Wikipedia:Teahouse: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 12:45, 29 December 2022

Shortcuts

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.

To read the newest questions, skip to bottom
About the Teahouse

Most recent archives
1206, 1207, 1208, 1209, 1210, 1211, 1212, 1213, 1214, 1215, 1216, 1217, 1218, 1219, 1220, 1221, 1222, 1223, 1224, 1225

How can I make a Biography Page of an artist

Hello,

I need assistance to make a biography page for an artist. Kindly help me with this. Rohit Jawalkar (talk) 12:23, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notability criteria are at Wikipedia:Notability (people). If the subject is notable, see the advice at WP:Your first article, but the usual advice is to become familiar with editing existing articles before embarking on the more difficult task of writing a new article. - David Biddulph (talk) 12:31, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just make sure it’s appropriately sourced and you can demonstrate that the subject is notable. Read some other biography pages to see how they are written so you can see how to format it etc. Dinglepincter (talk) 18:39, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Rohit Jawalkar If you model a draft after an existing article, please make sure it's a good article. Thanks. David10244 (talk) 09:38, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The best way to think about notability is how often the artist is mentioned in other publications. The publications you want to find will be ones that the artist doesn't control and cannot edit, and should have an editorial staff. The links others have provided cover this in more detail.--~T P W 15:27, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Starting New Article in Sandbox

May I start another article in my Sandbox if my current draft has not been approved? CharlemagneJane (talk) 23:13, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you may. And you can start additional sandboxes, e.g. User:CharlemagneJane/sandbox02. -- Hoary (talk) 00:16, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To start another article in my sandbox, do I delete all of the writing in my sandbox and start over? I don't need it anymore but don't want to break any rules. CharlemagneJane (talk) 03:34, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@CharlemagneJane you can create multiple sandbox or draft pages. If you no longer need a sandbox page it's best to delete it. Simply add {{db-user}} to the page and one of the many janitors here will come along to mop it up. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:12, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! CharlemagneJane (talk) 13:05, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@CharlemagneJane If you follow Hoary's advice, in the comment that you replied to, you can create a new sandbox, and it will start out empty... and you won't need to delete anything. Either way is fine. David10244 (talk) 06:50, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I will try that. CharlemagneJane (talk) 13:18, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

About Reference and Citation

Hi, A person's awards or nominations are not in newspapers but are clearly visible on the award organization's official Facebook and Twitter account, Can they be joined as reference or citation on a article? (this is a much needed question in article I am creating). Similar sources like Facebook : ^[1] Twitter :^[2] Induvadhone (talk) 02:27, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia likes newspapers and other reliable, independent sources. How does a reader know it's not just a bored teen making up an award on Facebook? A certain skepticism is needed to protect Wikipedia from hoaxes or puffery by advertising organizations.

If the awarding organization is well-established and it's an official Facebook/Twitter/other social media account, then it's probably usable. I would consider it preferable to use their official website, if the information is there. See WP:SELFPUB and Wikipedia:Identifying and using self-published works. If you can find a source, it doesn't have to be in English. – Anon423 (talk) 03:31, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Induvadhone, is the organization notable and respected and is the award they hand out notable and respected? I recently learned that at least five different organizations hand out Edward R. Murrow Awards, and one hands out nearly 100 such awards a year. I could set up a website tomorrow to hand out a new Albert Einstein Award, with you as the first recipient, me as the second recipient, and anybody who agrees with me as subsequent award winners. An award like that should never be mentioned in a Wikipedia article. What we need is actual evidence of reliable independent sources discussing this award, so that mentioning it is a benefit to the encyclopedia. Cullen328 (talk) 04:11, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nominations website link is not working or dead, only award organization's official Facebook and Twitter URLs are available. Can you tell me is SIIMA the right notable and respected award organization or not? Induvadhone (talk) 05:08, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If it's the South Indian International Movie Awards, it seems to meet our general notability guideline: significant coverage (at least paragraphs) in reliable (trustworthy) secondary sources that are independent of the subject. If you're certain this is the organization you have in mind, that's good, though most well-established organizations are expected to have their own websites and/or third-party coverage.

