:::::ip user: you can see [[Comparison of wiki hosting services]] for this. I can't give you a recommendation myself however, haven't really used any of them. if you want an existing wiki to edit, check out [[WP:DIROUT]], happy reading! 💜 <span style="border:solid 1px; border-radius:7px;background:#226;border-color:#338">[[User:Melecie|<span style="color:#edf"> '''m'''elecie </span>]]</span> [[User talk:Melecie|<span style="color=#edf">'''t'''alk</span>]] - 03:15, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
:::::ip user: you can see [[Comparison of wiki hosting services]] for this. I can't give you a recommendation myself however, haven't really used any of them. if you want an existing wiki to edit, check out [[WP:DIROUT]], happy reading! 💜 <span style="border:solid 1px; border-radius:7px;background:#226;border-color:#338">[[User:Melecie|<span style="color:#edf"> '''m'''elecie </span>]]</span> [[User talk:Melecie|<span style="color=#edf">'''t'''alk</span>]] - 03:15, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
::::::But fandom new theme that relese in may 2021 is bad and hard to use [[Special:Contributions/99.229.113.55|99.229.113.55]] ([[User talk:99.229.113.55|talk]]) 04:06, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
::::::But fandom new theme that relese in may 2021 is bad and hard to use [[Special:Contributions/99.229.113.55|99.229.113.55]] ([[User talk:99.229.113.55|talk]]) 04:06, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
== Company page - have COI, corporate notability ==
Hello everyone! This is a new frontier on Wikipedia for me. I have a COI since I co-founded the company I am writing about.
It's been around for 10 years and written about in numerous publications; it was removed / my draft was declined for notability reasons. I removed any sources where company members were republished or did a guest post on a reputable platform.
I don't want to abuse the draft function, so I'm not sure if the page is ready to resubmit for a review, or if I should wait until we get better press coverage. Our company created an open-source tool that has signficant spread and use in the independent film world, and we just premiered our latest docu-series on HBO Max. We're also one of the very few B-Corporations in the entertainment space, so I collected independent, reputable sources that talk about these aspects of the company at reasonable length:
[[Draft:Prodigium Pictures]]
Would love advice here! [[User:Gentle|Gentle]] ([[User talk:Gentle|talk]]) 04:06, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
@Jéské Couriano: Depends on the software. If it is freely licensed software, then it may be shared according to the license conditions. Otherwise, as you said, it must meet the non-free content criteria. Not all screenshots of non-free software are fair use, though. I can't take a 4K screenshot of a non-free app, and share it on 1,000 pages. QuickQuokka[talk • contribs]21:32, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Two William Olivers
They are Engish Victorian painters who are often confused, sometimes as father and son (particularly on art sales index type web sites eg Junior/Senior, Younger/Older, I/II). The younger artist whose professional name is William Oliver (William Oliver (artist)) is actually William Oliver Williams (1823-1901). I am writing an article on the older artist with the draft title 'William Oliver, Artist (1804-1853)'. Hopefully this could help to reduce further confusion, particularly if the birth and death years were added to the Wikipedia title of the younger artist. Would this be possible? BFP1 (talk) 10:36, 18 March 2022 (UTC) BFP1 (talk) 10:40, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi BFP1. What you're asking about is called disambiguation on Wikipedia and there are various ways it can be done. If you look at William Oliver, you see there are quite a number of articles about individuals with that name and they are all diambiguated in various ways. What you might do in this case is start a discussion at Talk:William Oliver (artist) and explain what you're hoping to do and why. You can then add Template:Please see to the talk pages of the four WikiProjects listed at the top of the article's talk page to let others know about the discussion. You, then, basically wait and see what kinds of responses you get. Since only the article about the younger currently exists, perhaps the consensus will be not to WP:MOVE the page (at least not just yet) but rather wait until the article about the elder William Oliver has been created. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:24, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@BFP1 Yes, we have various ways to distinguish between similarly-named pages. We have Disambiguation pages and we also have WP:HATNOTES which can go at the very of both pages to point to one another and to distinguish them. See examples of both at Dark side of the moon. Right now, don't worry about the title. Create your draft and submit it for review as normal, and maybe add a note at the top with a suggested title for the reviewer to resolve. But even if it's not done well at first, it can always be resolved later by moving the page to a different title (with or without a WP:REDIRECT. The key thing is to get the page content written. I hope this helps? Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 11:34, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@BFP1: A commonly used disambiguation style in situations like this would be to title the articles "William Oliver (artist, born 1804)" and "William Oliver (artist, born 1823)". But, as you have been advised above, there's no need to worry about the exact title of your article yet. Deor (talk) 13:48, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The article has now been created with the new title 'William Oliver (1804-1853)', while the other article has been retitled to 'William Oliver 1823-1901)'. However, I think I prefer Deor's suggestion above indicating that both were artists. Can the Deor option be Implemented?@Deor:@Marchjuly:@Nick Moyes:
In my talk page and sandbox, I accidentally pressed the "edit visually" button when I want to edit the source itself. What should I do? Magik 3099 (talk) 16:57, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Magik 3099, just click out of it back onto the 'read' tab. You can then select 'edit source' from there. Given that you have posted this comment, you have probably already figured it out. Sungodtemple (talk) 17:16, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've been working on an article - Draft:Deborah Gail Stone - that needs more sources. I've come across some legit news sources that are cited in it from CityNews (2004), but unfortunately the only copy of this media report I could find was scanned and posted to somebody's blog, so even though the CityNews magazine is a reliable news source, the blog is not. It's kind of a strange situation. I was also wondering if anybody knows where to find reliable legal reports on this case. Despite the family's settlement with Disney Corporation being private, the initial lawsuit was public and in the California Compensation Cases. Before I resubmit my draft, I want to have stronger sources. Debbie Stone is a notable figure and a woman who achieved a lot in education and athletics before her death, so I want the article to be approved instead of declined, but I need better sources first. PetSematary182 (talk) 19:10, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@PetSematary182 I looked at Wikipedia:Notability (people) and went down to section 6, People notable for only one event. That section begins with “When an individual is significant for their role in a single event, it may be unclear whether an article should be written about the individual,” which leaves unclear whether Deborah Gail Stone is notable enough for a Wikipedia article. It comes down to good references, and as it is written in Your first article "In general, sources with no editorial control are not reliable." Unfortunately, most YouTube videos, Find a Grave, and question & answer websites such as quora.com are listed on Reliable sources as generally being user-generated, and considered unreliable.
