Wikipedia:Teahouse

A lad insane, 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

Revision for AQUIRIS article

Hi team,

I am new to Wikipedia, only created one article and did changes to a few others. I am having a hard time trying to understand what is wrong with this proposal for AQUIRIS game studio page draft:

Draft:Aquiris

I got the following observation by a mod: The draft is put together from passing mentions of the company. Many sources do not mention the company at all and the sources often do not fit the written text.

All the sources mention AQUIRIS, also I don't know what "the sources often do not fit the written text" means.

Could you assist /orient me on this please?

Best,

Jesús JesusFabreC (talk) 10:54, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello, @JesusFabreC, and welcome to the Teahouse! In order to establish notability, the subject of an article needs to be covered in multiple, reliable, secondary sources which cover the subject in non-trivial detail, so this discounts passing mentions unfortunately. Try to find reliable sources that cover the subject in depth. Happy editing! HenryTemplo (talk) 12:56, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello, JesusFabreC, and welcome to the Teahouse. Every single statement in an article, without exception, must be traceable to a reliable published source; and most of them must be backed up by a source wholly unconnected with the subject of the article (Wikipedia is not interested in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is only 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.) It follows that unless you can find several sources, each of which is all three of reliable, independent of the subject, and containing significant coverage of the subject, there is literally nothing that you can put in an article, so no article on the subject will be accepted, however it is written. (See also WP:AMOUNT). ColinFine (talk) 14:52, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Every single statement in an article, without exception is too restrictive. Ledes generally reiterate information in the article, so as long as the information provided isn't controversial (which is determined by editor consensus), it doesn't need to be cited. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:32, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the detailed answers I have reviewed the links provided in the references section and all of them are press articles from independent outlets who are reliable, were not paid or sponsored in any way to talk about the studio and the contents linked talk directly about the company as the main subject, if not as a subject in second place but not in an accessory way, since without the mention to the company the article wouldn't make sense. I have added a couple of links directly to official websites of the company or to one of their products. Could you let me know if this is conflicting in any way with the Wikipedia rules?

The references used:

- Games Industry is one of the Top 3 sites that informs and generates opinion about the video game industry. They receive 5.5 Million unique visitors per month.

- IGN is the Top 1 news site that informs consumers about video game and other pop culture related news. They receive 142 Million unique visitors per month.

- "América Latina Juega" is a book independently edited and published by the renowned researcher and game developer Luis Wong, who previously wrote about the video game industry in Latin America in top publications as Polygon.

- I also made references to previous works of the studio, as some of their advergames, and linked to websites, some of them official, some of them are forums under the official domain of the company, where these works and be visualized or there are more details about them, I can remove them if there is a problem with those.

- MCV UK is one of the Top 10 news sites that informs and generates opinion about the video game industry. They receive 300 thousand unique visitors per month.

- Venture Beat is one of the Top 5 news sites that informs and generates opinion about the video game industry and innovation. They receive 14.9 Million unique visitors per month.

- TouchArcade is one of the Top 5 news sites that informs and generates opinion about the mobile video game industry. They receive 1.8 Million unique visitors per month.

- Pocket Gamer is one of the Top 5 news sites that informs and generates opinion about the mobile video game industry. They receive 6.8 Million unique visitors per month.

- The Apple official site is referenced to check the nominations that AQUIRIS' game Wonderbox received at Apple Design Awards in 2021.

After the feedback from @Tenryuu I have removed citations to official site products and the company site itself, leaving only third party independent sites that talked about the company with enough importance/coverage in their articles.

I really appreciate any indications you could give me, as I am very lost in this matter.

Looking forward to your feedback.

Thanks again.

Best,

Jesús JesusFabreC (talk) 17:45, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

@JesusFabreC: I think you meant to ping ColinFine and not me. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:17, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

When I read Every single statement in an article, without exception is too restrictive. Ledes generally reiterate information in the article, so as long as the information provided isn't controversial (which is determined by editor consensus), it doesn't need to be cited." I thought it was you Tenryuu the one who said it, sorry if it was ColinFine JesusFabreC (talk) 20:09, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

The green text in Georgia font is quoted text. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:12, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

To take just the first citation, JesusFabreC, Games Industry may well be a reliable source, but the article you cite is mostly an interview with Manfredini. It is therefore not independent. Please reread the sentences in parenthesis in my comment above.

To reply about "every single statement": I stand by that, except that I accept that the phrase "traceable to" might be read as saying that it must be cited. That was not my intent: I accept that Wikipedia does not insist that every statement be cited to a source. But I maintain that for every statement - including those in the lede - there must be a reliable source which backs it up, even if no source is actually cited. ColinFine (talk) 21:30, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you Colin, I re-read your first reply and I understand what you meant.

I have been checking other game studio Wikipedia pages, such as Simogo's and found numerous citations to interview articles that include affirmations from studio members/creators of their products, here are a couple:

https://www.eurogamer.net/ilomilo-and-year-walk-devs-reveal-canned-game-prototype-brisby-and-donnovan

https://www.eurogamer.net/device-6-adventure-texts

You said that Wikipedia is only 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. Just the same way as it happens in the Simogo entry.

Also in the same Simogo entry, there are references that point to the own Simogo blog, not to third party sites who are independent of the source, as this link for example:

https://simogo.com/2010/12/03/kosmo-spin-featured-by-apple-in-appstore/

Could you explain me why they are valid for those articles and not for ours? the articles I am citing are not written because their authors have been paid nor prompted to do so, they have been written because the authors think that is relevant information JesusFabreC (talk) 16:45, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

@JesusFabreC, you may want to read the paragraph here on making comparisons to other articles. There are a lot of bad articles on Wikipedia (not that I'm saying Simogo is one) and a lot of unsourced or poorly sourced parts of otherwise decent articles. We try to avoid adding to the problem. Also, primary sources (such as interviews or company websites) are allowed to be used sparingly in limited circumstances - see WP:PRIMARY and WP:SELFPUB - but not for establishing the notability of an article topic. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 21:10, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Colin, I understood and totally agree on not adding to the problem. I have deleted all the references to articles including quotes from company members or their partners, there are now 6 references left which I believe show the company is one of the most relevant game studios in the country. Looking forward to your feedback. JesusFabreC (talk) 23:26, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

I'll ping @ColinFine for you in case they do want to offer more feedback. They didn't make the above post, I did (in my secret identity as a different IP - or is this my secret identity? They're so hard to keep straight...) 97.113.167.129 (talk) 23:45, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Legal basis for copyright

WP:F7 B says the following: "Non-free images or media from a commercial source (e.g. Associated Press, Getty Images), where the file itself is not the subject of sourced commentary, are considered an invalid claim of fair use and fail the strict requirements of Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria; and may be deleted immediately.".

Where does this rule come from? Is this based on US law? PhotographyEdits (talk) 11:01, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes. Please see fair use. Shantavira|^{feed me} 11:43, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello, PhotographyEdits. Wikipedia's policies and guidelines about use of non free content are actually stricter than US law regarding fair use. Our goal is that, to the greatest extent possible, Wikipedia's content is freely licensed or copyright free. The exceptions are quite narrow and are described at Wikipedia:Non-free content. Cullen328 (talk) 16:11, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

I read "Note that if the image is from a press or photo agency (e.g., AP or Getty Images) and is not itself the subject of critical commentary, it is assumed automatically to fail the "respect for commercial opportunity" test.". Why was this decided? I cannot find that in particular. To me, it seems that decreasing the image resolution to the bare minimum fixes this. PhotographyEdits (talk) 16:27, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

That quote applies to Pictures of deceased persons, in articles about that person, provided that ever obtaining a free close substitute is not reasonably likely., not every image from AP / Getty in general. To me, it seems that WP:ITN obituaries with photographs are already serious competitors to obituary headlines from online newspapers; using an AP / Getty image in that reeeally stretches the bounds of fair use. Furthermore, a "bare minimum" low-resolution on desktop can still appear flawless on mobile. Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 13:18, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Editing a foreign-language wiki

I found an egregious error in a French-language Wikipedia article, so I left a message on the talk page. It was made clear to me that I needed to communicate in French, so I translated the message and reposted it. It's been two weeks and I haven't heard anything back. The question is: is it kosher to edit a foreign-language wiki? Note this doesn't regard the language or a translation, it's a matter of fact. The info box for the article about a novel incorrectly lists the name the author used as a working title, not the title it was actually published under.

There's also an error in the body of the article. They use the French phrase "pepites d'dor" (gold nuggets) which definitely should be "mineral d'or" (gold ore). The novel was originally published in English, so the editor was basing their plot summary off a translated edition, so I figured that might be a problem, so I included that information in my original message, but intend to let it go at that. Is that correct behavior, or should I edit that too (if editing is appropriate at all)? -- Pete Best Beatles (talk) 19:37, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Different-language Wikipedias are also different editions of Wikipedia, with their own communities, standards, and practices. We can't really give you an answer to this question because fr.wp is a completely different beast from en.wp. I also do not recommend using automated translation; it tends to fall apart if used for discussion. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 19:39, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

@Pete Best Beatles: Just going to add that when you try and edit a non-English Wikipedia, you're most likely going to be expected to be able to communicate (at least to some degree) in the relevant language. I'm pretty sure all non-English Wikipedias have help desks or noticeboards in which questions can be asked, and some of them may even have specific pages set up for asking questions in English. So, you might have better luck get a response at a general help desk than perhaps an article talk page. French Wikipedia has a page called fr:Wikipédia:Bistro des non-francophones/en which seems to be geared to helping non-French speakers with issues on Wikipedia; so, perhaps try there. As for editing non-English Wikipedia articles, there should be no reason why you can't. However, once again, you shouldn't assume that all policies and guidelines are the same across all the different Wikipedias (some are quite different), and you shouldn't assume that others who disagree with you are going to go easy on you just because you may have difficulties communicating in their language. I've seen a number of discussions on English Wikipedia talk pages breakdown simply because one of those involved is not really competent enough in English to participate. You don't need to be fluent as long as you're understandable (at least in my opinion), but you also should understand that the individual bias of the others involved in the discussion may start creeping in if they find your language ability to be lacking. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:23, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

It is not really reasonable to edit a wikipedia in a language you do not speak, automated translators are not yet good enough for you to fully understand the text or contribute at a sufficient level. If it is a language you speak, but not perfectly, you may find it difficult to defend your edits on the talkpage, even if you are in the right. Boynamedsue (talk) 22:42, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for responding, everybody. I went ahead and made the edit, documented it in the edit summary and on the talk page (in French) and related the whole story (in English) on the Fr:Wikipedia:Bistro page mentioned above. @Boynamedsue: You didn't read what I said: the edit involved only the title of a book, a matter of fact. It had nothing to do with a text, the language, or a translation. -- Pete Best Beatles (talk) 02:48, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Pete Best Beatles Another contributor has since clarified the text in the lead, to make it clear that "for the love of Imabelle" is the title the book was published under, while "The Five Cornered Square" was the working title of the manuscript. Regarding minerai/ore vs. pépites/nuggets, I searched a bit on the internet without being able to find confirmation either way, so I will not edit that.

I think editing a foreign-language Wikipedia without perfect mastery of the language is acceptable if you are reasonably sure of what you are doing. That can be achieved by a combination of machine translation tools, making very careful edits, and only on fairly standard parts of the article (e.g. an infobox). I have done so on the German and Italian Wikipedias (I can read and listen German fairly well, but I speak and write with many errors; I can barely understand written Italian, or slowly-spoken Italian about simple topics).