If the nominations website is dead, you may be able to find it in an archive such as at archive.org. If that's unavailable, then perhaps the official social media pages are usable, but I wouldn't use it for more than a brief mention. To put it another way, if it's this difficult to find record of, it probably wasn't that significant. See what Cullen328 said. Absent further documentation or news coverage, I probably wouldn't consider it to materially contribute to the notability of a person (see WP:ANYBIO and WP:ARTIST). – Anon423 (talk) 22:16, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why would a notable award organization let its website go dead? Weird. David10244 (talk) 10:19, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This main official website link looks like http://siima.in/sf.php , so i found some other sources from their official award organisations social accounts like..

can we use this official social links as reference or citation?? Induvadhone (talk) 10:43, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Look, if source reliability is at all in question, lean toward no. A good rule of thumb is that if it's actually worth mentioning in the article, some journalist has probably mentioned it. You can use social media posts made by very well-established organizations (or figures about themselves), but if you're not sure, it's easier to not include it. The difficult thing is that you probably know better the answer for this situation than we do. If you're not sure, remember the content policies and ask yourself if the addition is neutral – you can be sure it's not promotional – and trustworthy. Do what you think makes the encyclopedia better. Include content that's authoritative and leave out what's not. – Anon423 (talk) 07:28, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

Improving a Draft

Hi,

I was wondering what I can do to improve the article ( Draft:Dylan O'Donnell).

This is part of an Educational Project and my team and I submitted it for revision 11 days ago but has not been published yet.

Any help or advice is accepted. Thanks. LIUC.Camilla03 (talk) 09:59, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Others can certainly comment, but the best I can tell, Pendergast might have taken the picture, then the subject O'Donnell e-mailed it to (presumably) LIUCLucrezia03 who uploaded it to en:WP and released it under CC BY-SA 4.0. Not sure that Lucrezia has the right to do that.

(The file details say "Uploaded a work by Kirra Pendergast from Picture sent by Dylan O'Donnell via email with UploadWizard" and the "source" says "Picture sent by Dylan O'Donnell via email". LIUCLucrezia03 did the uploading. If Pendergast really took the photo and owns the copyright, then he or she needs to license it properly.) David10244 (talk) 11:03, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Do you suggest removing it?

O'Donnell sent personally the image via e-mail to @LIUCLucrezia03. It is very difficult to find photos of him online that are coherent and acceptable with Wikipedia guidelines. LIUC.Camilla03 (talk) 22:09, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@LIUC.Camilla03 It might be difficult to find a suitable picture, but it is necessary for Wikipedia to follow copyright law. If O'Donnell did not take the picture himself, he cannot license it himself for reuse here. Can a Teahouse host who knows more about this please give the right info, and the link to release a picture properly? Thanks. David10244 (talk) 06:59, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone is free to edit any article or draft, so there shouldn’t be a problem with you improving it. Cheers Dinglepincter (talk) 14:47, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you're right.

Before submitting it for review our article had a very interesting and beautiful gallery and some images, that were later removed. I did not fully understand the reason.

I asked for help because the article looks now very poor. It's a pity because we worked very hard on this project.

Maybe some suggestions or advice from other editors can be useful to improve the article. LIUC.Camilla03 (talk) 22:19, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:LIUC.Camilla03 - You write that "my team and I submitted it for revision". Who is your team? If this is a class project, who is the instructor? Robert McClenon (talk) 06:25, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Working to make Draft:Stoneface and Terminal suitable for approval

Ive been working to improve my Draft article Draft:Stoneface and Terminal .

As artists in an underground genre (trance and progressive) it makes notability from mainstream media articles difficult. I believe however they have a claim at notability through section 5 of the "Criteria for musicians and ensembles" in the guidelines. I just added citations to the releases they had under the major labels, Sony ATV, and Universal Music Group which should qualify it.