Have you seen the article America Sings, which has a section entitled "Deborah Gall Stone Incident"? If you are not able to have your article about Deborah Gall Stone accepted you could at least go to America Sings and add a bit more to the section on the tragic accident. Best wishes on finding good references. Karenthewriter (talk) 14:58, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Re:Template reason
Hi, I have to give my rationale in a proposed deletion template but can't make it concise enough, would someone help me word it properly please? -- CalSmith2 (talk) 23:46, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
forwarding from my talk, the reasonings given are Article cites only one government data source, sparsely (failing WP:1R), Unlike the Mayor of Greater Manchester as a whole, insufficient sourcing is available, I can't foresee a scenario were the topic becomes WP:Notable or gains sufficient coverage outside the government data site, WP isn't an indiscriminate collection of information were the reasonings given for this PROD.
for @CalSmith2, I'm thinking that you could write this as Article fails notability, and cites only one government data source, with insufficient sourcing compared to Mayor of Greater Machester. however then again I don't work at PROD or AFD, so this can probably be improved. happy editing! 💜 melecie talk - 09:32, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Courtesy link:User:WinterCup/sandbox
I am new at this and I have created an article on Adelaide Motorsport Festival and all of a sudden the box with Submit my Article for Review has disappeared - so how can I submit for Review to get the page live? WinterCup (talk) 04:26, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The page should already be live as soon as it was created unless it was removed from the mainspace by an administrator. Could you please post the link to the page? Urban Versis 32 (talk) 05:17, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@WinterCup: I've gone ahead and added a template for you on the page. When you feel it's ready for review, you can click the blue Submit the draft for review! button. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:20, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh dear I am having such trouble - I renamed the article Adelaide Motorsport Festival and now it won't let me submit for review even though I put Draft: Adelaide Motorsport Festival as the draft article. WinterCup (talk) 05:49, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That I likes to watch movies, I likes to eat vegetarian food, likes to travel, likes to read history, story books, newspaper, And all that kind of stuff. Success think (talk) 05:57, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You can write it as you've written above, you can express it via so-called userboxes, or (best of all) you can forget about your user page and demonstrate your enjoyment of reading various kinds of stuff by applying your reading to the improvement of articles (of course, citing your sources). It's articles, not user pages, that matter. -- Hoary (talk) 06:05, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Userboxes can be displayed horizontally (See my User page) or in a vertical stack by using userboxtop and userboxbottom, thus terms being put inside double curly brackets {{ }} before and after your list of userboxes. Having a good-looking User page is self-rewarding, but keep in mind Hoary's admonition - we are here to improve the encyclopedia, not self-aggrandize. David notMD (talk) 12:59, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, is it possible to create an new infobox with a universal parameter, that the user could place under any other parameter? If so, what method could be used to create it? Thank you in advance. Your admirer AngryBiceps (talk) 08:46, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I created a infobox in Zaza Korinteli added all stuff, moved birth date behind his name in lead but a user is saying, I was doing a test, experiment but I wasn't, he reverted my edits without writing proper reason in summary. Is any new rule say that, you can't create a infobox in BLP articles.Success think (talk) 11:58, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes I come across a fact in wikipedia that is really useful. I would like to thank the author of the sentence if possible. Other times it is interresting how only a certain section of a page changed. Is there a way to look something like this up? TheFibonacciEffect (talk) 12:07, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi TheFibonacciEffect. You can find a record of each edit made to a page in its page history; so, that might be one way of doing such a thing. I also believe some editors use something that is called WikiBlame as well. Thanking editors is a nice thing to do and there is a WP:THANKS feature that allows you to do so, but you can also leave a more personal message on their user talk page if you want. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:12, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
User page
I have been an active editor of Wikipedia for several years (4,600 edits), but I only now noticed that, on the Revision history pages of entries that I've edited, my name appears in red, whereas most of the others do not. I figured out that that is because I never created a User page. Should I? Does it serve a purpose? I've looked at a few other editors' user pages, and they contain random information or no information. If I have nothing I want to say on it, should I create it anyway so that other editors can write to me on it? But that's what my User talk page is for, right? Maurice Magnus (talk) 12:51, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Guidleines are a bit flexible when it comes to userpages; you can simply put some important links there which you need to access regularly, or somes things/tasks you plan to do, or draft notes. It is like a personal organizing space. See WP:UPYES-- Abdul Muhsytalk13:16, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, - Abdul Muhsy. The first thing that I've used it for is to paste the link you provided — WP:UPYES — so that I'll have ready access to it. The User page will also be helpful to retain technical instructions such as how to link an author to his or her Wikipedia entry when the author's name is listed in the citation template.Maurice Magnus (talk) 13:26, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Perceived bias
How is mentioning John Mearsheimer's contention that the Israeli lobby wields disproportionate influence over US foreign policy in the introductory section of his article not biased? 194.223.185.231 (talk) 13:31, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The sentence in question reads, "In 2007 book The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy Mearsheimer argues that the Israeli lobby wields disproportionate influence over US foreign policy." That is an assertion of fact. The question is whether it is accurate, not whether it is biased. Whether Mearsheimer's argument is biased is a separate question and is discussed later in the article.Maurice Magnus (talk) 14:03, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Translation (Portuguese): with firm eyes nature we follow, security and transparency of google is our notion.Welcome to the Teahouse. Did you have a question about editing or using Wikipedia? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 18:43, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
semi-protected
hello!
I want to edit a picture on a semi protected page
and I wondered if you can tell me how to.
I think I saw someone mention a bot that would archive all the sources in an article at various archiving websites. Could someone direct me to that bot? TipsyElephant (talk) 17:00, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A week ago, maybe two, I had a discussion with a User, name forgotten but may have been admin, on their Userpage, regarding a deletion that User had made to an article whose name I can't recall. Helpful? Sorry.
As there was a difference of opinion, that User's advice re revertal (haha-new word) was to make a note on that article's talk page, which I did.
I thought the time was ripe to check on its progress but, using the tools at my disposal and the few grey cells left by Father Time and noxious chemicals, I could find no trace.
Can someone please help, it's keeping me awake. (local time now 04:30) Doug butler (talk) 17:32, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your prompt reply. Alas not there. None of those, at least the recent ones, was about reverting a deletion. And I've searched User Contributions for edits on article talk pages to no avail. Doug butler (talk) 17:59, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's possible you forgot to log on, in which case you were editing as an IP-address instead of as Doug butler. You could try logging off, and then clicking on 'contributions' at the top right of the screen (if you're on the web version of Wikipedia). This might find your logged-off contributions, but since IP addresses are often reallocated by internet service providers, unfortunately it might find someone else's! Good luck, anyway! Elemimele (talk) 18:28, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nice piece of lateral thinking, but as there was some argy-bargy during which I (in the nicest possible terms) accused the User of shifting the goalposts, I would Shirley have noticed, don't you think? PS I like the new [reply] button. Doug butler (talk) 18:43, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is it standard practice to create redirects for URLs to the article about that company or group? I don't see anything at WP:REDIRECT about URLs. However, nytimes.com redirects to The New York Times.