I would even think that using talk pages in English might be acceptable for a small subset of articles that are likely to attract editors fluent in that language, for instance, fr:Anglais américain (American English); but not the page about a book that has been translated.

However, telling others from that Wikipedia that they could just use a translating tool because "you’re in the US and speak only English" is absolutely not acceptable. No fr-wp editor has replied to you, so I will do the biting for them: it is plainly a you problem that you cannot communicate in French on the French Wikipedia, and if measures entirely on your side cannot fully fix that, you should at the very least recognize that the problem is on your side and humbly ask for accomodation, rather than demand that others adapt to a problem that you created. Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 13:04, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

@Tigraan: Regarding your statement "Another contributor has since clarified the text in the lead, to make it clear that "for the love of Imabelle" is the title the book was published under, while "The Five Cornered Square" was the working title of the manuscript", I see that on the history page, comparing versions. But for some reason that's not the way it reads in the article itself, I don't see that anyone changed it back. The change I made to the info box has stuck, though. -- Pete Best Beatles (talk) 02:35, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

@Tigraan:Well, the article has gone back and forth, but it's where it needs to be as of right now. -- Pete Best Beatles (talk) 06:58, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Could you help me to improve my first article about our EU project

I'm a member of a large community of underground heritage researchers and we would like to make our activities more visible. So we want to create a simple wikipedia page about the project. Could you help to review and improve the article draft https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Underground4Value. Thank you! Fruct chair (talk) 21:12, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Fruct chair, and welcome to the Teahouse. Unfortunately it sounds as if, like many peoplem, you have misunderstood the purpose of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not for you to tell the world about your community, however wonderful or virtuous it may be. If your community has been written about in independent reliable sources (for example, in major newspapers or books from reputable publishers) then it is possible that there could be an article in Wikipedia about it. The article will not belong to your community, will not be controlled by your community, would ideally not be written by your community, and should be based on what people with no connection with the community have published about it, not on what you and your colleages say or want to say. Please see WP:NORG and Your first article. ColinFine (talk) 21:39, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

You're a large community of underground heritage researchers writing about yourself. That smells like conflict of interest to me. Again, it is ideal that strangers who don't care about your community and who have not been in close ties with your community are the ones writing the article about your community. A diehard editor Editing Wikipedia too much rn, talk to me here, bruh. 06:54, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Easily move talk page sections around

Hi everyone. Today, I am here to know, how or if at all, I can move talk page sections around easily. This might seem unclear, so I am trying to be specific. This is my talk page archive. Due to certain problems, the archiving was messed up and the messages on the archive aren't in order, that is the messages aren't date wise, that is not in the order in which they arrived. I know that I can use the cut and paste function to arrange the sections, but that is really a tough job. My archive is also really big. And the whole archive can also get messed up. What I want to know is, is there any script of tool (or anything near to it), that will help me arrange the archive by letting me easily move the talk page section? Like for example, there can be a hand sort of thing with which I can drag the talk page sections and place it at the desired place I want it to be. Is such a thing possible? If not, then how do I assemble my talk page archive properly in the way, they were before archival. Will be happy if someone helps me in this. Best, Itcouldbepossible^Talk 08:05, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi, can't you simply copy the old revision and paste it into your archive? Do it in two copies if that's easier for your computer to process. What Cluebot is up to is another question Zindor (talk) 10:51, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

@ZindorWell, the bot did not archive the messages from the top, but messages from the bottom. So that also won't work. Is there any other way to solve this? Itcouldbepossible^Talk 08:56, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

What is the consensus around "A is (one of the) greatest works of X"?

I'm new to Wikipedia, and am trying to understand the consensus on ranking people and works.

Every now and then I stumble across Wikipedia articles involving science and mathematics where it is said: "The work A is the greatest work of X" or "The work A is one of the top 3 greatest works of X". Here X can be a person (e.g. "John Doe") or X can be a domain (e.g. "biology").

I personally find rankings of "greatness" unhelpful as it is conveys no useful information to me. Great in what sense and to whom? It is subjective and vague to me.

If I change perspectives, and ask myself, why do people write such statements? Maybe what they mean is:

• "Sources I read mention this more than other things."
• "If I compare this content to other content of the time, I find it more interesting, surprising, or resonating."
• "I want to spread its beauty (as I see it) to others by citing somebody who thinks the same."
• "It's the earliest work I know of where ideas of this kind were stated."

I'm aware of WP:NPOV and WP:WEASEL. However, it is not clear to me what the consensus on rankings are, when it is sourced. Can anybody be an authority on "greatness"? I have a very strong opinion on the unhelpfulness of "greatest" type of statements, but it unclear to me what the consensus is.

Has this been written and talked about? Thank you. :) 'wɪnd (talk) 10:35, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

@'wɪnd Such a statement can only be in an article if an authoritative source (preferably multiple sources) actually makes that claim. No WP editor can make such a claim. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:44, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Absolutely. I see this too often in articles which have nothing to do with science or math. Doug Weller talk 11:39, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

To clarify, Wikipedia's consensus is that statements as I outlined in the question are encouraged if there's an "authoritative" source? Who is to tell who an authority on judging "greatness" is? To me, this does not seem objective. Any ranking words such as "greatest", "major", "leading", "top" seems to hold little informational value to me, and masks a more precise statement. 'wɪnd (talk) 13:11, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

@'wɪnd, we rely on the opinion of experts in a particular field to judge the best of that field. Of course, experts often disagree, so Wikipedia usually holds off on making any such pronouncements until a majority of experts have agreed on which is the best. Each field has its own criteria for greatness, and ideally, somewhere in the article should be an explanation of what the subject's greatness consists of, specifically. Our article says that Fred Astaire "is widely considered the greatest dancer in film history", and follows that up with a long section on "Working methods and influence on filmed dance", plus explanations of his particular skills at other points in the article. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 13:27, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm glad you showed a specific example. That makes it easier for me to understand what the consensus is. :)

In the Fred Astaire article there's the statement "is widely considered the greatest dancer in film history" [2]. Following the [2] reference I get to an Encyclopedia Britannica article which says: "He is regarded by many as the greatest popular-music dancer of all time.".

Now, it seems to me, the Britannica article has neither author nor any reference to this claim. According to the revision history, it seems to stem from before 2000.

So Wikipedia consensus says: if an unknown author at Encyclopedia Britannica before 2000 makes a "greatest in X" statement about Fred Astaire, then this opinion is encouraged to be included in Wikipedia? What does many mean here? And great in what sense? 'wɪnd (talk) 13:59, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

@'wɪnd, since the Encyclopedia Britannica is considered to be a reliable source, then yes, we can include statements it makes. If someone wanted to question its reliability, there are avenues to do so, but that's a separate point - once a source is deemed reliable, all of its statements are also (usually) deemed reliable. If other reliable sources make conflicting statements, those should also be included (taking into account our policies on neutral POV, due weight, etc.). And as I said before, any statement in our articles - and IMHO in any decent reference publication - that something is "great" should be followed by an explanation of why it is great. I assume the EB article did so, as ours does. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 14:27, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

A couple of problems. One is that a publisher or a newspaper, for instance, being a reliable source does not make all their books or articles reliable. I've seen reputable publishers publish dreadful fringe junk. This goes for the Britannica, and a number of editors don't think highly of it.[1][2]. Among other things its articles give no sources and there isn't always an author. I've even see a sockpuppet convince the Britannica to include their fringe claim. It's a tertiary source and we should try to use specialist sources. So I would never consider the Britannica to be a good source for this sort of "greatest' statement. Doug Weller talk 14:38, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Well, there you go - looks like the EB has been challenged. Sources do get challenged and re-evaluated all the time. If consensus says it's actually not a good source for that claim in Astaire's article, then the claim should be removed. It all comes down to consensus in the end. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 14:43, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Incidentally, this seems to be related to the conversation here, with Boynamedsue, about some reverted "According to whom" tags and the specifics of WP:WEASEL words. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 16:37, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up there. I think when we consider "greatness", you really need a good source to state it in wikivoice. The logical thing to do if you are unsure is to simply attribute the statement to the person or organisation which makes the statement. That is certainly more positive than tagging it. Boynamedsue (talk) 18:02, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

• I would definitely avoid using "the greatest A" even for clear-cut cases. Note the Bob Dylan example at WP:PEACOCK; we can definitely find authoritative sources that call Bob Dylan "the defining figure of the 1960s counterculture" or "a brilliant songwriter", but we should still refrain from calling him so in wikivoice. Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 12:29, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

  It seems to be a subject under some debate. Albert Einstein is "widely acknowledged to be one of the greatest and most influential physicists of all time", Muhammad Ali is "frequently ranked as the greatest heavyweight boxer of all time", The Notorious B.I.G. "is widely considered one of the greatest rappers of all time", etc. There's even a kerfuffle going on at Yuzuru Hanyu, which I stumbled across recently. I suppose it's all part of an ongoing three-way tug-o-war between fans, critics, and informative neutrality. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 14:27, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

  @Tigraan: thank you! WP:PEACOCK is exactly the kind of thing I was looking for. This hits the nail on the head. Thank you. :) Now I know what template to include: {{Peacock term}}, or better yet to rewrite the sentence with attribution if it is clear to me how to do so (as @Boynamedsue seems to prefer). 'wɪnd (talk) 12:07, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Copyright stuff

Hello! I upload images, but I’m not sure how to not list them as my own/I can’t find a button that says I can list the owner of the image. Can someone help me? Thanks! NonPopularPerson (talk) 21:40, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

NonPopularPerson, you can't donate the copyright of an image to Wikipedia unless it's yours to donate. The owner of the copyright can, either by creating an account at Wikimedia Commons and uploading it there, or (more difficult) by doing some tedious form-filling. Maproom (talk) 22:15, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello, NonPopularPerson, and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm afraid that copyright is quite complicated. In most cases, you may upload images only if you own the copyright (and can license it on the fly) or if they are already free for use - either they are in the public domain (usually because they are very old), or because the copyright owner has explicitly licensed them in a suitable way. It's not enough to list the owner of the image, or for the owner to give permission to use them on Wikipedia: the owner must explicitly release the image under a licence such as CC-BY-SA, which will allow anybody to alter or reuse the image for any purpose as long as they attribute.

Most images you find on the internet have not been licensed in that way, and so you cannot use them unless you contact the owner and they agree to license them (which they would do either by uploading them themselves, or by mailing according to donating copyright materials). ColinFine (talk) 22:16, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

@NonPopularPerson - The Wikipedia:File Upload Wizard allows you to upload a non-free file (such as a book cover or CD cover), and states "Please ensure you understand copyright and the image use policy before proceeding." If you let us know what image you want to upload, we can provide additional suggestions. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 22:21, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

@NonPopularPerson Some info about copyright was given to you in late 2020 on your talk page. There is more on this Teahouse page, above, from a couple of days ago (it might get moved to archive). Those notes were maybe not completely explicit, so maybe that info wasn't clear to you... I hope the blue links on copyright and image use policy that GoingBatty left you (click on those, please, and study them) will make this area clearer. Copyright is complex, but, to restate: in general, you cannot upload and use images that you find on other web pages, in Wikipedia. Hope this helps. 73.127.147.187 (talk) 02:26, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Me again, I tried to submit a photo of the same image, this time understanding copyright and filling out the form. Is there a way that I can publish the image on Draft:CodeSpark without having to make the system make it a draft? NonPopularPerson (talk) 20:02, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

How can I improve my article Draft:Sciex?

