk) 21:35, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Where to ask a question about a specific entry (e.g., "Apostles' Creed")

Hello! I'm a neophyte to editing Wikipedia pages, and I was wondering if there was a place / procedure for asking a question about an entry prior to suggesting an edit.

To give the specific example that led me to ask, I noticed that the entry entitled "Apostles' Creed" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostles%27_Creed) begins with the seemingly odd claim that the Apostles' Creed is "the most ancient Christian statement of faith that remains in wide use today," which seems dubious. As I am nothing resembling an expert on this topic, I wondered if there was a place / procedure for asking for clarification before I suggest an edit.

Thanks! Raumschwein666 (talk) 11:53, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Raumschwein666 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Every article and page on Wikipedia has an associated page that we call a "talk page" which is for discussion of the associated article. If you are viewing Wikipedia on a computer or otherwise in full desktop mode, there is a "Talk" tab at the top of the article that you can use to access the talk page. In this case, I will link directly to Talk:Apostles' Creed. 331dot (talk) 11:56, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Raumschwein666 That is a very good question. The "lead" section at the top of each article should summarize the key points of what is in the body of the article, and they in turn should be supported by references. But in this case, I cannot see in the body of the article where that claim comes from. So asking the question in the Talk page could be very interesting.--Gronk Oz (talk) 12:39, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

That wording was added in this edit only a few days ago, so you may wish to ask the editor concerned. --David Biddulph (talk) 12:50, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Courtesy ping to @Rsquire3. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:54, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

I have undone the edit because it is unsourced and restored the prior wording. Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:49, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

@Raumschwein666 There's also WP:Reference desk/Humanities, if you have a similar kind of question in the future and using the Talk page and contacting the editor responsible doesn't get you any response. Do give them some time to respond, though, and mention that you did that in your refdesk comment. (Asking the same question in many places at the same time irritates people, and it can lead to people wasting their time by answering questions that have already been answered.) -- asilvering (talk) 21:31, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Following requested move of foobar to foo best may to raise an alternative move to bar

A use case has come up where I have proposed a move of FOOBAR to FOO using {{requested move}}, but their appears to be strong desire for a more to BAR instead. What is the best and quickest way to being up the alternative proposal?

The use case is at: Talk:Locomotive Services#Requested move 5 January 2022, where Locomotive Services Limited has gathered a following as an alterntive move target? Thankyou for any suggestions. Djm-leighpark (talk) 13:11, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

@Djm-leighpark: Just because FOO is proposed as a target does not mean the discussion can only be closed as "consensus for FOO" or "no consensus". If there is consensus for BAR, the discussion can be closed as such without opening a new move discussion. Only if BAR is floated as an alternative but there is no clear consensus for it, then you close the first discussion as "no consensus" after the week is over and open a new discussion for FOOBAR => BAR. As WP:OTHEROPTIONS says, "If you as a closer are in doubt because too many titles have been proposed and there's no real consensus anywhere, it is generally best to close as no consensus and allow someone to re-propose the move to a more specific or better title." That also means, if there is consensus for one of multiple possible targets, you can move it there without a new discussion. Regards SoWhy 13:28, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

 Done Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 14:26, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

I Need A Review & Feedback On Page Build

Hello, I'm new here and still trying to get the hang of things. If anyone has a second can you do a review of a test page build I did? I would greatly appreciate any feedback or pointers you have. Thank you!!! -— Preceding unsigned comment added by TylerIrons (talk • contribs)

Please do not copy and paste, a link is sufficient and less disruptive

As to your article, Wikipedia strongly discourages WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY. Writing about yourself in a neutral manner is virtually impossible and an inherent conflict of interest. Plus should an article ever be published, you will not have any control over the content.

Also, if you wish to continue working on a draft of the article, it will need to be moved from your userpageSlywriter (talk) 14:32, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

TylerIrons Your User page content was Speedy deleted because User pages are not a place to create drafts of articles. See WP:YFA for process. That said, if you are article-worthy, it is because people with no connection to you have published content about you, so that you can use those publications as references. All content requires references. True information about you cannot be used unless verified by references. David notMD (talk) 16:18, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedback! The intention was not to publish the article about myself. I used it as a practice template. I didnt realize it published it from my user profile page. Absolutely makes sense that you can't do an Auto Bio. Trust me I'm not worth a page. My main reason for coming on is that I get to travel the country seeing new real estate technology and companies. That is where I feel like I can provide a lot of value. Thank you again for the feedback I really appreciate you taking the time! — Preceding unsigned comment added by TylerIrons (talk • contribs)