Is it standard practice to create redirects for URLs to the article about that company or group? I don't see anything at WP:REDIRECT about URLs. However, nytimes.com redirects to The New York Times. It seems like there is a standard format as I haven't seen any containing "www.", but are these standards outlined by a guideline somewhere? Are there websites that shouldn't get a redirect? TipsyElephant (talk) 18:58, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi TipsyElephant, and welcome to the Teahouse! Yes, it is common to redirect domain names to the corresponding article. In fact, there is an entire redirect category dedicated to domain name redirects, {{R from domain name}}. Domain name redirects help our readers quickly identify the organization associated with a website. This is especially handy when there are multiple organizations with similar names (e.g. The Telegraph and The Times) and when the website is in a language other than English. Personally, I create these redirects when I see the opportunity to do so, and I encourage everyone else to do the same. — Newslingertalk19:59, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Denoting a single that has been re-titled within a discography
On Svdden Death's article, there is a single missing from the Discography section which has had two titles: it was originally released in April 2021 with the title "SLB 2021", but appears on the newly released album VOYD Vol. II as "Shallow Land Burial". Should it be listed in the table of "Other singles" under the former title, with a note saying that it appears on VOYD Vol. II as "Shallow Land Burial"; or under the new title, with a note saying that it was originally titled "SLB 2021"? Sporeball (talk) 21:24, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why not both? It could be done as a combined footnote, with only a linked superscript character in the table entries themselves. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.213.229.59 (talk) 03:13, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Can somebody do this, please?
In https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aram_Khachaturian there needs to be a additon to the listing of "other compositions":
"Chamber Music - Trio for Clarinet, Violin and Piano (1932). Publisher: www.editionsilvertrust.com"
Doing this edit is beyond me, please have at it if you know how this editing process works. Thanks. Beach1bum9 (talk) 05:46, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
See comment on draft. The refs that mention the films as her work (9-21) do not describe at any length what her roles as scriptwriter or director were. David notMD (talk) 08:30, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This follows on from the previous Teahouse dicussion titled the 'Two William Olivers'. An article on the older artist has now been created, titled 'William Oliver (1804-1853)', while the existing article for the younger artist has been retitled 'William Oliver (1823-1901)'. In the previous dicussion an alternative suggestion for the two titles was 'William Oliver (artist, born 1804)' and 'William Oliver (artist, born 1823)'. I prefer the versions where 'artist' is included in the title. If this is considered reasonable could this be implemented? In the previous discussions helpful suggestions were given on how to do this. Unfortunately my Wikipedia technical knowledge is weak and and I do not know how to carry them out. Therefore I would hope that an expert could do this for me.BFP1 (talk) 07:33, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi IP 2001:44B8:41C6:F700:548:3E48:AC7:668. A Wikipedia sandbox is sort of a place where you can practice editing Wikipedia. You can use the sandbox to make test edits, try out new formatting, see how templates work, and make other types of edits that you might want to check before trying to make them anywhere else, especially to Wikipedia articles. There is a main sandbox that all editors can share at WP:SANDBOX and there are individual user sandboxes that each registered account is given. Once you're done practicing, you can simply rake over the sandbox and make it "new" again for the next person or for your next practice session. A sandbox, however, is still not a place where it's OK to publish anything you want, and you still need to make sure that any sandbox edits you make don't violate any major Wikipedia policies like Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, Wikipedia:Copyrights, Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:No personal attacks, but for the most part you will be left alone to experiment as long as you're experimenting doesn't get out of hand. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:19, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Commonedits Admin here. You don't need to worry about moving it yourself as you need to resubmit it for a review. If accepted, the reviewer will arrange for it to be moved. 331dot (talk) 11:25, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Arjayay I'm sorry but the reasons given by that reviewer were completely "invalid" and it was clear from the reviews done here (for some drafts the reviewers simply accept even when it is not well-edited and poorly sourced) that many reviewers follow WP:COI. Thank you Commonedits (talk) 11:32, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Commonedits. You might have no other option to wait for it to be accepted by an AfC reviewer. Once accepted, the AfC reviewer who does so will know how to get the title unsalted so that the draft can be moved. No administrator is likely going to unsalt a title for a draft that has been declined multiple times until the draft has been accepted via AfC, and they're unlikely going to jump into the AfC process to review such a draft. There are really WP:NODEADLINES when it comes to this type of thing, and you can continue to work on improving the draft so that it's ultimately accepted by an AfC reviewer. You can also ask questions or express your concerns about the review process at WP:AFCHELP. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:38, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Commonedits If other drafts are accepted and should not have been, please discuss that with the reviewers of such drafts. It doesn't mean that more poor drafts should be accepted. 331dot (talk) 12:50, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Declined AfCs, revised and resubmitted, are rarely reviewed by the same reviewer who declined in the past, so an accusation of reviewer COI is utter nonsense. David notMD (talk) 14:09, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Even if they are reviewed by different reviewers, it doesn't mean the reviewers don't follow WP:COI because myself a very "common editor" have seen it happening here!!! Commonedits (talk) 15:32, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Can any one my friend help me by improving this article?
Ostracism I continue to modify the page Kosem Sultan indicating it correctly, with explanations and with source as the mother of Sehzade Mehmed, in line with the most modern and accredited historiographical research. The relationship is correctly indicated on the pages of his father, Ahmed I, on that of Mehmed himself, and on the wikis of other languages. Yet it is routinely deleted by a user who refuses to provide explanations or best sources for his belief that Kosem is not Mehmed's mother, as well as to at least indicate that the matter is controversial. Instead, he requested to block the page changes. Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia that grows from everyone's contribution and from the awareness that no one knows everything, but this user acts as if he were the owner of the article and the only one authorized to modify it, without in any way accepting that he may not be the only one with knowledge about it, or not knowing everything. Is it possible to do something? 31.156.255.6 (talk) 13:21, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, IP user. You are having a content dispute with Jacob Historian about the article Kösem Sultan. This is perfectly normal, and the way Wikipedia works. It appears that you have both been edit warring, and should stop doing so. You have now done the right thing by opening a discussion today on both the article's talk page and the other user's talk page (though it would have been better to do so in only one place, and if necessary draw the other user's attention to it by pinging them). It is now up to Jacob Historian to enter in a discussion with you - they should not have reverted your edits without at least an edit summary explaining.
First of all, thanks for the reply. I apologize if the title is not appropriate: I do not think it is personal, however that there is a thread of arrogance in canceling any modification, even justified, and without explanation, yes.