If the above does not work, might someone be able to give me a hand with this? Mystixa (talk) 13:46, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mystixa, you would have to find someone with an interest in that subject who is willing to help you. I would suggest asking around in one of the relevant projects groups. The teahouse is for answering basic questions about editing, not recruiting people to do things for you. Cheers Dinglepincter (talk) 14:53, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mystixa That answer was a bit harsh, but it's correct. David10244 (talk) 07:01, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yea it wasn't helpful at all. ..and it was also inaccurate as I wasn't 'recruiting people to do things' for me. Many other questions here are asking the selfsame question on other topics and haven't received such a dismissive answer. Mystixa (talk) 14:21, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you can ask here for assistance with an article, but beyond detailed explanations of how to do things, the Teahouse hosts don't often jump in very deep into actual article writing. Although, I have seen several of the hosts make corrections to mis-formatted references. As Dinglepincter said, the Wiki projects are a better place to look for willing collaborators.

If you don't find collaborators, you might just need to submit the article for review, and you will get feedback. I see a non-sentence "The pair met in school and where and would DJ school parties", and a sentence fragment that starts with "Head A&R". You should fix these. Good luck! David10244 (talk) 11:39, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mystixa Ping. David10244 (talk) 11:39, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Awarding a Barnstar

There's this user who I want to give a barnstar. Where do I add it? The ⬡ Bestagon ^[t] [c] 14:12, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For clarification, I have read WP:BARNSTARS which says put it on the recipient's talk page, but the recipient puts their previous barnstars on the user page. The ⬡ Bestagon ^[t] [c] 14:16, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@The Bestagon Best to stick to the convention that we normally only add stuff to other editor's Talk pages. If they want to move things to their user page later, that's up to them. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:48, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The easiest way to award a barnstar is to click on the little heart symbol next to the “add to watch list” button. There are many different types of barnstars for different things. Make sure you have selected the correct barnstar for the situation (like don’t give an admins barnstar to someone who isn’t an admin, etc.). Dinglepincter (talk) 14:57, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@The Bestagon, welcome to the teahouse. There's a heart button on the left-top of the user talk page. Press that button and it will open a message box called wikilove. Lemonaka (talk) 09:08, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

non-profit organization notability

I created the page Sourland Conservancy and it was recently flagged with "The topic of this article may not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines for companies and organizations." I originally had one citation which referenced the organization's own website but I just changed this to reference a secondary source (New Jersey Monthly). Is this change enough reason to remove the Notability template? There are 3 more citations referencing secondary sources. JoeKaz (talk) 16:00, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

JoeKaz Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. The issue is not just the sources themselves, but their content. The article currently does little more than document the existence of the organization. A Wikipedia article must do more, it must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the organization, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable organization. Nonprofits are treated no differently than for profits. "Significant coverage" is that which goes beyond merely telling about the organization and what it does; it goes into detail about its importance or significance as the source sees it. 331dot (talk) 16:05, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with @331dot and not @Dinglepincter in this case. Adding the additional reference doesn't tell us why this organization is notable. Why should we care about this organization, or take mental note of it? What sets it apart from other organizations that are doing similar work? We agree that it exists, but is planting 10,000 trees significant enough to merit an encyclopedia entry? I am not sure. David10244 (talk) 11:50, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JoeKaz, yes, your change is sufficient to remove the notability tag. Cheers Dinglepincter (talk) 17:23, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Local man: Lester M. Griffith -

Lester M. Griffith - Designed the local Friedens Flag also the Somerset County Flag in which Friedens is in........ 2600:8800:23A2:8300:157A:7807:4467:4A67 (talk) 20:27, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse. Do you have a question about using or editing Wikipedia? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:17, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@2600:8800:23A2:8300:157A:7807:4467:4A67, welcome to the Teahouse. However, I could not understand your question. Lemonaka (talk) 09:06, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Catagories

What does this mean and how can I fix it on the Ray Byars article? This article needs additional or more specific categories. Please help out by adding categories to it so that it can be listed with similar articles. (December 2022) CharlemagneJane (talk) 21:24, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, CharlemagneJane, and welcome to the Teahouse. At present Ray Byars is in only two categories: Category:1899 births and Category:1952 deaths. I assume that the Infobox put it into those categories automatically. It needs to be added to some more to group the article with other articles about similar subjects; for example Category:American motorcycle racers - but perhaps it should be in a subcategory of that.