TylerIrons Every entry at Wikipedia is "published", as in, others can see it if they know where to look. As in going to a person's User page and clicking on Contributions to see their contributions, chronolgically, EVERYWHERE. Including contributions later 'deleted.' There are a few exceptions, as in copyright content and Administators' Speedy deletions. Only actual articles are found by searches within or outside of Wikipedia. David notMD (talk) 19:53, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Articles about companies are hard to create because those tend to come across as promotional. Common advice here is to spend months attempting to improve existing articles before essaying a new article. David notMD (talk) 19:53, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

{{Cite book}} use page numbers

I am working on Draft:Jacqueline Hick and trying to figure out how to cite different pages in a book. I know this is possible, but now I cannot find where on Wikipedia has the information I need. In the current page, citation #6 is to the book as a whole. However, later on I want to cite a specific page, but then I end up with a duplicate citation (now marked as reference #22). Can you please point me to the place where I can find how to write this up correctly? Thanks. DaffodilOcean (talk) 14:10, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Just passing and not a regular helper here but you may wish to check out Help:References and page numbers & Wikipedia:Citing sources#Citing multiple pages of the same source. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 14:34, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

@DaffodilOcean, of the alternatives at Help:References and page numbers, I prefer the Inline page numbers method, but it's an aquired taste, some people consider them ugly. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:43, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

In cases like this, the simplest solution may be to use the template {{rp}} with a named reference such as the entire book. Read the linked documentation and you'll see it is quite easy to implement. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:54, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Perfect. Thanks everyone for getting back to me. I will poke into these options and see which I like best. --DaffodilOcean (talk) 15:26, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

CheckUser blocks

If an administrator who is not a checkuser unintentionally reverses a checkuser block, but then realizes their mistake and puts the checkuser block back in, can an admin lose their admin rights even if this were their first offense? If so, why not implement a three strikes and your out rule here? Would a system like that work? Interstellarity (talk) 14:57, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

@Interstellarity:. This is really not an appropriate topic for the Teahouse. I suggest WP:AN. --ColinFine (talk) 15:28, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

The More Menu (to find logs and analytics) appears blank

The MORE MENU gadget is not working. Is there any bug ? or any troubleshoot ?  Onmyway22 talk 14:57, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Pinging MusikAnimal, who may be able to assist! Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:46, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi Onmyway22! Have you tried enabling it in the gadgets tab? You should be able to find it there, listed as "MoreMenu". Best wishes and happy 2022, Vukky ^Talk_Guestbook 17:20, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

@Vukky: It is enabled ! And I had been using it, but now empty Onmyway22 talk 17:24, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Is it empty regardless of what page you're on, Onmyway22? The "more" menu is empty for me at the Teahouse (though things appear on the "page" drop-down) but not when I'm viewing an article. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:28, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

@Cordless Larry: It is empty everywhere ! On articles, user pages etc. Onmyway22 talk 17:33, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

@Onmyway22 So it was previously working for you? What browser and version are you using? Which operating system? Which skin? If you could, please follow the instructions at WP:JSERROR. Thanks, — MusikAnimal ^talk 17:49, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

@MusikAnimal: Yes was working for me. Using Windows 10, G Chrome, vector skin Onmyway22 talk 17:52, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Solved !! Thank you everyone!! Cleared cache !! Onmyway22 talk 18:26, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Trindad and Tobago

why is there no site in wiki called (Trindad and Tobago) ? Uknown100 (talk) 15:13, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Uknown100. We have Trinidad and Tobago. Are you looking for something else? --ColinFine (talk) 15:30, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Trindad and Tobago is a misspelling (it's Trinidad and Tobago, with the i). Joseph2302 (talk) 17:42, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

@Uknown100: To help future readers, I changed Trindad so it is now a redirect to Trinidad. Hope this helps, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 18:45, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Waldensian Museum Balziglia

•  Courtesy link: Draft:Waldensian Museum Balziglia

i submitted this article but has been refused, i am asking for help to understand exactly what i need to correct because i always get the same general comment but i am unable to find out where exactly is the mistake in the text ThankYou Michele Miegge (talk) 16:32, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello @Michele Miegge and welcome to the Teahouse, The comment itself is pretty straightforward; formality seems to be the main issue you're struggling with. I recommend that you first complete some edits on articles before creating pages. Your references should also be from other sources like books, news articles and the likes rather than random wikis. _Signed, Pichemist ^{( Contribs | Talk )} 16:40, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