But I don't think I am doing edit warring: it is true that I have made the change twice, but only because I thought that the first one had been canceled because it was badly formatted. The second was perfect, with links and sources, as well as an explanation of why, but was deleted in minutes and again without explanation. I will certainly not rewrite it, as it takes more time to create it correctly than it is for him to delete it. I don't claim to be right, but if I'm wrong, you should at least provide me with an incontrovertible source. If, on the other hand, it is his personal conviction or simply a different historiographical interpretation, I think my modification should be left, perhaps indicating the alternative in a note. But the attitude of arbitrary cancellation without explanation annoys me. I will be waiting for Jacob Historian's response, even if I'm not very good at online fights and if he cancels the change, I can't do much about it no matter what and how he will respond. For this I wanted to try with a third evaluation that judged whether the change is valid or not and how to point it out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.156.255.6 (talk) 14:04, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have already said that, in my opinion, Jacob Historian should have explain their reversion in an edit message or on a talk page. You don't need to rewrite anything: your previous edits are there in the history of the article, and if the consensus is to incorporate some or all of what you wrote, you can retrieve it. ColinFine (talk) 14:36, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Could any sysop take a look of this page? User talk:Wikinger
From the long-term abuse page: "Persistent spreading of misinformation about Greek alphabet topics across multiple language Wikipedias. Persistent sockpuppetry, including good-hand/bad-hand schemes, edit-warring against his own socks; verbal abuse, fake death threats and outing attacks against administrators, joe jobs and impersonation of other vandals, use of open proxies. Wikinger's account was globally locked on 24 March 2015 due to cross-wiki abuse. He is banned by the Wikimedia Foundation and may not edit any Wikimedia project. All accounts/IPs should be globally locked/blocked on sight." This is a long-dead horse. Why want to pick at it? David notMD (talk) 14:37, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If there were problem revisions that needed to be suppressed or otherwise revdeleted, most likely that would have been done already (particularly in a case like this). If you think that perhaps something was missed, then try asking the administrator who protected the page or try contacting WP:OVERSIGHT. Whatever you do, don't repost anything you think is inappropriate on any Wikipedia page because that just creates more things to cleanup if you're right and there's really a problem. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:45, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is a small question/suggestion, but is there a reason why pronouns aren't included in the "Personal Information" section for people? It sometimes presents as something I want to verify when talking about someone, but it isn't often listed. It can be tricky, too, when someone identifies outside of the gender binary, but there's no quick place to check it. BenRJ915 (talk) 14:11, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There are plenty of articles in which a personal information section includes pronouns, but gender identity would normally appear in the lead paragraph of the article. However, the use of their name instead of a pronoun avoids any possibility of ambiguity, so it may be the preferred option for the formal tone of an encyclopedia. Shantavira|feed me14:44, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe because there are only two sets of pronouns and in English and basically every other language, men are reffered to a he or him and women she or her. Thats basic biology and linguistics for you. BritishToff (talk) 23:19, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have been slowly trying to improve the Turner Prize page as it has/had lots of bits with no citations, out of date info, and/or vague things like "There are conflicting reports as to how much personal sway he has over the proceedings" without explaining who is making those reports, what they are saying, or any citations.
I saw on the Talk page for the article that it is part of several projects aimed at improving relevant pages. I clicked on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Awards one but can't really find much discussion/coordination. There is a list of users. What is the benefit of adding yourself to the list? Is there some more discussion somewhere where I should say "hey I am trying to improve this article" and people put their suggestions or whatever? Or shall I just crack on on my own? Ascendingrisingharmonising (talk) 15:24, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Ascendingrisingharmonising, I concur with Cullen. If you'd to get more feedback on that article, you could ask for a peer review, or if you think it meets the criteria, nominate it for a good article nomination. Both might take a few months to go through the queue, though, and a peer review isn't guaranteed.
Taking a quick look at the article, one thing I'd suggest is to try to make the reception section less of a list of individual people who have praised/criticized the award and more of an overview of the themes that come up among praisers/critics with a few examples. Also consider adding {{Infobox award}}. You could also look at the list of featured articles or good articles to see if there are any examples of awards, and if there are, model the page after those. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}}talk22:17, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Help me edit a draft
I am currently reviving this draft that was deleted because it was abandoned by its creator. I request editors to develop this draft with me since the artcile would be very important due to the current situations with Ukraine and Russia. Thank you! Prodrummer619 (talk) 15:31, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to the Teahouse, Prodrummer619! This isn't quite the place to recruit editors to assist you in editing a draft. Do you have a specific question we can answer here? Bsoyka (talk) 16:07, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, everyone! Please pardon my ignorance, but I'd like to do some copyediting. I looked through the MoS and noticed the markups. Do I need to have knowledge of HTML to edit? I don't even know if this question makes any sense, so some direction would be immensely appreciated.
@Gingerbreadgal: Welcome to the Teahouse. While some HTML markup is used, for the most part wiki markup is its own beast (some of the more common ones you'll see can be found on this cheatsheet). If you're primarily here to copyedit, there is the visual editor that you can use instead of just editing in source mode (you can enable it by going to Preferences → Editing → Temporarily disable the visual editor while it is in beta). The visual editor has buttons you can use to do general formatting, so there's less wiki markup to worry about there. Shameless plug: If you haven't already, check out the Guild of Copy Editors. We're currently in the middle of a backlog drive clearing up articles that have been tagged for copy editing, and an extra pair of hands would be welcomed. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:20, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello,WikipediaNekoBroken. Unless you can remember the password, you have lost access to that old account, but can use the new one instead. Nothing can be done about it. I suggest that you add an email address to this account. Cullen328 (talk) 19:32, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's not that we don't want to give you access to your old account; it's that we physically cannot. If you don't have an email address attached to your account to reset your password with, there is no technical way to gain access to it otherwise. Writ Keeper⚇♔19:45, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Without that email address we have no way of knowing that you are you. You wouldn't want just any random person to be able to come here and say "I'm User:WikipediaNeko" and automatically be given access to your account, would you? I don't know why anyone would do that, but I have no doubt that (eventually) someone would do that to some account if they were able to. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 11:18, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
From looking at User:WikipediaNeko you have been registered and editing for a bit longer than one month. I recommend you register for a new account, mention there on your User and Talk pages that you had previously edited under that name, and abandon WikipediaNekoBroken. David notMD (talk) 21:36, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Goat ate all my email addresses, user names, passwords.
Some old silver haired goat ate my info. Looking at starting over. Thought I might ask for recommendations as to email servers, usernames, and what ever positive recommendations the community might have. I get the feeling some of you know a bit about my back story. Thank you. I think.........;! 107.122.97.43 (talk) 23:08, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Indefinitely blocked? From internet servers, or life, live, and heaven or what. So much has happened and so many involved that by my self and with ignorance of internet technology I'm soaking lost and have been smashing toes in the dark. Trying to get to favorable standings but about wore smooth. 107.122.97.43 (talk) 23:40, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Can someone else please take a look at the recent edits by User:Cmard69? I've tried to provide some advice but it has not been received well so I think it would be best for another experienced editor to step in. Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 01:52, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Cmard69 advised on Talk page: "Your desire to add a person to the Notable alumni list has been reverted five times by four different editors. It's not them, it's you. When your temporary block ends, please do not return to the scene of the crime." David notMD (talk) 09:54, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm trying to fix a reference to include an up-to date link because the current one is broken, but I haven't been able to figure out how. The "edit" box that Wikipedia help pages have said will show up when hovering over a citation doesn't show up for me.