You can add it to a category by picking the "(+)" at the end of the list of categories at the end of the article: you start typing the name of the category, and it will offer you the available ones. ColinFine (talk) 21:57, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, CharlemagneJane. How about Category:People from Beaumont, Texas? Cullen328 (talk) 22:17, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you; yes, I will try to add this category, but might need help. This is new to me. Please be patient with me. I really want to make it right. CharlemagneJane (talk) 00:04, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to add a category but it is in red at the end of the sources on Ray Byars. Can you fix it for me? I don't know what I did wrong. CharlemagneJane (talk) 00:20, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@CharlemagneJane, you may want to try Wikipedia:HotCat. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:34, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@ColinFine "the "(+)" at the end of the list of categories" is a setting that needs to be chosen, though. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:10, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you: I didn't remember that. Apologies for givng you unhelpful advice, @CharlemagneJane. ColinFine (talk) 09:39, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What's this mean

On the article revision version history section of articles what's cur and prev mean? Also, when on the page where you can see the contributions of users, what's diff and hist mean? Hgh1985 (talk) 23:57, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Hgh1985. "Cur" means the current version. "Prev" means the previous version. "Diff" displays what has changed. See HELP:DIFF and "Hist" refers to the edit history of the article. Cullen328 (talk) 00:05, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Hgh1985: Welcome to the Teahouse. Diff refers to a version of a page made by an editor, while hist will bring you to the edit history of that particular page. The first two terms you asked about should be thought of in relation to the revision, or diff, that you're looking at. Cur compares changes between the revision you're looking at with the most recent version of an article, while prev compares changes between the revision you're looking at with the one immediately before it. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 01:17, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Hgh1985, here's an annotated example of a page history:

You can find more at H:HISTINTRO. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 03:11, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Sdkb Cool chart! David10244 (talk) 07:08, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Getting URLS from Microsoft Edge Browser?

Does anybody know how to get the text of the URL of a page rendered by the Microsoft Edge browser? Copying and pasting the URL that appears in the input box(?) at the top of the page makes a summary of the sort of site appear, not the URL. For example, copying and pasting "https://www.cnn.com" yields "CNN - Breaking News, Latest News and Videos." I'm asking in the context of filling the URL field in citations. With long URLs, it's hard to type in the URL manually. I could switch to a different browser, but I am asking specifically about Edge. I've searched the archives for this question but didn't see it. Thanks. – Kekki1978 ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 00:00, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Kekki1978, I was able to replicate your problem. That is indeed annoying and unexpected behavior. One workaround I found is that it appears pasting it in some places will get you the actual URL. So if you go to google.com and paste the CNN link, it'll paste the URL rather than here where it will paste the name. You can then paste from there to the citation field. I hope that's at least a bit better than typing out the full URL manually each time! Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 03:03, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Kekki1978 and @Sdkb, it seems to be another feature added by Microsoft and enabled be default (probably for new users, since I don't have it and never heard of it until now). go to edge's settings > share, copy, and paste], then flip the URL copy & paste format default setting to plaintext. happy editing! 💜 melecie talk - 04:09, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Sdkb, thanks for finding that workaround, and @Melecie, thanks for finding that approach! Yes, I just switched laptops and am working on a new installation of Edge. Changing that setting will make things much easier. I appreciate the help from both of you! – Kekki1978 ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 07:32, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Kekki1978: Late to the party, here, but in some contexts you may have the option of "paste as" instead of just "paste". You can then paste as plain text. If Microsoft would just stop trying to be helpful, and stop fiddling with things that work fine as they are, and stop inflicting all these 'improvements' on us, the world would be a much happier and more efficient place. @Melecie: thanks for the more permanent solution. Elemimele (talk) 18:27, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Extended confirmed pages