My article has been rejected for being too commercial, and for not using independent sources. I did review several other Wikipedia articles on companies in the field of chemical instrumentation before I wrote this. I tried to use a neutral tone, introducing facts about the history of the company that might be of interest for notability, not for promotional purposes. I almost exclusively used used references from the scientific literature or from media outlets not associated with the company (mostly to support facts about business issues), with only one reference from a company annual report. Perhaps an experienced editor can suggest what aspects I should eliminate or improve. Brucet8585 (talk) 22:33, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi, Brucet8585. You've done a good job using neutral tone, i think what's needed is for the prose to be brought together and some explanation to the reader why these aspects of the company are significant. Have a look at prose like 'Over 300 instruments were sold during the next several years ' and ask yourself is it encyclopedic or does it simply serve to make the company look good? "SCIEX is one of the major suppliers in the overall mass spectrometry business estimated (in 2019) at $3.68 billion world wide" is good but what is SCIEX's market share? If you can establish the importance of the company and make these kinds of tweaks then that will go a long way; often promotional articles are just lists of selected facts and big unrelated numbers, so this is what we're trying to avoid. Hope that helps, Zindor (talk) 02:25, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi Brucet8585, can I just add that having read your draft, I consider it to be well-written and well-supported by references. I would urge DGG to reconsider their assessment. I am utterly certain that were your draft to land up at AfD, it would survive (which is the ultimate test). Sciex is one of the big mass spec companies, and while we are not here to advertise, we are failing in our job if we don't say what a notable company or notable person has achieved; I don't see any obvious way in which you could express things more neutrally. (For the record, I have no connection with Sciex, nor do I have the foggiest idea who Brucet8585 is outside Wikipedia). Elemimele (talk) 08:38, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Incidentally, some tidying is going to be necessary outside the Sciex draft. At the moment Sciex already exists as a redirect to Danaher Corporation. Rather annoyingly, the article on Danaher has a list of divisions, which includes a blue-linked Sciex, which of course is the redirect that takes the reader back to where they already are. I'm quite certain that (almost) no one in the mass spec world will have the foggiest idea of the existence of Danaher. Elemimele (talk) 08:43, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

I think DGG made the right call at the time because the promo indicators were evident and there is a lack of SIGCOV. I agree though if it's a large company in a multi-billion industry then it probably would be kept. Regards, Zindor (talk) 11:18, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

I have removed reference to 300 instrument sales, and changed the reference about market size to one that has a quotation saying SCIEX is a major player. The previous market size number that I had cited (3.68 billion $) was actually for the LC/MS market. This new citation is for the entire MS market at 5.5 billion (in 2018). I added the quotation about being a major player to the reference. This is from an industry market study. Actual market share information is difficult to find without paying for one of these expensive market reports. Brucet8585 (talk) 16:07, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments Elemimele . I will try to work with Zindor and DGG to find a way to appear less promotional and remove any contentious references and statements. Brucet8585 (talk) 15:16, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

I'll also have a grub around if I get a moment, and see if I can find some stuff relating to Sciex in particular. I have a feeling they are quite important amongst the metabolomics people in Germany. There are two sorts of coverage for a company like this: business coverage and scientific-impact coverage. They can be notable based on their contribution to the science/technology just as much as their market share in the business of selling instruments. I would argue, for example, that Thermo's development of the orbitrap is far more significant than their actual existence as a business making mass spectrometers. Elemimele (talk) 16:52, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

@Brucet8585:, @DGG:, @Zindor: Having grubbed around, I still think it might be possible to make it less promotional by emphasising Sciex's claims to technical novelty and their role in the development and commercialisation of mass spec technology; I've found two refs this morning: second commercial tandem mass spec; first commercial ICP-MS; first commercial Electrospray ionization (ESI) source; 2nd commercial LC-MS. Elemimele (talk) 06:07, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

@Elemimele You have been busy! Thank you for these references, which I have not seen. I will try to strike to right tone of notability not promotion and see how it flies. Brucet8585 (talk) 21:50, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

You clearly know something about this field. Hard to compare the importance ("notability") of science vs business, but I think it is true in this industry that developments in the science drive business success (eg Thermo). Every company has made key developments that contribute to its success - the Orbitrap for Thermo, oTOF for Waters, FTMS for Bruker, triple quadrupoles for SCIEX. Hard to find independent references that document the breadth of the impact that developments in mass spectrometry have made on the various fields of bioanalysis - from drug development to drug discovery to metabalomics to proteomics. Your second reference is a good example of one aspect though. Brucet8585 (talk) 23:10, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

References

date in signature

Can someone please explain why my signature is showing 25 May 2022? 73.167.238.120 (talk) 02:32, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Because the dates/times in all signatures are displayed in UTC, regardless of the time zone where you actually are. GoingBatty (talk) 02:36, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Oh, that is very confusing. What if I was in another country besides the USA? What would the date be then? 73.167.238.120 (talk) 02:41, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

The same, because UTC does not change based on what country you are in. RudolfRed (talk) 02:44, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello, IP editor. No, it is not confusing at all when you understand the concept of time zones. Planet Earth has 24 of them, and Wikipedia, as a worldwide project, needed to pick one time zone to coordinate its record keeping around the planet. UTC is the time in London, which is, going back centuries, the most important city of the English speaking world. As a Californian, I accept that and am well aware that the new day starts in London late afternoon or early evening from my Pacific Standard timezone. Greenwich Mean Time is the historical concept. UTC is widely used by projects that operate in many countries, even if English is not the main language. Cullen328 (talk) 05:20, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Just to point out that London is currently on British Summer Time (UTC +1 hour), so it is currently 09:25 here. Shantavira|^{feed me} 08:25, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Well, I am understanding now, but it took me awhile and there is no harm being confused. Thank you, though, for the explanation! 73.167.238.120 (talk) 14:32, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Help creating an article

Hello,

I am a new comer to creating and editing Wikipedia pages. however i have spent maybe hours combing through the site for interesting information. In 2021 a family member of mine died. And he had a huge effect on Alaska, however he lacks a Wikipedia page to him. And i promised myself at his funeral that i would not let such an injustice stand. And so i stand here today asking with much respect that anyone who is interested help me make a Wikipedia page to the late Chief of Ruby. AlaskanBorn (talk) 06:15, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

hi @AlaskanBorn and welcome to wikipedia! I'm sorry about your family member, but unfortunately people have to meet certain criteria to have an article, which does include (as the basic criteria) them being mentioned in multiple reliable sources independent from them or you. if you do have sources or news articles focusing on them that establish their notability, then you may write an article, click there to figure out how, but you'd also have to note that writing an article is very hard and even harder for people who are related to the subject (you'd need to disclose your conflict of interest while writing, and this is non-negotiable, and be careful to write neutrally about them). happy editing! 💜  melecie  talk - 06:54, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

For the convenience of people reading this, here is AlaskanBorn's contributions, so we can check if they decide to start writing about their family member. A diehard editor Editing Wikipedia too much rn, talk to me here, bruh. 07:03, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict, split off to separate comment) oh, and another tip for someone with a conflict of interest would be to basically forget everything you know about them personally and write as if you know nothing about them and only go off and summarize what these sources have stated, nothing more. since most bits of information have to be verifiable and have reference attached to them, you cannot add anything that your sources don't cover, even if they are true. happy editing! 💜  melecie  talk - 07:12, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

@Melecie "cannot add anything that your sources cover" ... I think you mean "that your sources do not cover, right? 73.127.147.187 (talk) 06:22, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

fixed. can i please stop making typos aaaaaaaaaa 💜  melecie  talk - 06:57, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello, AlaskanBorn, and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm afraid that "X deserves a Wikipedia page and it's an injustice that they don't have one" is, usually, a very very bad reason for creating an article. An article about your family memeber would not be his page, it would not be for the benefit of him or your family (except incidentally), and it would not necessarily say what you wanted it to say. It cannot be "an injustice", because an article is in no way for the benefit of the subject: we have many articles on thoroughly unpleasant and objectionable people if they have been written about enough elsewhere, and we do not have (and will not have) articles on millions of wonderful people if it happens that they have not been written about. Please also see WP:NOTMEMORIAL. ColinFine (talk) 08:34, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

AlaskaBorn I am guessing that your intention is to create an article about First Traditional Chief Donald Honea, Sr. of Ruby, Alaska. As pointed out above, this would only be plausible if people have published articles in newspapers or on websites about Honea. Only if you are sure you have those items to use as references should you attempt this task. A Google search on "Donald Honea, Sr" did yield several obituaries, but this may not be enough to justify an article. As an alternative, consider adding content about the Native American presence to the History section of Ruby, Alaska. David notMD (talk) 10:13, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

• AlaskaBorn I'm a bit surprised that you would bring up the lack of a Wikipedia article (not a mere "page") at your family member's funeral. As others have noted, Wikipedia is not a place to memorialize our loved ones. There are websites where that is done. 331dot (talk) 10:18, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Food Crisis

what is descritpion about food in the coming times 39.52.76.172 (talk) 07:04, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

hi ip user! there is an article regarding this over at 2022 food crises. happy reading! 💜  melecie  talk - 07:07, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

political tendencies on a page

Hi, following is a page of a right-wing politician in Israel, https://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%90%D7%95%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%AA_%D7%A1%D7%98%D7%A8%D7%95%D7%A7 The page editors have decided to write her (in the Hebrew page alone) as a Human-rights activist. If you follow Israeli politics you know that the dear MP Orit Strok is in favor of some radical right-wings ideas and her main concern is to care for the Israeli settlers in the (occupied) west-bank. Please help. 192.118.64.29 (talk) 08:37, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. This is the English language Wikipedia. All Wikipedias are separate and have their own policies so we cannot help you here. You will need to take your concern to the Talk page of that article at the Hebrew Wikipedia. Shantavira|^{feed me} 09:12, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse! You have now written on en-WP, and the editors here have no authority over he-WP. You have to discuss your issue there, according to their policies and guidelines. [3] may be the place to start. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:14, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Courtesy link to the EN-Wiki article: Orit Strook.

As the other editors have mentioned, we don't have any sway on the Hebrew Wikipedia. The English article mentions that she is the founder of an organization called the Human Rights Organization of Judea and Samaria, which advocates for the rights of the Israeli settler movement. To describe her as a human rights activist based on this would be a misnomer, but the English article doesn't do so. Bkissin (talk) 16:28, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Some citations I can't add automatically, why?

There are some sources that I use that I can't add automatically. Why is that so and what do we or they have to adapt so it works? Main issue would be any article by Bianet but others, too. Reuters, AP or books I can just add automatically. With Bianet it was possible some times in the past, but for most of the time and also presentntly not. With Ahval it was long possible to add them automatically, but now they at times also have difficulties, like with this linked article. Why? Paradise Chronicle (talk) 09:08, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Are you asking about the use of the "autofill" feature (magnifying glass icon) in the citation template drop-down menu? If not, please be more precise about what actions you take and what fails.