It's written like an ad. Yodas henchman (talk) 16:45, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Michele Miegge. 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. The question you should be asking yourself, with regard to every single statement in an article is, "Which reliable source, totally unconnected with the subject, supports this claim?" Most of your references are Wikis, which are almost never reliable sources (because they are user generated). Find some places where unconnected writers have written at length about the museum, and summarise what they say about it. If you cannot find sources which are simultaneously reliably published, totally unconnected with the museum, and contain significant coverage of the museum, then you should give up, because you cannot establish that the museum meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability. --ColinFine (talk) 16:49, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Michele Miegge, I hope you don't mind if I make some changes to this draft for you? You can revert them if you would rather do this yourself and I won't be offended. I will explain why I am making changes in the edit summaries. Hopefully this will make things a bit clearer than just discussing in Teahouse or Articles for Creation comments. -- asilvering (talk) 20:00, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

yes that would be great , thankYou — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michele Miegge (talk • contribs) 20:09, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Account deletion

I have been on Wikipedia for a short time. I created the account to edit a page without showing off my IP address. My edit was instantly reverted, and when I asked for an explanation I was accused of using Wikipedia as a soapbox and bringing the discussion to the wrong place (the article's talk page). Overall, Wikipedia seems a very unfriendly place where established users will constantly gripe at and revert all my edits. How do I delete my account? Also, when I tried to publish this, I was told I was adding external links, but I could not see any. Sunrise Minecraft (talk) 18:13, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Sunrise Minecraft Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I am sorry that you have had difficulty. It is not possible, for technical and legal reasons, to delete an account, but you may abandon your account. If you intend to never return, you may request a courtesy vanishing. I don't read the comments directed at you as an accusation, and you were directed to a different forum not because you were in error by using the talk page, but to get better input. I hope you reconsider, but I've explained your options. 331dot (talk) 18:21, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

@Sunrise Minecraft: Hi, welcome to Wikipedia - I'm really sorry that your initial experiences with the site haven't been great. I'm quite disappointed at Morgan695's reply to you, and it certainly isn't the type of reply I'd expect from such an experienced editor. We have a requirement to be civil to everyone, and caution editors to not bite the newbies. You were correct to bring this up on the article's talk page -- TNT (talk • she/her) 18:21, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Eh, I disagree that Morgan's response was biting the newbie, let alone uncivil. They simply give Sunrise a straightforward answer, asked them to provide any evidence whatsoever that "lesbianism" is a homophobic dogwhistle, showed them a few examples of "lesbianism" out of thousands of uncontroversial uses on Wikipedia, and then directed them to a forum where more productive conversation could be had. I don't think there's really anything to be "disappointed" in here, and I don't think there's any need to put them down. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 18:37, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

@TheTechnician27: I find it dismissive, and clearly given the existence of this thread so did the new editor. I'm disappointed we're here, but as I said to Morgan695, "its one heck of a learning curve, and its up to all of us to train up the next generation of editors". I think we can all agree with that -- TNT (talk • she/her) 18:45, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

I should have simply referenced WP:RS and not assumed WP:SOAPBOX, and for that I apologize. But I stand by my original point: I reject the claim that "lesbianism" is some kind of homophobic dog whistle, and any discussion on the appropriateness of the term is necessarily going to have implications for Wikipedia beyond Yuri (genre), so a broader forum such as Teahouse or Wikiproject LGBT Studies is more appropriate than the article's talk page. Morgan695 (talk) 18:47, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Morgan695, your original point was that the editor was using Wikipedia as a soapbox based on the comment made. This came before the ",and". I checked the edit summary but you left no information there as to why you reverted them nor did you make your reason known to them on their user talk page. This may be why TNT viewed your response as dismissive and BITEy towards a new editor. One can be straightforward while showing some kindness and compassion. --ARoseWolf 19:13, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

All I have to say is that you shouldn't Be High Maintenance. Yeah, you get angry about someone rolling back your edit, but at the end of the day, the encyclopedia isn't about you. Someone uses a word you don't like, you edit it, and they roll it back. Just accept it and move on.