I've almost edited 300 pages so far with my account! After I reach the 500 mark will I instantly be able to edit level 3 security extended confirmed articles or is there more to activating that privilege? Hgh1985 (talk) 00:12, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, once you reach 500 edits and have had your account for 30 days, you will gain extended confirmed user rights allowing them to edit those articles. JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 01:01, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hgh1985, accuracy is really important here on Wikipedia. You have 240 edits, not almost 300 edits. Plus, you have been vandalizing in recent days. If you do not stop vandalizing forever right now, you will never receive extended confirmed status. I hope you take this warning seriously. Cullen328 (talk) 01:30, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I will stop the "test" edits right now, but with all due respect I still feel like this is a threat, the way you wrote this message. Hgh1985 (talk) 05:37, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hgh1985, you can try to call your vandalism "tests" all you want but that does not change the fact that you repeatedly tried to damage the encyclopedia, just for the fun of it. Similarly, you can call my entirely legitimate warnings "threats" all you want. None of that changes the fact that I am an administrator, that you have been engaging in disruption, and that I will block you if I see any more bad behavior from you. Is that clear? Cullen328 (talk) 07:01, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alright Jim, if I stop the disruptive editing permanently and immediately, can you forgive me on a personal level as well? Yes or no Hgh1985 (talk) 12:01, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Time will tell. Cullen328 (talk) 19:54, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Hgh1985 Why were you making disruptive edits? What was the purpose? David10244 (talk) 11:21, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Hgh1985 You admit the edits were disruptive here. On your Talk page, you dismissed them as accidental (you "could've swore" you undid each of them). Sonething doesn't add up. David10244 (talk) 11:56, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Are these Reliable Sources?

I'm trying to expand You.com with information regarding the brand-new YouChat (looks to me like a potential ChatGPT competitor), but I found only 2 sources that seem reliable at first glance:

[1]

[2]

Are these reliable? (Sorry about this, but I am relatively new to this encyclopedia [technically not, but I've only done edits to my userspace before I did a minor edit to ChatGPT]) EeJayEss2008 (talk) 03:38, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@EeJayEss2008, both articles appear to be compilations of what YouChat and its people have said about it (unreliable). What is needed is objective reviews.-- Quisqualis (talk) 06:56, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. Waiting for the likes of The New York Times to cover this. EeJayEss2008 (talk) 06:58, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Turns out those 2 sources were the only two sources I could find. Someone-123-321 (talk) 03:46, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GA reassessment

Not sure if this is the right place to post this, but the GA reassesment for Russia has been open for over two weeks now. Is there any way I can help move this along? Firestar464 (talk) 04:43, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Firestar464, that reassessment has been open since early October. This is obviously a highly controversial topic. Is there some reason why you want to rush it along? Cullen328 (talk) 07:46, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I just personally felt that it was going on for long enough. While you definitely have a point about topic being controversial, I thought it was inactive. Didn't notice the comment by IP being new. Firestar464 (talk) 08:31, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, is this a valuable reference?

Woni Spotts has 50 articles, a BBC radio interview and classes named after her. Are these class links useable?

https://www.williamfordschool.co.uk/attachments/download.asp?file=1291&type=pdf

http://www.birchfld.bham.sch.uk/images/foryou/curriculum/2021-2022/t22/2.pdf

https://sevenmills.towerhamlets.sch.uk/year-6/

https://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/sh2-sevenmills-towerhamlets-sch-uk/media/downloads/year6meettheteacher.pdf

https://resources.finalsite.net/images/v1627062714/brightonacademiestrustorguk/adyxaivuvjifyljk4xhb/Newclassnames.pdf

https://www.schoolandcollegelistings.com/SG/Singapore/771860109498951/Dover-Court-International-School 20:49, 26 December 2022‎ TabbieCatz

TabbyCatz,the article about Spotts has been deleted twice, because Spotts was found not to be notable by the standards of Wikipedia. If much has changed since the deletion, you might want to create and submit a draft about her, with reliable sourcing to demonstrate her notability. However, her being a subject of study this year in a number of primary schools is not going to confer notability. Wait until she is written up in a major newspaper, and not just an interview. Journalists need to cover the phenomenon of Woni Spotts in depth first.--Quisqualis (talk) 06:49, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Great. It's confusing because people that visited every country have a wiki page with no media coverage, just a link to their travel org as proof of visiting every country. Thanks TabbieCatz (talk) 14:23, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I had a look but can't find reliable sources apart from interviews (these don't count for notability). As she's being used in educational resources, hopefully this will get picked up by education media at some point. I have wikilinked her name in the Jessica Nabongo article, to get her on the radar of Women in Red. Several of the Nabongo refs mention her. Tacyarg (talk) 14:56, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Linking Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Woni Spotts from 2019. Can't see the other deletion discussion. Tacyarg (talk) 15:11, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@TabbieCatz, you say,"...people that visited every country have a wiki page with no media coverage, just a link to their travel org as proof of visiting every country." @TabbieCatz, I'm not sure you're referring to Wikipedia. Can you point to one example?