Assuming it is, I could not find any documentation, but I would speculate that it depends on the data source from which it fetches the info. For books, that is almost certainly the DOI database (the data model contains metadata). For newspaper articles, I double-speculate that it searches through the HTML tags of the page, trying to find things that look like an author, date etc. field; the presence of those would most likely depend on the website you query. Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 12:14, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

I edit in the visual editor, where it gives three options: Automatically, Manual or Re-use. In the manual mode one needs to fill in source date, first name, last name, website, etc. manually, while in the Automatically one a lot of this fields are filled automatically. JSTOR is a good example. At JSTOR I usually add the page number and a wikilink for JSTOR and that's it. At Bianet, a source which I often use I need to fill in all manually:author, source date, URL access date, article title, URL, website...Paradise Chronicle (talk) 21:07, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

The fill references tool uses citoid to generate its citation data, which in turn uses a piece of software called Zotero. Zotero basically relies on volunteers submitting "translation guides" which tells the software how to turn a website's HTML into a citation. Zotero only works on websites where users have taken the time to write the guides, and the guides may end up breaking if the website ever changes its structure. If you want the tool to support a website you can pitch in and write a translator to add support for it, see the instructions at mw:Citoid/Creating Zotero translators 192.76.8.78 (talk) 21:12, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Uhh, well this explains it. Are there wikipedians specialized in this kind of translations who I could suggest this task to? This kind of translation is not in my activity area. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 21:22, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm not aware of anything related to Zotero on wikipedia, sorry. It might be a good candidate for a new wikiproject or something? 192.76.8.78 (talk) 21:31, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you very much. A really helpful and inspiring answer you gave me. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 22:04, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Article Resubmission

I need an advice what needs to be changed in order to resubmit the article

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

Thank you in advance Leroks (talk) 11:06, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello, @Leroks, and welcome to the Teahouse! The draft, as it stands now, needs to be written in a less promotional tone, and only summarise what independent, secondary reliable sources have said about the subject. Long lists of features are also not appropriate for a Wikipedia article. Please also see the policy on What Wikipedia is not. Happy editing! HenryTemplo (talk) 11:40, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Azov Battalion

Azov Battalion

Good afternoon. I am a citizen of Ukraine and I want to make adjustments to the definition of the Ukrainian Azov Battalion. Sorry, I can't edit this article, but please consider my corrections. First, the name is not correct, ie not the Azov Battalion, but the Azov Regiment. Secondly, the very definition of the Ozone Battalion is incorrect. Now it is said that The Special Operations Detachment "Azov" (Ukrainian: Окремий загін спеціального призначення «Азов», romanized: Okremyi zahin spetsialnoho pryznachennia "Azov"), also known as the Azov Regiment (Ukrainian: Полк «Азов», romanized: Polk "Azov") and the Azov Battalion (Ukrainian: батальйон «Азов», romanized: Bataliyon "Azov"), is a neo-Nazi[disputed – discuss] unit of the National Guard of Ukraine based in Mariupol in the coastal region of the Sea of Azov, from which it derives its name.

This is a wrong definition. I would like to change the definition to: A separate detachment of special purpose "Azov", also known as the regiment "Azov" (OZSP "Azov", unit 3057) - the formation of the National Guard of Ukraine (NMU), which is part of the 12th brigade of operational purpose of the Eastern Operational Territorial NMU. The formation was established in 2014 as the Azov Volunteer Battalion and until November 11, 2014 was a unit of the special police patrol service of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Ukraine. The detachment is based in Mariupol, Donetsk region (temporarily based in Berdyansk, Zaporizhia region).

Thank you, best regards, Wikipedia Ukrainian user Zhanna Popovych (talk) 11:08, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Zhanna Popovych Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Please direct your comments to the article talk page, Talk:Azov Battalion, where the editors that follow that article will more likely see them. Please note that Wikipedia uses names that are commonly used by English-language reliable sources, and not necessarily official or legal names, please see this policy regarding names. 331dot (talk) 11:14, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Zhanna Popovych In addition to the above regarding the name/title, make sure to read the header of Talk:Azov Battalion, which includes in particular the warning that Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated, especially about the use of neo-Nazi descriptor in the lede. (emphasis mine). The probability that you manage to change consensus on that point is pretty low even if you have a complete mastery of Wikipedia sourcing guidelines and access to a comprehensive database of newspapers; it is virtually zero without those. Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 11:56, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

List of all people with a Wikipedia page

Hi everyone,

for a research project I'm trying to compile a list of all the people (dead or alive) who have a page on Wikipedia. Is there a way to easily get such a list?

Many thanks!!

-Matan 144.82.255.94 (talk) 14:01, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. That would probably be a great many people. A list of articles about living people would be at Category:Living people. For the deceased you can start at Category:Dead people. 331dot (talk) 14:05, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Wikidata would be a better way. You realize there are about 1.5 million biographies on Wikipedia? Johnbod (talk) 14:46, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

We've got notability... but no Wiki Page. How long does a request take to action?

Hoping someone can help or point me in the right direction.

Some months back I placed an entry here for TaxiPoint. Nothing seems to have happened and was wondering whether I've actually included enough information or done it correctly.

Wikipedia:Requested articles/Arts and entertainment#Media networks and organizations

We've been quoted in several mainstream publications, we are the industry's most read news source in the world (over 1 million different annual users) and appear on all mainstream news aggregators. We've also got several references linking back to our news articles that already appear on Wikipedia.

Is there anything else I should be doing or can be doing?

Many thanks for your time!

Perry Richardson TaxiPoint Founder 2A02:C7F:315D:7A00:D955:EFF5:4C9A:4A76 (talk) 14:41, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

• Hello Perry. First of all, please take a look at WP:PAID, which requires you to make a formal disclosure of your affiliation with TaxiPoint.

Listing something at Wikipedia:Requested articles is easy; actually turning a request into an acceptable article is hard; therefore, most requests stay dead for a long time. The way to improve your odds is to show convincingly that your request satisfies Wikipedia’s criteria for inclusion; 99% of the time, the hurdle is having enough sources to show the subject is "notable" (here, "notable" is Wikipedia-specific jargon). Such sources must be all of the following simultaneously: (1) written independently of the subject (so, not an interview of the founder), (2) published in an outlet with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy (so, not a random blog post), (3) and that deal with the subject at length (so, not a hyperlink from a news aggregator). Notice that this criterion does not care the least about the facts that

1. We've been quoted in several mainstream publications → notability is not inherited; a quote is always a passing mention, failing (3)
2. we are the industry's most read news source in the world (over 1 million different annual users) → while it makes it more likely that someone else will have written about you, we need the actual source; a mere listing of news sources by readership would fail (3)
3. we [are cited in Wikipedia articles] → it only means Wikipedia editors consider your articles to be reliable sources (at least some of them for some claims), but that is not correlated with notability - many local newspapers with low circulation are as reliable as journalism can be but not notable; on the other end of the scale, the Protocols of the Elders of Zion is a very notable historical document but absolutely unreliable

Your best chance is to find three sources that meet all of the above criteria, and list them along your request, all the other stuff (like the facebook page which fails (2)). "Three sources" is a high enough number that it passes the notability test (if the sources qualify), yet low enough that it is not too hard to check them all. Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 15:09, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Tigraan. That gives me much more insight into what is required. Three high quality sources it is! 2A02:C7F:315D:7A00:2CF3:551D:3E9:1CAC (talk) 17:38, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Perry. Thank you for requesting an article rather than jumping in and trying to write it yourself. Unfortunately, to quote WP:Requested articles, You may request an article below, but please keep in mind that Requested Articles is more like a list of ideas for interested editors to peruse, rather than an article writing service where we methodically try to write every article. Most requested articles will not be written.

Wikipedia is entirely edited by volunteers, who work on what they choose to work on. Most requests at WP:RA will never be acted on: those that are are most likely to be are requests that grab a volunteer editor's attention and suggest to them that this will be an interesting and rewarding article to work on. A list of a dozen anonymous citations doesn't really do that, as they need to go and look at each one to see if it is worthwhile.

Because of your question, I have started to do just that. I looked at the first five or six citations before I got boardbored. Of those, two are to Wikipedia and Facebook, which are fan-contributed sources and therefore unreliable; one is a passing mention, and the other two are quoting you.

Wikipedia is not interested in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is only 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. To meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability, you need several sources, each of which is all three of reliable|, independent of you and contining WP:significant coverage of your company. Perhaps your list of anyonymous citations contains such sources, but given that I, even prompted by your question, gave up before finding one, it is unlikely anybody will action your request.

What I suggest you do is look for at least three sources that meet all three of those criteria. If you can find some, then add thenm - not anonymous references, but a proper citation with title, author if appropriate, journal, and date: that will make your request a little bit more likely to be picked up (though there are no guaranteed). If you can't find them, then you will know to give up and stop wasting any more of your time.

If this sounds negative, then I'm afraid it is. Most companies are not notable, and will not have Wikipedia articles written about them. If this is the case, then there is nothing whatever you can do to get an article. It depends on whether your company gets noticed and written about, independently of you.

Bear in mind also, that if there is an article about your company, the article will not belong to you, will not be controlled by you, and may contain material you don't want to be there. See WP:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing. ColinFine (talk) 15:18, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

I can't see any useful sources in the list here [4] Facebook, Wikipedia and The Daily Mail are not reliable and the rest seem to just contain quotes from the founder. Theroadislong (talk) 15:20, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Appreciate your feedback. Back to the drawing board! 2A02:C7F:315D:7A00:2CF3:551D:3E9:1CAC (talk) 17:40, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello! Like it says at Wikipedia:Requested articles, You may request an article below, but please keep in mind that Requested Articles is more like a list of ideas for interested editors to peruse, rather than an article writing service where we methodically try to write every article. Most requested articles will not be written. So, "Nothing seems to have happened" is par for the course.

Your first (not only) hurdle is WP:NORG. So, what are the 3-5 best sources you can think of, that are at the same time reliably published, independent of your company and about your company in some detail? I checked the links you put at the other page, and [5] (i (newspaper)) hits 2/3, but the only thing it says is "The reasons for the shortages vary across the UK. Perry Richardson, licensed London Taxi driver and founder of industry news source TaxiPoint,", and that's not something we can base an article about TaxiPoint on. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:23, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Appeichiate the comments and thank you for the pointers. I'll present it again with a few more links and go from there. thank you! 2A02:C7F:315D:7A00:2CF3:551D:3E9:1CAC (talk) 17:44, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Good luck! And if you decide to register a WP-account, you can't name it "TaxiPoint", but something like "Perry at TaxiPoint" or "Best driver in London" is fine. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:13, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Help wanted with my draft article

I would like to bring my draft on Dominic Keegan in line with DYK standards. Am I on the right track? This is my first article from scratch; thanks for your help in advance. NotReallySoroka (talk) 17:00, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello, @NotReallySoroka, and welcome to the Teahouse! In order to be eligible for DYK, an article needs to be more than 1500 characters in length (excluding anything that isn't prose like quotes and infobox content), and be either recently (7 days) created, moved into the mainspace, expanded x5 or promoted to good article status. Other than that, apart from the usual standards for articles, there are no other real eligibility criteria for DYK. Happy editing! HenryTemplo (talk) 19:02, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

According to my rough character count, the draft stands at ~1200 characters, so you only need to add a few more sentences about him to go above the required length. The draft hasn't yet been accepted but if/when it is you will have 7 days to submit is as a DYK, so the only other thing to do currently is to think of an interesting "hook". What is the most interesting aspect of his career to date? Mike Turnbull (talk) 19:46, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

How do i add pictures?

I would like to put a new picture on Ford Power Stroke engine, because there is currently just a lable of the engine, not the actual picture of the engine. Seaparrot876 (talk) 17:07, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

@Seaparrot876: To upload an image, follow the steps at Commons:Special:UploadWizard. To add an already existing image to the article, see Help:Files#Using files. The Tips of Apmh 17:17, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

I don't have a original picture of it, so i cannot do it. Seaparrot876 (talk) 17:19, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

@Seaparrot876, you have a couple of options:

1 - you could go over to Wikimedia Commons and look for photos of the engine. Someone else might have posted one, you never know.