Ezulwini Consensus
I'd like to fix the third source above^ to a current working link. Flubberpuff (talk) 02:15, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have tried to write an auto biography but failed. I'm fulfilling all the basic requirements for writing and publishing an article but still didn't make it. FaizannAmjad (talk) 02:58, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
FaizannAmjad, you have provided no evidence that you are a notable person by Wikipedia standards. If you persist in this campaign to promote yourself on Wikipedia, you will be blocked. Why not devote yourself to Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, YouTube and Instagram, where self-promotion is allowed?. Wikipedia forbids self-promotion. Cullen328 (talk) 03:29, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
FaizannAmjad, you can create an article here, but not about yourself, and even then making one would be hard. it's best for you to work on other simpler tasks first, see Task Center for stuff you can do. then once you've gathered enough experience, you can create an article, Your first article has information on that. 💜 melecie talk - 10:11, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Possible Film Wiki Page Article
I would like to make a wiki article "List of International Film Joint Productions" for movies produced by more than one country. The list would be some sort of table with data entries like Amélie [2001] (France, Germany), Resident Evil Welcome to Raccoon City [2021] (United States, Canada, United Kingdom, Germany).
Hello, IP editor. I am not an expert on film financing, but I think that international co-productions are very commonplace in the film industry. Take a look at the history of Horizon Pictures, for example, which goes back 75 years. You would need to establish that the topic of International Film Joint Productions is notable, as opposed to an everyday and commonplace way of producing films. Cullen328 (talk) 03:40, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a bit confused as to what counts as "coproduction", actually that's kinda why I want an article like this. The Resident Evil Welcome to Raccoon City wiki page says it's a coproduction of United States, Canada, United Kingdom, Germany. The film credits itself says "Co-production Canada-Germany". The intellectual property rights belongs to a video game company in Japan. Films are also often shot outside the country or hire foreign actors but that itself isn't necessary indicative of coproduction. Look at the wiki page for the film "Stockholm (2018 film)" which lists "Countries" as "Canada, United States" but is referred to as a "2018 Swedish-Canadian film" in the "Stockholm_(disambiguation)" page. The film seems to have Swedish financing so it should count as Swedish but the criteria for "coproduction" still seems kinda vague. "Scott Pilgrim vs. the World (2010)" has
"United States, United Kingdom, Japan" under "Countries" probably because those are the locations of the productions companies but it is under the categories of "English-language Canadian films" and "Japanese romantic comedy films". 104.159.49.165 (talk) 04:21, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Putting aside the title for a moment, you talk of "movies produced by more than one country". I suppose you mean "movies produced in more than one country", but "produced" can, I think, mean almost anything. According to some non-fringey understandings of "produced", a very large percentage of movies may be said to have been produced in more than one, so large as to make your proposed list unhelpful. -- Hoary (talk) 03:44, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
{{Infobox film}} is used in 144,000 articles. Too many have more than one production country, and it too often depends on the definition or interpretation. It wouldn't be worth the effort to try to make lists (one list wouldn't be enough). Country/Countries comes after running time in the infobox so the search hastemplate:"infobox film" "minutes countries" with 9415 hits is a first estimate of the number. PrimeHunter (talk) 04:13, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Submitting Articles About My Company
Hi,
I DO work with The Violin Channel but I also honestly believe both it, as an influential international classical music news source, and its founder, Geoffrey John Davies, both deserve to be listed in Wikipedia articles.
Both The Violin Channel and Geoffrey John Davies have significant, credible external media and notability in the classical music field.
I have listed just some press below — including a recent front cover and 7-page feature in International Arts Manager Magazine, plus press endorsements by acclaimed journalists from The New York Times, New York Magazine and Graydon Carter’s Cultural Air Mail. Geoffrey has also had interview profiles in The Washington Blade, as a leader in the LGBT community, and on The Classical Post.
As a recognized classical music industry leader, Geoffrey also currently serves on a board of the Lincoln Center for Performing Arts and was recently invited by the United Nations to join a broadcast paneled discussion on the future of classical music.
I know a former colleague tried to upload these two pages sometime back, without a full understanding of the Wikipedia process, and they were removed and blocked. I would appreciate if feedback could be provided to ensure it's done this time with the absolute correct protocol and integrity.
I am happy to write them both, in total compliance with Wikipedia’s standards and formats, and submit them for full approval and certification of neutrality and non-promotional content or hand over the following information as a newly suggested article or stub.
Thank you very much for taking the time to consider this. I do genuinely hope the following media list should highlight the international notability of both Geoffrey John Davies and The Violin Channel, and their qualifications for inclusion in Wikipedia.
Many thanks. In the meantime, I will continue to edit other non-related musicians’ articles.
Extended content
BRIEF BACKGROUND:
Geoffrey John Davies
Born: 4 April, 1977
Founder, CEO and current Editor-in-Chief of The Violin Channel.
Geoffrey founded the well-known classical music platform in 2009 in Australia and it now has over 1 million followers and subscribers internationally.
The Violin Channel
The New York-based classical music media, streaming, and news platform.
It is one of the largest and most widely-read classical music portals in the world.
In 2020 The Violin Channel, in partnership with the Alphadyne Foundation and New York's Kaufman Music Center, produced the 10-episode online Vanguard Concert Series during Covid. It was viewed by more than 4.3 million people internationally and received significant international praise and press coverage.
PRESS:
Musical America
Geoffrey was named as one of Musical America’s 30 “Most Influential Professionals in the International Classical Music Industry”
Musical American described the 30 chosen as: “the people who make the industry work”, and “the people who are making a difference in our business, either by virtue of their position, their creativity and/or their dedication”. Musical America’s editor Susan Elliott went on to say that “when these 30 speak, we listen!”
International Arts Magazine
Geoffrey was recently featured on the front cover of International Arts Magazine. The issue also featured a 7-page feature on him and The Violin Channel’s Vanguard Concert Series. (Pages 3, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 and 19).
“Our cover star, the flamboyant Geoffrey John Davies is helping to drag the sometimes stuffy world of classical music into the current century.”
“In an era when the remuneration for musicians and composers is often pitifully low, this is an example for all to follow,” - Editor Kevin Whitlock
The New York Times
Geoffrey was included in a The New York Times article in 2021 written by acclaimed journalist Cara Buckley. Cara has been a full-time staff member at The New York Times since 2006 and has previously received a Pulitzer Prize for her work: https://www.nytimes.com/by/cara-buckley
Cara’s due diligence confirmed the artists were paid full concert rates for their performances in The Violin Channel’s Vanguard Concert Series and that they now do hold rights to the footage. She also published and confirmed that the series “racked up millions of views”.
New York Magazine
New York Magazine also praised the quality of The Violin Channel’s work, describing it as “polished”, “high-tech” and “exciting”.