Also, you can't delete your account. Deleting the password is about the only thing you can actually do. Explodicator7331 (talk) 18:32, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

@Explodicator7331: What an abundantly unhelpful comment. -- TNT (talk • she/her) 18:38, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) This comment isn't very helpful nor is it compassionate or necessary. --ARoseWolf 18:42, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Low rating articles

• Sadovoye, Republic of Kalmykia, RU.TV and Malokurilskoye --Станислав Савченко (talk) 18:20, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

  To save anyone else the trouble of checking: these are all stub-size articles and are not under-rated. -- asilvering (talk) 19:54, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Станислав Савченко, and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm not sure what your question is about RU.TV. Are you talking about messagtes at the top of the Talk page? In general, any editor can alter these if they think the article is misclassified: see WP:Content assessment. However, I suggest you don't worry about those, but (if you're interested in it) worry much more about the fact that the article has not got a single independent source. (I haven't looked at the other articles you mention) --ColinFine (talk) 18:33, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

donation

How can I stop my monthly donation to wickapedia? 2603:9000:DB07:C561:A935:A3AD:DC87:4F3F (talk) 18:39, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse! See https://donate.wikimedia.org/wiki/Cancel_or_change_recurring_giving GoingBatty (talk) 18:49, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

How to start with transations?

Hello,

I am confused as to how to go about creating translations for articles as a new user. All of the youtube videos on the subject are using the content translation tool, but this is disabled for new users translating non-English articles into English. I can't seem to find any concrete guidelines for the other way to go about creating a translated article. The other method seems to be to create an entirely new article and copy and pasting a translator template, but this does not provide a side by side view of the original text for translation that the content translation tool provides.

My ultimate question is, if I continue to create translations using the translation tool will this still contribute (pending review of course)? Or would I have to create my first few translations via creating a new article, linking it to the original article and pasting in the translation template? Sokenroken (talk) 20:00, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

@Sokenroken, see Help:Translation if you have not already. While the content translation tool gives you a side by side view, it doesn't do machine translation on en.wiki for any users. You have to do the English translation yourself. There are other ways of getting a side by side view of the original page and the page you are writing, such as using two windows if you are on a desktop computer. Template:Translated page goes on the talk page of the article here, not on the article. StarryGrandma (talk) 00:36, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Updating copyright information

Your page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Spring_torrents.jpg shows a picture of a Hemingway novel and I believe this page has not been updated for 4 or 5 years. It is showing the image being under copyright protection, which it was in 2017. However, as of 2022, the image should be in the public domain as it was published in 1926. How can I get this page updated so it shows the fact that the image is in the public domain?

Thanks in advance. Bethered (talk) 20:37, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

@Bethered: I think the easiest way would be to upload the file to WP:Commons, which can now be done since it is public domain. ––FormalDude ^talk 20:48, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

@Bethered: - Not necessary. There's a much larger, higher-resolution version on Commons already. DS (talk) 23:43, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

References

I need help adding references Wesbie (talk) 21:02, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Wesbie, welcome to the Teahouse. I see you're working on Draft:Robenson Lauvince. There's already some references in the article, are you wanting to add more? If so, can you provide the URLs? It looks like some of the existing sources are in French, which I unfortunately don't speak, but it is still acceptable for English Wikipedia (so long as it also meets our reliable sources policy). ––FormalDude ^talk 21:14, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Additionally, Wesbie, you must disclose if you have a paid affiliation with Lauvince. Given the puffery throughout the article, the fact that this is your first and only contribution to the project, the way you refer to him as "Mr Lauvince", and the dubious notability of this living person, that seems likely. Please see your talk page. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 21:22, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Requesting Undelete. Where do I start?

In 2017, I edited and posted an article on Wikipedia. It was deleted today with reason code G11. I've located the code, found the user name of the deleting admin, read the undelete guidelines, believe my next step is to contact the admin directly (true?), but am not sure how. I'm really struggling to work through this, but don't seem to be making headway. Thank you. The article title was Bright Line Eating, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bright_Line_Eating.

 Sursum.corda (talk) 21:35, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

@Sursum.corda: First, request at WP:RFU. Second, remove any advertising or promotion material. Third, improve the article, and avoid adding any promotion and advertising material, as well as vandalism, and disruptive editing, which may lead to deletion of the article again. Happy editing! Severestorm28 21:44, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

  Severestorm28 (talk)Thank you. I see that you cannot use WP:RFU to request un-deletion for reason code G11 (the code applied to my article), and need instead to contact the admin who deleted. I've identified the admin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Athaenara :@Athaenara: but don't know how to reach them (unless, of course, my newbie attempt just now to use the ping function has accomplished that). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sursum.corda (talk • contribs) 22:24, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Sursum.corda, and welcome to the Teahouse. I cannot see the content of deleted articles, as I am not an admin; but my experience suggests that in this sort of case there is probably not much value in undeletion, and it would be better to start again. The reason I say this is that when an article is promotional the writer(s) have usually made the mistake of basing it on what the subject of the article says or wants to say, or on their own knowledge. Wikipedia is not interested in either of those things. What a Wikipedia article should be based on, almost exclusively, is what people who have no connection with the subject, and have not been primed or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject. Please look at Your First Article. (Your ping of Athaenara won't work because you didn't sign your post, but this one should). --ColinFine (talk) 22:29, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