2 - you could ask someone you know who owns a truck with such an engine if you could take a photo of it, then upload the photo.

3 - this would be tricky, but you could try to find an appropriately licensed photo on the internet. It seems you're already aware that most photos on the 'net are not compatibly licensed, but if you're really interested, maybe you could spend some time investigating. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 17:51, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

(EC) Images are very difficult to source. Wikipedia can only use (display) and host (as a repository) images that are declared to be compatible under a definite (free use) licence. You could try looking at places like Flickr, choosing the Commercial use & mods allowed, top left corner in the search results field.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 17:54, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Nothing there except full trucks.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 17:56, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

@Seaparrot876 - I added WikiProjects to Talk:Ford Power Stroke engine, and noted that a picture is needed. GoingBatty (talk) 20:39, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Offer to Translate to Afrikaans

I have never contributed to Wikipedia in any way for many reasons, one being time constraints. I will, though, have some more time available in the near future. I would like to translate many of Wikipedia's excellent pages (especially science related) from English to Afrikaans, where the Afrikaans page is non-existent or only a seed page. Two questions (1) Is this normally done, i.e. just translating from one language to another (because I notice that French and English Wiki pages often differ much in content). (2) If simple translation is allowed/encouraged, where do I start? 105.225.129.69 (talk) 18:34, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

(1) Yes, (2) Read WP:Translate us for details. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 18:51, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello, IP editor, and welcome to the Teahouse. To add to @Jéské Couriano's brief answer, I'd suggest that you register for a free account before you start. Maybe then read Help:Introduction to get an idea of how articles are edited. For example, we have two different styles of editing tool you can use on any language Wikipedia, and you might find you have a preference for one over the other.

I realise you want to translate into Afrikaans from English, so you might want to spend some time there making small edits or improvements just to get a feel of how things work over there. Once you're settled in, you could perhaps start by finding those articles that here on English Wikipedia we regard as the most important in their subject area, and see how you could imporve them over on Afrikaans Wikipedia.

Did you know that we have many 'WikiProjects' here which group topic-related articles together and classify them both by their importance and their current quality? So, at WP:WikiProject Science there is this weird-looking table. It's actually really helpful, as the left column contains all the Top priority articles, by quality. Just click any number in a cell to see a list of the actual articles. Thus, clicking '42' of the top priority articles in that table gives this list. You could compare these to those in Afrikaans, and see which ones you could improve for maximum benefit and minimal work. Or you could take the same approach by visiting Wikipedia:WikiProject South Africa and looking at their assessment table of related articles here, which gives these 132 top priority articles.

We always point out that each language Wikipedia has its own rules and policies. However, English Wikipedia is likely to have the most stringent ones when it comes to [[WP:V|Verifiability], so you should probably be OK there. But don't, whatever you do, attempt to add a reference without actually reading that source and checking what it says actually supports a stated fact. And don't simply translate word-for-word, but ensure you understand what is being said. Ideally write in your own words, too. If you don't do that, it's appropriate to leave an edit summary that says you have added a translation, and to link to that article by way of a credit to the authors there. There's plenty more I could say, but I hope this is a good start for you. Good luck. Nick Moyes (talk) 22:34, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Reviewing Virus Article

If you can please Check and See if this article I created is Suitable for the Wikipedia. Vaxinia Capricorned (talk) 18:47, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

No it isn't, I have moved it to draft here Draft:Vaxinia it was very poorly written and what's with the excessive capital letters? Theroadislong (talk) 19:14, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Capricorned, welcome back to the Teahouse. Writing an article is very difficult, and writing an article on medical topics is especially difficult; Wikipedia has a whole specialized set of guidelines about the sources which can be used in such articles, located here: WP:MEDRS. You can see some frequently asked questions about the guidelines, with answers, here.

Rather than jumping into writing articles, you could spend some time working on already existing articles in areas that interest you, though you'll need to be a little more careful about capitalization, punctuation and grammar. If you're more comfortable writing in a language other than English, you could try looking for a version of Wikipedia in that language. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 19:46, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Rather than "a little more careful", I'd say "hugely more careful". (And the matter of capitalization was pointed out days ago, to no effect.) -- Hoary (talk) 22:02, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

@Hoary User has now been advised on their own userpage to take more care and to drop their over-use of caps. Nick Moyes (talk) 22:48, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Need advice re: fixing issues in a rejected article

Hi everyone! This article got rejected, and I need some help to understand what exactly I can do to improve it. I did my best to follow the NPOV guidelines, did a thorough research, and tried to provide sources and references for everything (both reputable news and academic articles). Also, I included criticism so as to cover the topic as objectively as possible. In the meantime, I wrote another article on an entirely different topic, and it got approved without any objections (despite way fewer sources being available). It kind of confuses me, so I'd really appreciate any pointers you guys could throw my way. Big thanks in advance! AhimeCrudele (talk) 20:13, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello @AhimeCrudele, and welcome to the Teahouse. It's not unusual for an editor to have one article accepted, then another one rejected. The key hurdle the article need to get over is WP:NCORP - the notability criteria for businesses. At the same time, it mustn't read like an advert for that company, listing every single product (which yours does). Phrases like "Even though the DIY kit lacked official backing, it stirred much attention. " are not neutral (nor even supported with a citation). Despite that, there are an awful lot of citations you have included, so could you tell us which three (and only three) citations show detailed, in-depth and independent coverage of this company? I would prefer you tell us what they are, rather than expect us to wade through to find them for ourselves. Maybe that could be a start, though others may wish to make different suggestions for you Nick Moyes (talk) 20:24, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Declined (what happened) is less severe than Rejected. David notMD (talk) 00:42, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

How to structure film awards won by a director?

For the notability of a draft about a film director that I am working on, it was suggested that I add the notability of the films directed. One of the films premiered at the most prestigious film awards in Russia and won multiple awards, however not all of the awards went to the director specifically (for example best cinematography would go to the cinematographer of the film, not the director). My question is how would I properly structure the "awards" section for the film director? many thanks. Jaguarnik (talk) 20:27, 25 May 2022 (UTC) Link is here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Michael_Lockshin_(film_director)

@Jaguarnik Welcome to the Teahouse. Whilst I don't work in film or TV areas, my view would be that, for an Awards section of an article about a film director, you should really only list the awards that he actually won. You can place each on a separate line by using a bullet point and name the award and then the film that he won it for (with a citation of course).

After that, you could add a sentence mentioning other notable films that he directed, but which won awards in other categories. You probably don't need to name those award categories, as they would be in the target article, and aren't really that relevant to the director's achievement. It's often a good idea to look at existing articles to see how they have been done. If they've only won a couple of awards, using a simple sentence rather than bullet points might make more sense. Does that help at all? Nick Moyes (talk) 20:49, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello! need some advice about an article I put together.

Hello everyone.

I am a very sparingly contributor to wikipedia and recently put together an article, which was rejected on the grounds that it felt like an ad. I tried to be neutral but the subject has lived a truly inspiring life, to me at least. So I feel like a second set of eyes would be helpful in polishing the tone and make it better appropriate for wikis standards. Do you mind giving it a look over and giving me some comments? Here is a link to the draft article.

Thank you

Senet Senetsudaien (talk) 23:20, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

@Senetsudaien Welcome to the Teahouse. I'm afraid I must point out that you have breached our first rule of Wikipedia by copy/pasting, or at least closely paraphrasing, a lot of content from other quite promotional sources. See this copyright violation report. Those sentences should be removed and rewritten in your own words. You have not written in a dispassionate, encyclopaedic voice, but have used promotional wording throughout. You have also repeated and cited what they have said about themselves as if it were true. It may well be, but we only accept what others have written about that subject, not what they say about themselves in interviews. He may well meet our notability criteria, but the content at the moment is not acceptable for Wikipedia as it stands. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:38, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Additionally, Senetsudaien, the draft says for example In the 1970's, he worked for Andy Warhol in the early days of Interview Magazine as a part of the launching team.^{[7][6][8][5][9][10]} I'd simply say that he worked for Andy Warhol during the launch of Interview. You might have more than one reference if one only says that he worked for Warhol but doesn't mention Interview, another that he worked for Interview but doesn't mention Warhol, etc -- but why as many as six? -- Hoary (talk) 23:48, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Senetsudaien, an unreferenced sentence like His natural talent for drawing and his desire of becoming a fashion designer led him to the acclaimed Fashion Institute of Technology (FIT) in New York does not belong in a neutrally written encyclopedia. Remove all unreferenced and unattributed evaluative language. Also, we use first names like "Freddie" only once, in the first sentence, according to the Manual of Style. The exception is when distinguishing between family members who share a surname. Remove those excess "Freddies". Cullen328 (talk) 04:01, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

great thanks Senetsudaien (talk) 19:08, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

thank you. Senetsudaien (talk) 19:09, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Question regarding draft

Hey there fellow Wikipedians! I'm brand new to Wikipedia and have just - kinda - finished up completely redoing a draft another few users made a while back. The article is Draft:Blooket and I was wondering if the article is good enough to be submitted for articlehood :). Or if it still needs some works.

Thank you all so much! AdmiralAckbar1977 (talk) 23:44, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

AdmiralAckbar1977, it has a "Controversy" section that's completely unreferenced. This alone would be enough for me to decline it. -- Hoary (talk) 23:52, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Alright! Thanks so much! AdmiralAckbar1977 (talk) 23:55, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

@AdmiralAckbar1977: The entire list of sources contains only one good one [[6]]. All the other sources look like crowdsourced info, primary sources or blogs. Please read WP:YFA and for further detail WP:GNG. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 00:04, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll get right to it. AdmiralAckbar1977 (talk) 00:13, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Banning vandals

The recent history of edits to Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. shows that someone changed his age at retirement to 455 and added something about his being a "bitch." An editor quickly reverted it. I'm curious whether there is a procedure for permanently banning such vandals from editing Wikipedia and for preventing them from signing up under new pseudonyms.Maurice Magnus (talk) 00:24, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Maurice Magnus, WP:ANI if there is debate over whether they are a vandal. WP:AIV if there is no debate.Slywriter (talk) 00:35, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

usually, editors will be given up to four warnings to stop before they can be blocked, depending on the severity of the edits and how likely they are to know the policies. this gives them a chance to reform, and/or informs them of these rules if they haven't yet (wikipedia has pages upon pages of policies, it won't be expected for someone to know them all upon first joining). one will only be blocked and can be sent to Administrator intervention against vandalism (AIV) if they're clearly persistent (has accumulated up to four warnings or is otherwise clear they won't stop vandalism or disruptive contributions).

additionally, if it's clear an editor is a blocked editor under a new account, that would count as sockpuppetry and can be blocked by going to Sockpuppet investigations (SPI) where checkusers can see if they're clearly the same user, or just sending them back to AIV if the vandalism is still clear.

for less obvious cases of persistent vandalism there's Administrator's noticeboard for incidents (ANI), but again, that's only if everything else has been exhausted, including opening up a conversation with them, and I'd personally recommend you to avoid going to ANI unless absolutely necessary. 💜  melecie  talk - 01:35, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Maurice Magnus, an IP editor made three bad edits to that article a week ago and then disappeared. Administrators almost never block IP addresses indefinitely because they frequently change and long blocks are usually ineffective. Plus, the editor has not been warned. Blocks are intended to stop immediate, ongoing disruption not to deal with a brief outburst a week ago. In most cases, indefinite blocks are reserved for severe, ongoing disruption that continues after warnings, lengthy discussion and escalating short blocks. Cullen328 (talk) 01:37, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Why was my update on the wikipage removed ?