Former Vanity Fair editor-in-chief Graydon Carter’s cultural ‘Air Mail Arts Intel Report’ also praised The Violin Channel’s Vanguard Concerts project for its “visual interest” but also for keeping the focus firmly on “musicians making music”. The article also confirms the artists were paid for their performances, that the series was broadcast internationally for free, and that at that stage, the series had already received over 2 million views.
Journalist A.A. Cristi (www.aacristi.com) from Broadway World confirmed that the first episode of the Vanguard Concerts received over 600,000 views from more than 50 countries in less than one week.
The article, written by journalist Patrick Folliard, (www.muckrack.com/patrick-folliard) stated that Geoffrey “built the world’s leading classical music news source”. The long-format piece also provides significant published information on Geoffrey and The Violin Channel’s background.
“What began as a social media hobby in Australia has grown into the world’s leading classical music news source with 17 employees and a combined reach of more than 1 million across social channels and newsletter subscribers,” - Journalist Patrick Folliard
The Classical Post
Geoffrey was also profiled for the online classical music site, Classical Post.
Editor Jonathan Eifert describes The Violin Channel as: “a leading classical music news site” and as “a go-to media source and streaming service.”
The Journal News
Journalist Heather Clark from The Journal News in New York covered The Violin Channel’s online round-table forum in 2020 on the experiences of black artists in the classical music community and beyond.
Geoffrey was invited, as an international industry specialized, to take part in an online forum hosted by the United Nations Institute for Training and Research on the topic of “sustainability of classical music”
Both Geoffrey John Davies and The Violin Channel were mentioned as early classical music tech innovators in the 2018 published book: ‘The Classical Music Industry’ by Chris Dromey and Julia Haferkorn:
Hello, Violinchanneljohnjohn. It seems that you misunderstand the purpose of Wikipedia, and also the purpose of the Teahouse. First of all, Wikipedia is not for self-promotion of any kind. Editors who engage in any type of self-promotonal activity are blocked here quite routinely. I see that you posted some kind of lengthy article draft here at the Teahouse, which I have collapsed. Please read WP:TLDR. If you are trying to jump over the Articles for Creation process, you are highly unlikely to find a editor who will help you here. Since you claim to be a "recognized industry leader", why don't you spend a few months improving articles about violins, violinists and violin music, in areas where you have no glaring Conflict of interest? On the other hand, if you are here only to promote yourself, we can save a lot of time by blocking you now. Cullen328 (talk) 04:37, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Hoary. No, I completely understand. I really do. I have been editing for a little while now and will continue to keep working on more classical musicians' articles.
My confusion is more that when I submit new artists and musicians for listing, they are rejected for not being considered as notable enough. I will have a try at writing those two out, for other editors' approval and keep them extremely neutral and referenced with no hyperbole or promotion. Geoffrey's was rejected previously, I understand, for not being notable enough, but based on the press listed above should there be enough now for both GJD and TVC to be accepted, if created correctly? I guess that was my purpose of asking here. I understood this was the 'safe place' to ask questions and get past confusions. Please don't block me, I really just want to help get our classical music industry as a whole better represented in Wikipedia. I will use the two samples William Morris and William Hurt you provided below to Billieb71 as guides. Thanks again for your help. Violinchanneljohnjohn (talk) 09:16, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Violinchanneljohnjohn, I think you have me somewhat confused with Cullen328. I have not looked at any of your links, merely at your descriptions of them. Comments on my (very possibly mistaken) interpretations of your descriptions:
one of Musical America’s 30 “Most Influential Professionals in the International Classical Music Industry” Shallow stuff.
Geoffrey was recently featured on the front cover of International Arts Magazine. The issue also featured a 7-page feature on him and The Violin Channel’s Vanguard Concert Series. Being on a front cover is meaningless. If the "feature" is neither an interview nor based on one, it carries weight. We cannot link to unauthorized reproductions of copyright material.
Geoffrey was included in a The New York Times article in 2021 written by acclaimed journalist Cara Buckley. Being "included" in an article doesn't count for much.
New York Magazine also praised the quality of The Violin Channel’s work, describing it as “polished”, “high-tech” and “exciting”. Does it go into any depth? (And see above about reproductions.)
Journalist A.A. Cristi [...] confirmed that the first episode of the Vanguard Concerts received over 600,000 views from more than 50 countries in less than one week. In themselves, big numbers such as this count for nothing here.
Geoffrey was profiled in The Washington Blade Same comment as for International Arts Magazine above.
Geoffrey was also profiled for the online classical music site, Classical Post. Same comment as for International Arts Magazine above.
Journalist Heather Clark from The Journal News in New York covered The Violin Channel’s online round-table forum in 2020 on the experiences of black artists in the classical music community and beyond. This sounds substantive, and good.
Geoffrey appeared in the 2018 Marie’s Crisis documentary about a live music piano bar in New York City Merely appearing in a documentary is of no significance.
Geoffrey was quoted in Vanity Fair in discussion with staff journalist Dan Adler Being quoted (like being mentioned) doesn't count.
Try to make sure that either of your proposed subjects clears Wikipedia:Notability or a relevant subject-specific guideline. Though I still wonder why, if either proposed subject is so notable, an employee would have to write it up. -- Hoary (talk) 09:50, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. Thank you for your help. Yes. The International Arts Manager Magazine, Washington Blade and Classical Post are lengthy interviews. International Arts Manager did a 7-page interview and profile, as well as put GJD on the cover. The long-form New York Times article is talking about a number of Covid initiatives in the arts during Covid including The Violin Channel's Vanguard Series and GJD was interviewed and quoted multiple times. I guess maybe nobody cares about classical music articles, except myself?!?! Sad. I'm not sure. Also GJD did very little press until this past year, and also press often don't like writing about other press. I am also working on a couple of other musicians' articles that have been rejected (not at all related to me) so your feedback is very helpful. I'm trying to learn and to get this right as I do genuinely enjoy contributing. Thank you. Should I perhaps just aim for a very basic stub with the two I am connected to (GJD and TVC) for others to write and to add to as more press is published? Or just leave them alone completely? I don't want to get blocked but I do genuinely feel they should be listed, as in our field they are extremely notable. Hence why I chased this internship. Violinchanneljohnjohn (talk) 11:11, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, John. The progression from "I haven't been able to get drafts about subjects in field X accepted" to "I guess nobody but me cares about field X" is one that new editors quite often make, but it is rarely justified. Any individual editor cares about some subjects more than about others, of course, but all experienced editos care very much about making sure that only subjects that meet Wikipedia's criteria for notibility get included. Beneath that is the fact that (in my words) 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. It follows that if you can't find truly independent sources about a subject then there is literally nothing which can go into an article about it.