There are many wikis on the Web, with a variety of standards for their articles. everybodywiki.com is an inclusionist encyclopedia on which you should be able to host your article.

Even if Wikipedia has an article with the characteristics you describe above, our standards have tightened as Wikipedia has grown to have millions of articles. We haven't managed to "clean house" yet. See Other stuff exists. Quisqualis (talk) 18:10, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks. TabbieCatz (talk) 18:13, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the travelers are on Wikipedia. I don't want their pages removed. They are using a travel org. link to prove their travels. The travel org is new and not reliable. TabbieCatz (talk) 18:15, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@TabbieCatzHow about one example, as I don't find your claim to be credible. Quisqualis (talk) 18:20, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was told the pages were created in 2016 when the rules were not as strict. TabbieCatz (talk) 18:33, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@TabbieCatz, 2016 is different from 2007. I still am incredulous regarding your assertion.-- Quisqualis (talk) 18:42, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why is Wikipedia So Biased to the Left

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Not much more to be said, to be honest. --Firestar464 (talk) 06:41, 27 December 2022 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

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.

i wonder if legitimate discussion of this question is possible. Carla Rogers FL (talk) 04:53, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you can prove that bias with empirical evidence then discussion is possible. MarnetteD|Talk 04:55, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How about you prove the sentence you posted as a reply carries any meaning whatsoever? Carla Rogers FL (talk) 05:03, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion is usually not feasible with someone who questions whether discussion is possible. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:30, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think the reason Wikipedia is bias to the left is the result of investments from governments and other wealthy entities, to pay people to promote their narrative. This is a component of an ongoing operation to manipulate public opinion through manipulation of media. Carla Rogers FL (talk) 05:11, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I suggesting your situation is comparable to Blind men and an elephant. Whoever you are, you have probably read a very select sample of the several million articles on English Wikipedia. Fabrickator (talk) 05:23, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A more parsimonious reading of the situation is that this is a garden variety troll in dire need of blocking. He iro 05:25, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded Andre🚐 05:26, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This edit alone should have resulted in a block. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:30, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

that quite a Marxist viewpoint, @Carla Rogers FL EvergreenFir (talk) 05:26, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:OWB #43 and WP:CONSPIRACY as that might apply here. Firestar464 (talk) 06:06, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Carla Rogers FL, you are perfectly free to think that the sources that Wikipedia editors have concluded are reliable are not actually reliable. You are perfectly free to think that lying disinformation websites that are trying to twist your mind are more reliable than the type of websites that the editors of one of the top ten websites worldwide have concluded are reliable, and that Wikipedia is actually lying to you. You are perfectly free to believe that down is up and black is white and that east is west and that con artists are great leaders, based on what you read online written by paid professional liars who buy mansions and luxury cars through the art of deception and the extraction of your money from you and millions like you. You are free to believe whatever deceptions you want to believe, but Wikipedia editors are much more interested in reality. Cullen328 (talk) 06:28, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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.

How do I register my company page on Wikipedia

I want to get a page on Wikipedia resembling my company profile 103.208.225.10 (talk) 06:56, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please have a read of WP:NOT. Thanks. Firestar464 (talk) 07:03, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does not have any "company pages" or "company profiles". Instead, we have encyclopedia articles about business that meet the very strict standards described at Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). There are no shortcuts. Start by signing up for a Wikipedia account, and make the mandatory Paid editing disclosure. This is required and non-negotiable. Then, familiarize yourself with the behavioral guideline about editing with a Conflict of interest. Cullen328 (talk) 07:13, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It may be useful for you to read Wikipedia:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing. If an article about our company is published on Wikipedia it won't belong to you, and it could be edited by anyone who finds a reliable source for information, even if the additional data isn't something you want to be in the article. Karenthewriter (talk) 07:38, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,@103.208.225.10, welcome to the Teahouse. This kind of behaviour against WP:COI and is totally discouraged. Lemonaka (talk) 08:42, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

??