External Link

• Martin Lynch at Find a Grave <--------------------------- my update

I see this same external link used successfully on other wikipedia pages ???

Why was mine removed with the reason --> (Reverted good faith edits by [Royalal](talk): See WP:ELPEREN) Royalal (talk) 00:29, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Royalal Please read WP:FINDAGRAVE-EL which says that external links to that website should rarely be added. It is user-generated content and therefore unreliable. The only potentially valuable thing are the photos of the gravestones, which are terrible in this case. They are out of focus and illegible, and two different gravestones are shown. Plus, there are already too many external links in that article. Cullen328 (talk) 01:09, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Where did the page go?

I recently edited a page named "Christian Barozzi", but when I returned a few days later, it was gone. Do any of you know where it went? Or if it was deleted or not?

Thanks, AmerikanKoloniser

. AmerikanKoloniser (talk) 01:47, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

@AmerikanKoloniser: Yes Christian Barozzi was deleted, under speedy criteria WP:CSD#A7. See WP:CCS for some more information on that. RudolfRed (talk) 01:52, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you! AmerikanKoloniser (talk) 01:58, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

hi @AmerikanKoloniser and welcome to the teahouse! Christian Barozzi was deleted two days ago for the criteria for speedy deletion A7 by Bbb23, with the deletion reason being Article about a real person, which does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject. happy editing! 💜  melecie  talk - 01:53, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! AmerikanKoloniser (talk) 01:58, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Fix chart

Please help me fix Team titles chart under NCAA Women's Division III Tennis Championship. Thank you. Pennsylvania2 (talk) 02:03, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi Pennsylvania2 Sometimes the best thing to do in a case like this is to work backwards to try and find the last properly formatted version of the table. Most often it's do to some syntax being unnecessarily added or removed. You made a series of edits to the article and perhaps one of them accidentally damaged the table's syntax. Once you find the last clean version of the table, move forward edit by edit and you should find the one which introduced the error. Once you find the error, it should be relavtively simple fix. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:12, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

That worked thanks. Pennsylvania2 (talk) 02:13, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Forum for community review of draftifications

Hi everyone. If a page mover moves an article to draftspace, what is the forum to challenge the page move? Would WP:DRV be an appropriate forum? I would of course first try to persuade the page mover to move it back to article space. Cheers, Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 02:56, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

@Clayoquot: to challenge the draftification all you need to do is move it back into the main space. At that point anyone who feels it meets one of the criteria for deletion may nominate it as such. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 02:59, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

OK thanks :) Do you know the name of the policy that says it's OK to do this? Do I need to discuss it with the page mover first? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 03:31, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

@Clayoquot: See WP:DRAFTOBJECT. You do not need to discuss it first. RudolfRed (talk) 03:39, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Perfect, thanks! Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 03:51, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

@Clayoquot: @RudolfRed: That is not a Wikipedia policy, that is an essay, basically one editor's point of view. A better practice would be to initiate a discussion on the talk page of the user who draftified it. Usually when I draftify something, it is for a good reason (usually the author had no clue about what makes a Wikipedia article acceptable) and I move it to draft space as a courtesy rather than delete it. Because I have seen newbies start move-warring, I also often leave a create-protection behind so that only a reviewer with the extended-confirmed right can move it back to article space. This is a way to encourage more eyes on the article, rather than rely solely on the judgment of the newbie who wrote it. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:39, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Courtesy: This is about Marine resources, which was draftified, then reverted by Clayoquot. David notMD (talk) 09:42, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

For good reason - that looks more like a PowerPoint slide than a Wikipedia article. casualdejekyll 12:46, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

However, it's worth noting that participating in the AfC process is entirely voluntary in most cases, including this one casualdejekyll 12:51, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

@Anachronist: I agree it's good to encourage more eyes on an article if an experienced editor feels it's not ready for mainspace. The usual place to do this is AfD. If a newbie moves an article that has been draftified to mainspace, which I think is what you meant by "start move-warring", would it not be appropriate to nominate it for deletion if you still feel it's inappropriate? W.r.t WP:DRAFTS, good point that it's not a policy. On the other hand, it represents the collaboration of 235 editors since 2013 and is actively watched by 63 editors so I think it's fair to say it has a solid level of acceptance in the community. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 13:09, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

@Clayoquot: I routinely make small edits to essays, but that doesn't mean I agree with them. Only a handful of editors contributed the majority of that content. I disagree with the assertion that "it's fair to say it has a solid level of acceptance in the community." It's an essay, the essay expresses a valid viewpoint, but that viewpoint does not have community consensus.

As to your question about AFD being inappropriate, the answer is yes in many cases it's inappropriate. The purpose of AFD is to judge whether to keep an article on a topic based on its notability. AFD isn't a place to canvass other editors for improvements. You propose an article for AFD when you have policy-grounded reasons to believe that the topic isn't suitable. If an article topic may be notable but is written in an incomprehensible or non-encyclopedic way, or without sufficient evidence of notability, or in dire need of cleanup, it is appropriate to move it to draft space. If someone other than the author reverts the move to draft, that's fine. I draw the line, however, at the article author doing this.

In my experience, every time an author of an article attempts to revert a move to draft space, that author has a COI or a promotional intention. Some of them end up being blocked, and I've seen some become good editors after my mentoring. Bottom line: COI editors have no business deciding what content should be in main space. That has community consensus. They can write drafts, and the drafts can be approved by someone else, but they do not get to decide when an article on their pet topic is ready for publication. That is why I often create-protect articles I draftify, with a protection level that allows experienced editors to un-draftify. I have no objection if an editor other than the author reverts a draftification. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:36, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Xtools

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.

---

Has the gadget Xtools stopped working? It is continuously saying "cannot fetch revision data". What is the problem with the tool? I cannot see any info regarding a page. Is the problem same for everyone? Itcouldbepossible^Talk 03:21, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

@Itcouldbepossible: It is working for me. At least enough to see this page: [7] RudolfRed (talk) 03:37, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

@RudolfRed No, actually I am not talking about the Xtools website. I am talking about the Wikipedia gadget that one can enable from the preferences sections, if he or she likes to. I am talking about that gadget. Why is it not working for me? Itcouldbepossible^Talk 03:38, 26 May 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.

what the freak?

I joined Wikipedia to work on making a page for a studio I work for, I put hours of work into it, and I come back to find out its been entirely deleted and my profile is full of some 'admins' leaving denial messages which all have bios like 'yeah i stream on twitch in my free time'. who on earth is deciding what is worthy of being on wikipedia???? are you kidding me???? ItsAmmon (talk) 04:53, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

@ItsAmmon: The draft in question was deleted as blatant promotion. Creating a new article is one of the hardest things one can do on Wikipedia even without the complicating factor of a conflict of interest. Attacking the deleting administrators for notifying you on your talk page - not "profile" - about the deletion isn't a good idea. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 05:11, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

'attacking' LMAO - and it wasn't blatant promotion. I quite literally based my article off one that is up as we speak and its exactly the same. We are just bigger. This is bullcrap. ItsAmmon (talk) 05:14, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

@ItsAmmon: Wikipedia is never to be used for publicity purposes, and that's the reason behind both of your drafts, the one about yourself and about your employer. Someone realized that, proposed it for deletion, and an administrator agreed with the assessment and deleted it. You say you put "hours of work" into the studio draft, and yet it was just two sentences. Who's shoveling the bullcrap here?

That said, in my opinion the deletion was premature and you should have been given a chance to flesh it out more. @Athaenara: you deleted it; would you reconsider? Draft space, after all, is the only venue we offer for editors with a conflict of interest to write an article. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:34, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

@Anachronist: I'll do nothing to help anybody promote their employer. The new user may not know about Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion, s/he/it's free to try that. – Athaenara ✉ 05:57, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

@Athaenara: As you well know, WP:REFUND is not applicable to G11 deletions. That is why I pinged you in the first place, because the undeletion decision would be yours. As the article in question was only 2 sentences, however, ItsAmmon is free to try again. Many company articles get started by a COI editor. If the company is notable, the draft will eventually improve to the point where it's acceptable. This particular 2 sentence draft didn't get that chance, and the author's conflict of interest wasn't evident from the content. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:19, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

ItsAmmon, you tried to write an autobiography twice, and those drafts were deleted twice. I have been a Wikipedia editor since 2009, and I estimate that 99.9% of efforts to write an autobiography fail. Maybe more. You tried to write an article about the company you work for, and your draft was utterly mediocre, and completely failed to make the case that the company meets the Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) guideline. I agree with Anachronist that the deletion of the draft was premature. Perhaps it was a work in progress and you were right on the brink of demonstrating that the company is notable. But you ought to start from strength and the backbone of a good draft is references to reliable independent sources that devote significant coverage to the topic of the proposed article. Your draft had none of that, so you were starting out from a position of weakness rather than strength. I understand that you are a game developer. You ought to be familiar with game theory. Wikipedia is not a game in the sense of video games or board games or gambling or athletic games. However, it is a game in the broadest sense of the term and it has a complex rule set and a variety of social norms that we call Policies and guidelines. The goal of the Wikipedia "game" is to build a free, well referenced, neutrally written encyclopedia in every significant language. If you charge into a game like a bull in a china shop, ignorant of most of the rules and insulting people who might otherwise be willing to help you, how successful do you think that you will be? Cullen328 (talk) 06:14, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

what the freak? No need to bowdlerize, ItsAmmon: if you want to ask "What the fuck?", go ahead and ask it. Just don't expect to get the hospitable responses for which the "teahouse" is justly famous. In contrast, politeness and specificity are appreciated; perhaps "How was my draft 'unambiguous advertising or promotion'?" ¶ who on earth is deciding what is worthy of being on wikipedia???? Large numbers of editors (among whom adults, males, the middle class, US residents and whites are somewhat overrepresented) have laboriously reached a set of criteria. ¶ are you kidding me???? No we are not. -- Hoary (talk) 09:12, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

An Admin (not the Admin who Speedy deleted your attempts at autobio and the company your work for) did you the courtesy of informing you what happened to your articles, and why. Insulting the messenger is never good strategy. David notMD (talk) 09:50, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

User:JalenFolf, who placed the notice, and who I assume ItsAmmon is referring to, is not an admin. casualdejekyll 12:42, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

However, they have been around for 15 years. Their judgment is likely quite sound. casualdejekyll 12:44, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes, the latest draft was a very clear autobiographical self promotion of a subject that under Wikipedia's standards is not notable. Jalen Folf (talk) 21:20, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Editing a Family Friends Wikipedia Article

Hi. I'm a Highschool senior. As a senior we were tasked with doing a extensive project that required a thirty minuet presentation. I decided to do my project on a family friend, who has gotten very famous, and has even got himself a exhibit in the Smithsonian Museum. The project went very well. I ended up interviewing him for a hour. Here's the question. I wanted to pay him back for all of the help he has given me. so when I looked at his article on Wikipedia I noticed that it was severely out of date. I would love to update his article to include his most recent achievements with his help, but I don't know if I'm qualified to do so. I would love to give him a legacy that will stand as long as the internet is around. Am I qualified? (His Name is Gary Strobel) Speartopia (talk) 05:17, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