@Sursum.corda: You almost notified them, but you forgot to sign your comment, which is required for the ping function to work. I'd recommend leaving a message at User talk:Athaenara in order to reach them. ––FormalDude ^talk 22:30, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

The article has been deleted twice. In its latest version, it has a section on the "reception" of the book. This turns out to be its reception by just one source, a website named foodrevolution.org. It appears that the only mention of this website in English-language Wikipedia is that one of its blog pages is referenced thrice in the article "Foodscaping". As for Bright Line Eating itself, it doesn't seem to be mentioned outside the article on Shelly Flagel. Maybe the book is, like most books, un-notable. -- Hoary (talk) 00:13, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Didwho Welleh Twe

Thank you Colinfine for your reply explaining the process.

Dagbayonoh (talk) 21:56, 6 January 2022 (UTC) Dagbayonoh (talk) 21:56, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Vandalism (Dilar Dirik)

Hello, someone vandalized the article Dilar Dirik, i already did the restauration to the original version, but i dont know where to report the account - 2A02:908:160:E560:6C0D:B545:7B0E:E310 JoaquimCebuano (talk) 00:45, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

@JoaquimCebuano: Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse. Yes, they vandalized, but IMO, I think it is too late to report right now, neither to report the IP user. My best option-or advice for you is to watch the account-wait until the user edits. You can use Wikipedia:Template index/User talk namespace. Just use the level 1 first, then if the IP address continues vandalizing, use Level 2, then Level 3, then level 4. These are the steps-copy and paste! If it continues past Level 4, just ask on my talk page. Happy editing! Severestorm28 01:32, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

I've retitled this thread, as its previous title duplicated another, higher up. What you're complaining about seems less like vandalism, more like impatient, unthinking, and careless deletion. It has been done by two IP numbers. What should be of most concern to you, JoaquimCebuano, is to demonstrate that Dilar Dirik meets either Wikipedia:Notability (academics) or more generally Wikipedia:Notability (people). (Most academics do not.) Because I haven't even started to look for her via search engines, I have no opinion on whether she does or doesn't; however, I don't see evidence for this in the article. -- Hoary (talk) 01:59, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Translation approval process

Is the translation approval different than the approval of regular new pages? I just translated a page from the German Wiki around 12 days ago and ran into quite a lot of confusing info in the translation tool but managed to get it published as a draft. I have been waiting to see what would happen next. Hence, nothing has changed so far started wondering whether I messed something up during the process leading to the new translated page not being reviewed by/shown to any trusted Wikipedia member? Please help me comprehend this. Regards Ecosyst (talk) 01:23, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

The process to get your draft approved is the same for translations as for other drafts. To submit it for approval, add {{subst:submit} to the top of the draft. --David Biddulph (talk) 02:06, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Guidance please for a newbie chafing at "no original research".

Welcome to the Teahouse, please enjoy some tea!

If one can go to a particular spot on a beach at low tide and see that there is not an island just off the shore in a particular spot, does adding "There is no island there." to a relevant wikipedia article really constitute original research?

If one were to make such an addition, then found it reverted with the comment "Yes, there is.", what then?

Does the reverter's insistent use of a "reliable source" that can be interpreted as showing something that can be trivially verified by anyone as not being there, really an appropriate use of a reliable source?

The no original research policy I just read says the addition is original research and the revert should be the end of the matter. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research

How to, and whether to, dispute the matter? 2601:1C1:C180:4F40:5C4A:BE6D:F0D9:20B5 (talk) 01:26, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

It's a complex topic, but the gist of it is, Wikipedia goes for verifiability, not truth. Any material added to Wikipedia must have been published previously by a reliable source. Editors may not add content solely because they believe it is true, nor delete content they believe to be untrue, unless they have verified beforehand with a reliable source. There are several ways to handle original research disputes, such as at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard. Hopefully you can let us in on some more of the specific details though before anything else. Then we can answer your questions better. ––FormalDude ^talk 02:06, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

If there is no reliable source for information, than it is better to just not put that information in the article. ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 02:08, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Understood. Thank you both. 2601:1C1:C180:4F40:5C4A:BE6D:F0D9:20B5 (talk) 03:26, 7 January 2022 (UTC)