I added information to a page with an academic citation - this was information about a historic building in on a page about Maida Vale, an area of London. The building was founded by an individual of note with a Wilipedia page, BKS Iyengar. The edit was deleted twice. Could anyone suggest what I'm doing wrong?

Many thanks! Melissaloddo (talk) 08:37, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Melissaloddo, welcome to Teahouse. According to your user talk page, someone reverted your edits thought you have conflict of interests against the subject of the article. Lemonaka (talk) 08:41, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Lemonaka Thanks for your reply. But I don't have any conflict and the information I added is cited in an academic publication by a respected writer. Should I just try again? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Melissaloddo (talk • contribs)

Yes, you could try again with an edit summary Lemonaka (talk) 08:49, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you read the edsum on the edit that reverted you first. It tells you why you shouldn't try again. - Roxy the dog 08:53, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help. I'm new to Wikipedia so am learning the ropes :) Melissaloddo (talk) 17:04, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Empty section in the Direct democracy article

In the Direct democracy article, the section titled "Electronic direct democracy" appears to be empty. Looking at the article's history there seems to have been some disputes where that section might have been accidentally deleted. Can someone check what happened to that section and where it was deleted or just wasn't there in the first place and what should be done to fix it?

Direct democracy#Electronic direct democracy CoderThomasB (talk) 09:26, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@CoderThomasB, my impression is that the section was created without content on the assumption that it would be trivial to create, as a subset of the material found at E-democracy, No one seems to have tackled it yet, though. Quisqualis (talk) 18:47, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draft possibly never released... ?

Hello, I have a new article in draft status. It has, as of today, the note saying "Review waiting, please be patient. This may take 4 months or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 3,681 pending submissions waiting for review."

So, if the drafts are reviewed in no specific order and the number of pending submissions and the number of estimated time stay on the same level... then the odds of my draft staying a draft permanently are better than the odds of my draft getting actually released some day. Am I wrong? How are you other, more experienced authors deailing with this issue? Bernhard.rulla (talk) 11:06, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Bernhard.rulla, welcome to the teahouse. The idea that "if the drafts are reviewed in no specific order and the number of pending submissions and the number of estimated time stay on the same level... then the odds of [your] draft staying a draft permanently are better than the odds of [your] draft getting actually released some day" is incorrect in reasoning because it does not take into account the amount of new drafts being submitted. I would say because there is no specific order, assuming that the queue size does not change (and that reviews are done completely randomly), the probability of your article being reviewed on the first day is as good as any day, however there are specific categories for submissions that are pending for a long time which may be patrolled/cleared by patrollers. Justi yaya 11:34, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Justiyaya Thank you for your reply to my question.

Could you elaborate a bit more on your sentence "...there are specific categories for submissions that are pending for a long time which may be patrolled/cleared by patrollers."

What/who are "patrollers"? What does "cleared" mean, will the draft be deleted?

Does my article fall in such a category of articles pending for a long time? Bernhard.rulla (talk) 17:07, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Bernhard.rulla Sorry, the wording was not really correct, I meant patrollers as in AFC reviewers who "patrol" or "clear" the category of really old AFC submissions by reviewing them so that they are no longer pending till there is no more backlogged articles in that category, thereby "clearing" the category. Drafts are not usually deleted unless not edited by a human for 6 months, the oldest pending submission right now is around 4 months. Justi yaya 17:26, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Bernhard.rulla Your draft Draft:Sandra Mae Frank has already been reviewed once and a suggestion made as to why it wasn't acceptable in November: that was done on the same day as you submitted it. The current hurdle is likely to be to show that this person is notable, so you should ensure that there are several sources that have discussed her in depth and are independent, not based on interviews. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:37, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Michael D. Turnbull Thank you very much for your reply. You write correctly that I received the first feedback on my draft article on the same day, so I guess this spoiled me. I wonder now why after the changes that I made in the meantime there is no significant response anymore for some weeks now.