@Speartopia: Well, you have a conflict of interest, so you might want to read the WP:COI guideline. Basically, you can make corrections to the article (spelling, grammar, dates, names, adding sources, reverting obvious vandalism) but any substantive changes to the prose are best proposed on the article talk page. You can use the template {{request edit}} to preface your proposal, which causes your proposal to be listed on a category page that is monitored by some editors. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:24, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

@Speartopia Could I add that updating recent achievements must be based, not on interviews with the subject, but on available independent sources. Once you’ve declared your WP:COI, you could add a ‘Selected publication’ list yourself, which might do the trick. Nick Moyes (talk) 08:30, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes, you are qualified. Per COI, you need to state on your User page that Strobel is a family friend. People with a COI are asked to not edit the article directly, but instead to post requested changes on the Talk page of the article, using that request edit notification so that someone will see it, and then either implement or reject your requested changes. A suggestion: existing content and new content will need references. Use your Sandbox to practice formatting references. Your intent is admirable, and I hope your persist. P.S. You could take a photo of Strobel, add that to Commons, and then put the photo in the article. David notMD (talk) 10:13, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Adding former cantons in Template:Cantons of [department]

Can I add the list of former cantons in the templates of cantons of French departments (like in Template:Cantons of Nord)? See :fr:Modèle:Palette Cantons du Nord for example. (I know that most of those articles will be red links, but over the course of time, interested people can make such articles). Excellenc1 (talk) 05:20, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

@Excellenc1 My gut reaction is that it would be unwise to do that. It would cause confusion if mixed with others current cantons. Lots of red links would be pointless, even if they were placed into a separate part of a template. Why not create one simple list article of former cantons (in a defined date range, I’d assume?) and add that to a ‘See also’ section for relevant articles? Nick Moyes (talk) 08:25, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes So can I add a list of former cantons in the pre-existing list of cantons (instead of a separate article)? Like I did in cantons of Eure. Excellenc1 (talk) 09:58, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

@Excellenc1 I don't think that would a problem. But at Cantons of the Eure department, I don't see any source that would allow me to Verify your list of former cantons. As many are redlinks, I think some link to show which they were would be valuable. Nick Moyes (talk) 13:25, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

how to change main page title

new to creating Wiki page... only in sandbox at this time....I wanted to name the page Earl Carter, American Photojournalist Tne name that appears is Earlc11946 and I am unable to change it...that is my account name and I get messages that a user page has not been created yet....I am working in sandbox at this time....I have view many you tube videos hoping to finds an answer and looked at many wiki support pages.... Earlc11946 (talk) 09:30, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Courtesy: Currently at User:Earlc11946/sandbox. David notMD (talk) 10:15, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Earlc11946 If this is an attempt at autobiography, see WP:AUTO. If this is ever submitted as a draft and accepted, the accepting reviewer will properly name the article. As there are no existing articles about other Earl Carters, "Earl Carter" will suffice. David notMD (talk) 10:23, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Earlc11946, here's one section, in its entirety: Chief Photographer, Kingsport TN Times-News, Staff Photographer, Miami FL Herald, Photo Editor, The Huntsville AL Times. Problems: No reliable source is provided for any of these claims; it's not the state but the newspaper title that needs italics; your positions are of less interest than is what (according to reliable, independent sources) you achieved in each of those positions; article text should consist of sentences, each one having a subject (e.g. "he") and a predicate (e.g. "was a staff photographer for the Miami Herald, where he [whatever]"). -- Hoary (talk) 12:07, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Bridlington website removed

Hi, I am trying to include the bridlington.net website as a link in the Bridlington page but it keeps being removed. The website is the towns primary website and has been in existence since 1989 providing local tourism and business information, history, local news, what's on guide etc. Could someone advise the likely reason as to why the site is being removed as I see no difference between bridlington.net and other sites performing the same functionality listed within wikpedia for example wikipedia pages for Morecambe, Scarborough, Norfolk, Wales and I am sure many more.

Any help to understand why the editor for the Bridlington page is choosing to remove links to sites with content which seems acceptable on other pages would be most appreciated.

Thanks in advance for any help or advice as i am starting to feel paranoid. 80.234.238.224 (talk) 12:56, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

There's no need to guess why the link has been removed: you can instead ask those who removed it to explain. The place to ask is Talk:Bridlington. -- Hoary (talk) 13:10, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

additionally, there is a guideline for external links, which you may want to check. the revert summaries stated that it was removed for being promotion, and given that the page seems to be primarily for promoting bridlington tourism (not an official government site which will definitely be allowed, for example), I'd understand this conclusion, however I'm not the best person to determine whether this is an appropriate link. happy editing! 💜  melecie  talk - 13:30, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi Thanks for that, I understand what you are saying, just annoying that there is no government site for the area, presumably because the job is already being done by ourselves :-( 80.234.238.224 (talk) 13:48, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello, fellow IP - since you say "ourselves", I assume you have some connection to the website. In that case, you have a conflict of interest (WP:COI), which you should disclose per the policy, and - friendly warning - should expect to be challenged if you start adding links to the site in an apparently promotional manner. Thanks for checking with us instead of continuing an edit war, though! 199.208.172.35 (talk) 15:20, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Does English Wikipedia have a "Reference Space" akin to French Wikipedia?

I noticed that on French Wikipedia common books have their own space with editions listed. For example: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/R%C3%A9f%C3%A9rence:M%C3%A9tamorphoses_(Ovide)

That allows for easy inclusion of that reference in various articles.

Does English Wikipedia have this too? And if not, were there ever attempts to do something like this and archived discussions somewhere? 'wɪnd (talk) 14:36, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

@'wɪnd: I'm not aware of anything similar. You could ask at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Miscellaneous. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:17, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

We once had some kind of reusable references from templates, but they were deprecated again. {{Cite doi/10.1126.2Fscience.1084370}} was one of these if you have admin access. You can see some of the discussion at Template talk:Cite doi. —Kusma (talk) 20:28, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

@'wɪnd We used to have some templates that operated in this manner, but they were all deleted following this discussion. 192.76.8.78 (talk) 20:35, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

@Timtempleton @Kusma @IP: I very much appreciate your responses. Super helpful. No, I'm not an admin yet, still very much a beginner. 'wɪnd (talk) 21:33, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Copy Pasting Between Articles

I'm editing articles on abortion in different states. Each article has a "terminology" section that is, for the most part, identical. Terminology doesn't vary between the states, but the wording of each section is slightly different. Can I "standardize" across all the state abortion articles by copy and pasting the same text into each? Cioriolio (talk) 17:44, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

I see from your edits that Abortion in Alabama, Abortion in Iowa and Abortion in Florida are existing articles. I am stunned by the idea that there may be 47 more such articles! "As to whether text in a "terminology" section can be the same across states, I suppose that depends on the law in that state. As for copy/pasting from one Wikipedia article to another, that is allowed as long as the Edit summary states where from. David notMD (talk) 17:59, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

@Cioriolio You can copypaste text between WP-articles, but the rule is that your WP:ES must include a wikilink, like "Adding text copied from Abortion in Iowa." More at WP:COPYWITHIN. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:20, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

@David notMD @Gråbergs Gråa Sång

Thanks for your help Cioriolio (talk) 21:41, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Waitlist

I am wondering how likely SpringerNature's waitlist for Wikipedia library access is to open up.

I think Springer Nature does not have that many spots because I have been waitlisted several times because there are not enough spots.

I am wondering if this is the reason why the waitlist is long.

ScientistBuilder (talk) 19:58, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

@ScientistBuilder, welcome to the Teahouse! The best place to ask about this is the Wikipedia Library itself. Try contacting them via any of the listed methods here. Regards. Lightbluerain (Talk💬 Contribs✏️) 02:08, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

How can I get enough sources to create a good/decent article?

How can I get sources in villages in Ukraine. Many people said that I cant give enough sources but, every time I googled it, most of it are just forecasts. Xicilisms (talk) 20:43, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi, Xicilisms, welcome. I'm not sure which sources you are after but i've written a method down about census records at this page, i think it may be useful to you. Kind regards, Zindor (talk) 20:49, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Actually i forgot i found an English version the other day. A citation to the census is enough to prove the village is a populated legally recognised place per the inclusion criteria, but if you can expand the articles a bit further using significant coverage in reliable news sources etc that's even better. Zindor (talk) 20:55, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Maintenance Tag Issues: How to remove when issues dealt with

Grass Valley (company)

I'm working on cleaning up this page (my user page has a paid disclosure statement).

There are three maintenance items:

• This article needs additional citations for verification. (May 2020)

I'm working on all of these to update all at the same time where "citation needed" appears.

• This article's tone or style may not reflect the encyclopedic tone used on Wikipedia. (May 2020)

I have removed a section that looked to be "marketing speak" just leaving chronological facts. However, the maintenance item still is listed and I can't figure out (also see below, same issue I believe) where these are flagged in the edit page. Have I missed something? I know it's not automatically removed from reading the instructions, but can't find anything in the edit page that relates to this and the following item.

• This article contains content that is written like an advertisement. (May 2020)

I believe this is the same section as flagged above, so same issue. Reply in visual editor please. Silbergleid (talk) 21:11, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

@Silbergleid - Thank you for adding a paid disclosure statement on your user page. I added one for you on Talk:Grass Valley (company). Since you have a conflict of interest, you should not be editing the article directly. Instead, you may post questions and suggestions on the article's talk page with the {{request edit}} template, or use the Wikipedia:Edit Request Wizard. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 21:38, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

@Silbergleid - Also, I'm not sure why you requested a reply with the VisualEditor. What difference does it make whether I use the VisualEditor or the source editor or the new reply tool? GoingBatty (talk) 02:52, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

The instructions said to request mobile or visual editor, I had to pick one (or thought I did). With regards to the edits of the Grass Valley page, all of the missing citations relate to very old historical events. While I have a conflict, I also have access to analog (paper, film) archives that can help point me to third-party citations such as books that have never been digitized or magazines that are not available online either. My feeling is that I would rather clean those up since I can do the research needed. No one outside the company has access.

Thanks for adding the disclosure. The "paid" instructions said to place it in one of three areas, so I did just that. Silbergleid (talk) 13:26, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Oh, can you actually answer my original question? Silbergleid (talk) 13:27, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Silbergleid You are asked to pick an editor to use; the editor others use does not matter in that regard. You received an answer to your question- you should avoid editing the article directly. Independent editors that monitor the use of those tags will eventually evaluate the article to see if the issues raised have been addressed. 331dot (talk) 13:29, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Understood. Thanks for your help. Silbergleid (talk) 13:33, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

@Silbergleid, the "very old historical events" are actually quite important, since they seem to be what the notability of this company is primarily based on - see the discussion at the bottom of the talk page. Most of what the history section talks about right now is, from Wikipedia's viewpoint, not very important at all. Apparently the company has an "illustrious history", according to an editor from long ago; if you have access to sources which could inform us of that history, they would be very useful! 199.208.172.35 (talk) 14:32, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Question about the "Draft"

Good evening,

I have just created an article on the french economist Gaël Giraud but there is the draft, and I don't understand what I did wrong.

Somebody helps to find the issues ?

Draft:Gaël Giraud here the article.

More over, i can't anymore edit the code.

Ty for the answer.