For this reason, I would advise against creating even stubs for subjects before you have found the multiple indepedent reliable sources with significant coverage of the subjects, as you may well be wasting both your own time and that of those who end up deleting them. (Personally, I don't believe there is a role for stubs in 2022, as there was in 2010. Most stubs never get expanded. Now that we have the AFC system and draft space, I would rather that people wishing to put an article in Wikipedia went on and created tha article, however long it took them). ColinFine (talk) 12:40, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Violinchanneljohnjohn, people care about classical music articles. As examples, A Child of Our Time, Il ritorno d'Ulisse in patria, Symphony No. 3 (Górecki): consider the work that has gone into each article. I'm glad to hear that you enjoy contributing; my advice is to forget about the Violin Channel and its head for Wikipedia, to concentrate on other matters during the internship hours, and to "relax" in the evenings (though it's hardly relaxation, of course) with Violin Channel unrelated articles. The nation currently foremost in many people's minds is Ukraine; just now I looked at this list of Ukrainian composers, clicked on half a dozen among them, and didn't land on any article that rose above mediocrity. (Some didn't even rise to that.) Perhaps you could improve one among them? -- Hoary (talk) 12:41, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Billieb71 From a search on "D.J. BILLIE-B" it is clear that you have a successful music career. However, your attempt at an article did not have any references. Hence declined and then rejected. Autobiography is not prohibited, but is a hard road. See WP:MUSIC for guidelines. IF, you really want to try again, I recommend using WP:YFA to create a draft, using as a name D.J. BILLIE-B. BUT FIRST, see if you can find at least three website articles that are about you, at significant length, not just name-mention, or else the effort will come to maught. And yeah, no copy/paste as that is a copyright infringement. David notMD (talk) 10:14, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
From WP:MUSIC: "Wikipedia should not have a separate article on a person, band, or musical work that does not meet the criteria of either this guideline or the general notability guideline, or any subject that, despite the person meeting the rules of thumb described above, for which editors ultimately cannot locate independent sources that provide in-depth information about the subject. Wikipedia's goals include neither tiny articles that can never be expanded, nor articles based primarily on what the subjects say about themselves." David notMD (talk) 10:16, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia has a simple rule that I think is not written down. It is "Do not try to write an article about yourself". If you are really notable, somebody will write it for you. --Bduke (talk) 10:26, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Policy regarding autobiographies is written at WP:AUTO. While not absolutely forbidden, it is highly discouraged, and it is better to not attempt to do it. 331dot (talk) 10:28, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
AND indefinitely blocked for trying to create an autobiography under three more names (each Speedy deleted) after the first attempt was Declined, then Rejected. Tsk, tsk. David notMD (talk) 14:56, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Chart performance of singles with remixes
Hi, I have a question about what to do with the chart performance of a song. The song that I am talking about is "Envolver" by Anitta, and I am working on its Spanish article. The song has a remix, which is also a single. Since both versions have charted on different charts, I made two different tables for their chart peaks (I got the idea from the article of "Hawái" by Maluma, which has a remix with The Weeknd). The remix has charted only on charts from Monitor Latino. In some countries, it has charted on the general chart, and in other countries it has charted only in the pop chart. As I was updating the peaks, I noticed that in Puerto Rico it had already charted before on the pop chart. I went to check and realized that it peaked at 3 on the week of January 3 to January 9.[1] However, the remix was not released until February 17. Therefore, what I think happened is that Monitor Latino first considered the solo version of "Envolver", but then, after the remix was released, they considered the remix the "official" version. So, I wanted to ask what I should do. Should I put all of the peaks on a single table like the article for "Levitating" has?
Jvaspad, the editorial standards (and policies and assumptions) of the various Wikipedias differ. How you should write an article for es:Wikipedia is something you should ask about there, not here. -- Hoary (talk) 02:39, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still a beginner here and one thing that kinda confuses me when citing sources is the access-date parameter. It seems simple: just write down the day, month, and year on which you accessed the source. My question is:
If I already cited some particular source, and then I go back to editing the Wiki article so I can add more information, and in order to do that I need to access the source again: do I have to change the access-date to the one I'm currently accessing the source on? So, if I for example added a reference on March 5, and a few days later, on March 8, I'm again accessing the website I referenced, do I change the access-date to March 8, or do I keep it as March 5? Castlepalace (talk) 13:10, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Castlepalace, if you don't think the web page has changed since you last looked at it you don't need to change the date. Since web pages change and move, the access date indicates when the page had the material that provides the reference and was at that location. This is helpful for locating the material in an archive like Wayback if the page changes. StarryGrandma (talk) 15:45, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
dear Teahouse,
I want to add a famous Punjabi writer in the Wikipedia. His name is Telu Ram Kohara, he has given so many good books to Punjabi literature and also wrote a Punjab movie names Ranjhan Mera Yaar. He has been awarded many times by authorities and different foundations. I think he deserves a place is Wikipedia page.
Thanks for reading my issue.
I hope you will consider my request as genuine.
Regards. 2409:4055:119:E1FE:A9F4:107E:A8EB:900E (talk) 13:47, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm sure your request is genuine. But creating a Wikipedia article takes much more than saying "I think he deserves a place". First, somebody has to be willing to invest the time to research whether or not the subject meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability. If he does not, then they will know that there is no point in going any further at present. If he is notable (by Wikipedia's standards - not by yours or mine), then somebody has to go to the effort of assembling those sources and creating the draft.
I've italicised somebody because it is not obvious who that "somebody" will be. Wikipedia is entirely a volunteer project, and editors work on what they choose to work on.
If you want to see an article about Kohara, then it is up to you either to research and create it, or to get some other editors interested in working on it: simply putting a request here will probably not achieve much.
Unfortunately, creating it yourself, while a possible route, is very challenging: I always advise new editors to spend a few months learning how Wikipedia works by making small improvements to existing articles before they attempt it. your first article is a good resource.
Another possibility is to go to WikiProject Punjab. It is possible (only possible, not definite) that you might find somebody interested in working with you on Kohara.
But in any case, if you want to get somebody interested, it will help if you do the first part of the work and find some sources (in English if they are available, but sources in Punjabi are acceptable) that are (all three of) reliable (not blogs, wikis, personal websites, unedited aggregators), independent of Kohara (not written or published by Kohara or his associates, or reporting what he has said, but independently created) and containing significant coverage of him. (All the terms in blue above are links to more information). ColinFine (talk) 14:25, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Help Drafting a New Article
I want to write and draft a new article, but I'm very, very new to writing on this platform. Could I have some help writing a new article? Hannahmominey (talk) 14:46, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely off on the wrong foot. You started a draft, but submitted it too soon (little content, no references). Do not resubmit until you have completed your draft. "Publish changes" means save. "Submit" means submit for review. David notMD (talk) 15:07, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
When should a table be used instead of a list? It seems rather arbitrary from what I can tell. For instance, should List of science podcasts be a list instead of a table? The sortability of the table is kind of nice, but is it helpful to include all the information that's in the table and is there a way to represent that in a list format instead? I was trying to decide whether Draft:List of BBC Original Podcast Series is appropriately formatted as a table before reviewing the draft and even after reading through a number of guidelines I'm unsure whether this should be a table or a list. It seems like it would be a helpful feature to be able to sort by radio station or year. TipsyElephant (talk) 15:11, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
From what I've gathered from MOS:LIST and MOS:TABLE, tables should be used when there is more than one piece of information being presented for each topic. For example, on List of science podcasts, the table has the Podcast name, it's runtime, the narrators, etc. A list would be used if there was only a single thing for each row, List of lakes for example. ― Tuna+15:16, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am trying to publish a page on the “middle-out perspective” on Wikipedia. I had issues in publishing, it is now in the sandbox, and I would like to learn from you who have more experience with Wikipedia and get your input 😊. This is my article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Middle-Out_Perspective_(MOP) I am not sure if you can open it.