PS : Sorry for my english, i'm french. Mathieu Royans (talk) 22:20, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

The Draft has not yet been submitted for review. When you are ready please press the blue Submit the Draft for review! button. However, it is unlikely to be accepted at present as it is unclear what the subject is notable for. He is a civil servant, a priest and a mathematician. None of these alone makes him notable so we need to know what it is about him that makes him notable and desereving of a Wikipedia article. I hope that that helps.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   23:08, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi, Mathieu Royans, and welcome to the Teahouse! I'm not certain what issues you're talking about – the draft is there and you should be able to edit it. Velella gave you good advice; you should make sure the draft explains why he is notable by Wikipedia's standards before you turn it in. This guideline explains it more specifically. Happy editing! Perfect4th (talk) 23:32, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi Mathieu Royans. Is the draft you're working on a translation of the French Wikipedia article about fr:Gaël Giraud? If it is, then you probably should take a close look at WP:TRANSLATE since the information it contains applies to your draft. It's OK to translate articles found on other language Wikipedias into English, but you need to make sure that the original article is properly being attributed for Wikipedia's licensing purposes. The next thing you probably should look at are WP:OTHERLANGS and WP:BIO. Each language Wikipedia is part of the same family so to speak, but they also are separate projects with their own policies and guidelines. In many cases, these policies guidelines are the same or quite similar, but it many cases they're quite different. Since English Wikipedia is the largest of the various Wikipedias, it's policies and guidelines tend to be more rigorously enforced that perhaps is done of some other Wikipedias (e.g. French Wikipedia). So, in order for a draft about Giraud to be accepted on English Wikipedia, you will need to establish that he meets English Wikipedia's notability guidelines. You might be able to use the sources cited in the French Wikipedia article (even if they're written in French) to help establish his Wikipedia notability as long as they are considered to be WP:RELIABLESOURCES for English Wikipedia purposes, but any reliable sources giving Giraud WP:SIGCOV in English would also be helpful. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:03, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

UPDATE : Thank you for your answers ! @Velella-@Perfect4th-@Marchjuly — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mathieu Royans (talk • contribs) 14:28, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Question Regarding Citations in an Article Draft

Hey there, I was wondering if anyone could go over the sources in Draft:Blooket to see if they are in line with the quality expected for a wikipedia article.

Thank you all so much! This is the first article I've really worked on, and this means a lot to me. AdmiralAckbar1977 (talk) 23:30, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

AdmiralAckbar1977, probably not what you want to read but there are still significant issues. Reddit and Youtube are not reliable sources. ICANN doesn't do anything for notability, Tapinto is a passing mention, K-12 is a press release, LeeDaily gives no indication that its anything more than a blog, publicistpaper uses exact same software as LeeDaily and its 'about us' is even less reassuring as it actively solicits press releases, TealMango is similar to both of those and also looks to be recycling press releases as news articles. BizJournals, I also have doubts about as Inno seems to be brand-new focused on emerging products with no editorial policies and the one scholarly paper cited I can not access. Wikipedia needs some in-depth coverage of the subject that wasn't supplied by the subject and currently thats lacking.Slywriter (talk) 23:57, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks you so much for responding. Looking back on the citations, I agree with everything you state - and probably should have worked harder to find actual refutable sources. I do have one additional questions. Would it be possible to cite the actual website as a way to identify features of the website. Or is that also not allowed. Thanks! AdmiralAckbar1977 (talk) 00:08, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

• thank AdmiralAckbar1977 (talk) 00:08, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

  Meant to signify spelling correction. Gosh, this isn't looking too great :) AdmiralAckbar1977 (talk) 00:09, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

First hurdle is notability, which requires independent, reliable secondary sources. Once notability is established, using primary sources for limited non-controversial information is usually acceptable, though the article can not turn into a product catalogue or be overly self serving.Slywriter (talk) 00:17, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

@AdmiralAckbar1977 I tried to help you out by finding some good references, but was only able to find a few newspaper articles and books that mention Blooket as one of many good resources. These would be helpful if you had a couple of articles that gave in-depth coverage to use as your main references. If you happen to have a subscription to www.newspapers.com, and use 2021 - 2022 as the time frame to search in, there 3 articles about school resources that mention Blooket as being useful. If you don't subscribe to newspapers.com it may be possible for you to get a one week free trial subscription that will allow you to find and save those articles.

I also searched on books.google.com and found a couple of non-fiction books that recommend Blooket. It may be that Blooket is too soon, in which case you may be able to find good references in a year or too. If you go back and work on your draft article at least every six months it won't be deleted, and will be there if better references come along at a later date. Best wishes on project. Karenthewriter (talk) 01:27, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you so much! I'll take you and @Hoary's advice and kinda wait it out until Blooket becomes significantly more mainstream, and if it never achieves Wikipedia level notability, then no problem! In the meantime I'll just add a little from time to time, probably follow your idea about newspapers.com and the like.

Thank you so, so much - AdmiralAckbar1977 (talk) 03:06, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

AdmiralAckbar1977, there's no need for "actual refutable sources": that would be taking the principle of falsifiability too far. Reliable sources, yes. My guess is that these simply don't exist. Maybe wait a couple of years for [Wikipedia-defined] notability to emerge? -- Hoary (talk) 01:11, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm guessing AdmiralAckbar1977 meant "reputable" rather than "refutable". CodeTalker (talk) 03:38, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Will my article be meaningful

I recently purchased Woven Jacquard Silk Portrait panel of George Washington at a charity auction. The panel has documented estate provenance. The panel was made in Lyon, France in 1856. From what I've learned on line, there is one in the Smithsonian and one at the MET. There are no articles in Wikipedia on this panel. I don't know how many were produced in France, or how it got to America (or when). It would be really cool to create a wikipedia arctic on this. What do you think? DanJill (talk) 00:47, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

hi @DanJill and welcome to wikipedia! first of all, you would need to check over the notability guidelines to see if the article would be meaningful. if it does, if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, then you're likely good to go (although if there are any existing articles where this info can be added instead, add it there instead, since making an article is hard). check out Your first article to write an article. if it doesn't, then stop: the article won't be accepted. happy editing! 💜  melecie  talk - 00:55, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello, DanJill. Your first task is to determine whether or not the weaving is notable. The short definition in that General Notability Guideline is A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. So, assemble a list of reliable sources that devote significant coverage to the weaving. If you can find three to five of those sources, then you can start writing an article draft. Without such coverage, it is not possible to write an acceptable article. In addition, there is the issue of your Conflict of interest as an owner of one of these weavings. If you manage to produce a compehensive article about this weaving, it could plausibly increase the value of your weaving. You need to openly disclose your conflict of interest (as you have commendably done here), and defer to experienced editors who do not have a COI. Cullen328 (talk) 01:14, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi, DanJill, if you come to the conclusion that a whole article on your portrait isn't possible, you are still in the fortunate position of being able to photograph it, and offer the photo for use in other articles as appropriate. It might be that a good photo of this portrait would be interesting at Jacquard machine, which currently has the famous portrait of Jacquard himself, and a bit of abstract William Morris, but otherwise no example of the product. Getting good images is a real problem for Wikipedia because the copyright arrangements here are so generous to the reader, meaning that the vast majority of images on internet are not appropriately covered and can't be used. You own the rights to your own photos! Elemimele (talk) 05:58, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

@DanJill, I've never heard of Jaquard silk, but assume it's related to Jacquard machine. Perhaps you should consider an article about "Jacquard loom art" or something like that, it may be easier than showing WP:GNG for a specific piece. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:55, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Examples of particularly clear / well organized articles re: plants (as a guide to editing a plant article?)

Hi - I saw the following topic included in a list of articles that could use copyediting: Diplazium australe

I did an off-the-cuff search for some plant articles that might serve as templates: (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azalea, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fern, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sequoia_(genus)).

Of these the Sequoia article seems maybe the most clear and well organized. But would welcome pointers to any additional examples.

And, more generally, does Wikipedia provide category-specific listings of articles that are regarded as particularly well written?

Thanks. Margarita-Dz (talk) 11:29, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi Margarita-Dz - under Wikipedia:Featured articles#biology and Wikipedia:Good articles/Natural sciences you will find sections on Wikipedia articles about plants that have been rated as either Featured articles or Good articles - have a look at some of those - best wishes - Arjayay (talk) 11:52, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

I suggest you also take a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Plants. Shantavira|^{feed me} 12:08, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! Margarita-Dz (talk) 12:23, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Revisions for VERYWELL article

Hello,

I tried to correct the the infobox link on the Verywell article and was blocked. I checked the history of the spam issue and I see it is four years old and no longer relevant. The spamming user accounts were all disabled. The URL on the infobox forwards to a different domain and I wanted to update it to reflect the correct one. Any advice? Emarket 12:20, 27 May 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emercado2020 (talk • contribs)

hi Emercado2020 and welcome to the teahouse! Verywell links are currently blacklisted for use in Wikipedia due to persistent abuse in I'd assume elsewhere in the wiki (plus besides, since you're not seeing those links, it could be that the blacklist is doing a good job of keeping those links out when it's used as spam). I'd advise you to take it over to the whitelist noticeboard so it can be whitelisted for use in that article. happy editing! 💜 (Please remember to sign your posts on talk pages by typing four keyboard tildes like this: ~~~~. Or, you can use the [ reply ] button, which automatically signs posts.)  melecie  talk - 12:29, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi Emercado2020. I'm a bit concerned because I notice that all your contributions to date have focused around Dotdash Meredith and its brands, and your username may indicate a marketing connection. You should be aware that editing with a conflict of interest is subject to certain restrictions and requirements - see WP:COI. 97.113.167.129 (talk) 12:33, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Apologies for missing the disclosure. I've updated my profile to be transparent. I believe talking here about the edit complies with COI requirements. Is there any reason why the edit I proposed should not be made? Emercado2020 (talk) 12:56, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Emercado2020 - I have transferred the second version from your Talkpage to Talk:Verywell - the first version was correct, the second was correct for the article.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 13:22, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

@Emercado2020, asking for help here is perfectly fine, but if there are edits to specific articles you want to make, you should make edit requests on the talk pages (see WP:EDITREQUEST). You should not generally be editing them yourself if a COI applies. See melecie's answer above for instructions on having the link whitelisted for use. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 14:18, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Creating new page- WeatherSTEM- Need help editing to get approval

I submitted an article for WeatherSTEM, it keeps getting rejected. I edited it to add resources, and changed the wording, I even used other similar pages on Wiki as a guide for how to word the article. How to I make the correct edits needed to get this approved? Is there someone I can hire to publish this for me if I send them the info? Weathergeekman (talk) 14:06, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Any way to remove slurs from edit summaries?

Hello everyone,

I spotted that there's been a recent vandalism problem at Goodfellas (presumably triggered by the news of Ray Liotta's death) that led to the page being semi-protected - while looking through the article's history, I noticed that some of the edits reverting the vandalism were from an IP user who included racial slurs in their edit summaries aimed at the vandals (e.g. this diff: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Goodfellas&oldid=1090062105). This is clearly unacceptable and in violation of Wikipedia's policies, but I'm not a regular editor and don't really know what, if anything, can be done about it. Is this something that can be removed? Is this something that community consensus says should be removed, even if doing so is technically possible, or should it be left up? (The IP in question seems to have already been banned for their racism, so hopefully the problem won't recur, at least). Any advice would be greatly appreciated - thanks in advance!

TrueAnonyman (talk) 14:09, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out @TrueAnonyman - only administrators can redact edit summaries, and I've now done just that. Sam Walton (talk) 14:13, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you so much! TrueAnonyman (talk) 14:45, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The edit summaries in question have been revision deleted by Samwalton9. Victor Schmidt mobil (talk) 14:18, 27 May 2022 (UTC)