I have two questions.
1) I had issues in creating categories. How does that actually work?
2) The other issue that came up when I tried to publish it, is that no original research should be posted. The MOP is an established conceptual framework and the page does not present "original research" as such, but rather presents the concept, its history, and application in the real world. In this sense, it resembles other Wikipedia webpages as for instance on the diffusion of innovation, personal carbon trading and multi-level governance (links listed below).
I therefore kindly ask your help in understanding how to edit my page so that it conforms with other Wikipedia pages.
You can't add categories to draft articles. They must be in the article space, and then you can add them by adding [[Category:Your category here]] to the bottom of the page.
Couldn't you just use nowiki tags around the categories while it is in draft space and remove them when it is moved to article space? This would allow the author to keep track of what categories they wanted the article to be in and allow others to make suggestions of other categories to add. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 17:02, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Ecocharlie. As far as I can see, almost all your sources are by the originators and developers of the concept. 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. This applies to concepts and theories as much as to everything else. Unless you can adduce significant writing about the concept written and published by people unconnected with the developers, the concept will not meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability, and no article on the subject will be accepted at the moment. ColinFine (talk) 17:44, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
2 Questions:
Where can I ask to create a new Wik(p/m)edia Matrix server?
using article wizard for the first time by user Photocher
3-21-22 I uploaded an article using the article wizard guidelines. I hope I did it correctly. I appreciate the fact that the process takes time. I wonder if I uploaded the article correctly? I am Photocher Photocher (talk) 20:24, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for replying. Yes, I wrote the article in Microsoft word and copied it into the wizard page. I attempted to convert the article with various methods like Open writer, but those extensions and plug-ins did not work. I will try to edit my submission. Thanks Photocher (talk) 21:06, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
publish an article in wikipedia
I would like to publish an article io wikipedia. What should do? How should proceed?
@Mifdale: Welcome to the Teahouse. Before thinking about creating a new article I strongly recommend you learn how Wikipedia works, as writing a new one is one of the hardest things to do on Wikipedia. For example, try editing some pre-existing articles and try out the interactive tutorial first. Otherwise, I suggest you read Your first articlevery thoroughly and carefully. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 20:40, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How to add any log?
Hi I recently tagged some page for AFD also will do this in future if I find valuable point. But I want to add LOG to me. For example this like if I use CSD automatically I will be there. Can anyone help? @@@XyXtalk21:26, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Bijoy2020: that log has to be enabled at WP:TWPREF. For it to work like the one from DanCherek, tick Keep a log in userspace of all CSD nominations and fill the input box immedately below it with
Is there any special procedure to create a disambiguation page? Or do I just create it as I would a normal article and name it "X (disambiguation"? Ficaia (talk) 01:39, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ficaia. You can find some general information on this in Wikipedia:Disambiguation. The process is similar to how any page is created on Wikipedia, but there some peculiarities to disambiguation pages. You should, however, only create the page if there's truly a need for it. If it's likely there are only going to be one or two entries for such a page, perhaps a stand-alone dab page isn't needed. You might want to try asking for assistance at Wikipedia:WikiProject Disambiguation if you still have any questions. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:01, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to have asked a similar question at WP:HD#March 21 (2). Generally, it's not a good idea to ask essentially the same question on multiple noticeboards because it often leads to redundancy and confusion. Why do you want to give warnings? Your account is a little more than a month old and already your user talk page is filled with warnings issued to you by other editors. Maybe before issuing warnings yourself, it would be better for you to become more familiar with Wikipedia editing and relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines. It's more important to understand why and when to issue a warning than how to issue a warning, and knowing the "why" and "when" comes with editing experience. Improperly issued warnings often end up creating problems between editors and can sometimes even lead to accounts being blocked. There are many ways to WP:CONTRIBUTE to Wikipedia that don't involve issuing warnings; so, perhaps it might be better for you to focus on some of those and gain experience editing first. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:11, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Can you practice what? Giving warnings? Making edits? If you feel you need to practice giving warnings, then you probably shouldn't be giving them at this time. If you want to practice editing as an IP account, you can use the WP:SANDBOX; however, you'll be sharing the sandbox with others. If you register for an WP:ACCOUNT, you'll then have your own personal sandbox where you can practice editing as often and as much as you want, and most people will leave you be as long as you're not doing something that violates one of Wikipedia's policies. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:28, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Don't. There are many different kinds of people, and they have different talents. Your edits (example) suggest that you would be better suited to other websites than to Wikipedia (or Meta). -- Hoary (talk) 02:45, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello everyone! This is a new frontier on Wikipedia for me. I have a COI since I co-founded the company I am writing about.
It's been around for 10 years and written about in numerous publications; it was removed / my draft was declined for notability reasons. I removed any sources where company members were republished or did a guest post on a reputable platform.
I don't want to abuse the draft function, so I'm not sure if the page is ready to resubmit for a review, or if I should wait until we get better press coverage. Our company created an open-source tool that has signficant spread and use in the independent film world, and we just premiered our latest docu-series on HBO Max. We're also one of the very few B-Corporations in the entertainment space, so I collected independent, reputable sources that talk about these aspects of the company at reasonable length:
Courtesy ping: PetSematary182 —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:15, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
Courtesy link: User:WinterCup/sandbox
. Celestina007 (talk) 20:49, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
Note: Please see WP:ANI § Xtreme o7 and Indian hate speech regarding this. Bsoyka (talk) 07:13, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
Temporarily disable the visual editor while it is in beta). The visual editor has buttons you can use to do general formatting, so there's less wiki markup to worry about there.
Shameless plug: If you haven't already, check out the Guild of Copy Editors. We're currently in the middle of a backlog drive clearing up articles that have been tagged for copy editing, and an extra pair of hands would be welcomed. 
Moved to User talk:Cmard69 § Personal attacks
Fixed. ––FormalDude talk 03:47, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
Twinkle; for the latter, Preferences > User Profile > Email Options > Change or remove email address. happy editing! 💜 melecie talk - 12:35, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
Keep a log in userspace of all CSD nominations