My first motivation for writing this draft was, that all of the other main actors in the TV series New Amsterdam (2018 TV series) have their articles, just not this actress. So, would it be a good way to proceed to compare in which way these articles are different from my draft article?

Concerning the sources I am referencing, I have now cited eight different sources (enough or not for "several"?) which are not editable, have an author noted and are mostly no interviews. Oh, one is an interview. I will first delete it, look for a better source and then provide that source or leave the point out. Bernhard.rulla (talk) 16:59, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Bernhard.rulla, yes, it would be of benefit to compare your article to the articles for the other characters in that show. Most especially, compare the types of sources used to support the content, and note the age of the articles, as they may have existed prior to their subjects' work in New Amsterdam. Quisqualis (talk) 19:01, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Quisqualis Thanks a lot for your feedback. You have given me a further idea of what to pay attention to. I am now collecting bit by bit all these hints. Would it not make sense to add them to the topic of source reliability? Yes, "outdated" is mentioned there, but the articles that I am citing are not from 1950.

I am eager to learn, just these criteria sometimes are so fuzzy and I am a "is/is not" kind of guy.... Bernhard.rulla (talk) 10:10, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In reply to your wondering why it happened, Bernhard: you'd have to ask the specific reviewer, but it is noticeable that the more work it takes to review a draft, the longer it often takes. Many drafts are so obviously inadequate that a reviewer can pick them up and immediately decline them. A few are obviously satisfactory, and a reviewer can quickly accept them. Most take more work, which requires a reviewer to decide to put in the time to look at them. (This is not a comment on your particular draft, which I haven't looked at)> ColinFine (talk) 09:48, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@ColinFine Thank you for your reply. I understand that long drafts take longer to review. My draft is quite short and I hope it will get more contents from other participants. The topic of notability is important but also quite fuzzy: at which point is the status of someone/something "switching" from "not notable" to "notable" ? I will search / learn further. Bernhard.rulla (talk) 10:20, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Like many things in Wikipedia, Bernhard, this is a judgment call, and editors may disagree. Usually if one reviewer accepts a draft another won't dispute that judgment; but it can happen. (Also, even once a draft is accepted, new pages patrol have still to look over the article, and may push it back to draft for other reasons). ColinFine (talk) 22:12, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Editing image in the Dick Pic page

Hi, I tried editing the image in the dick pic page but it said that my upload might be unconstructive. How can I change the image to my own edit? Orangeshirt122722 (talk) 12:05, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Orangeshirt122722 This seems to have resulted because you tried to change the picture on Commons at Commons:File:Self_portrait_-_Just_another_head_shot.jpg, presumably to change that image to one of your own. You hit an edit filter because you can't just upload any old new picture on top of an existing one. You would have to upload your new image under its own file name and then justify why it should replace the existing picture in the article Dick pic by discussing that on its Talk Page. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:30, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would have to upload my image under its file name where? Under commons? Orangeshirt122722 (talk) 20:45, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Under a new file name. At Commons, if you took the picture and want to release it. David10244 (talk) 12:07, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Readers of this thread may enjoy this media-coverage: WHOSE DICK IS THAT ON THE WIKIPEDIA ‘PENIS’ PAGE?. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:51, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are links that one really shouldn't be tempted to follow when using institutional/employer PCs... Elemimele (talk) 18:19, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fine journalism on a weird topic, I thought. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:13, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

N ... S ... F ... W! Uporządnicki (talk) 15:21, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please read c:commons:Nudity before uploading these photos, There are too many photos of dicks on Wikimedia Lemonaka (talk) 17:37, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly, OP blocked for WP:IDHT Lemonaka (talk) 11:23, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

question about composer and music director guidelines

if the subject has composed music for two telugu movies, and released in theatres and has featured in multiple reliable major newspapers, can WP accept the article under Wikipedia policies and guidelines? Induvadhone (talk) 12:16, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Induvadhone: Welcome to The Teahouse! For the most part, WP:NCOMPOSER has the answers you are looking for. Was the movie featured in multiple major newspapers, or was the music? If the latter, then perhaps. But notability is not inherited, so just having the movies being notable does not confer notability on the composer of some of the music of those movies. UtherSRG (talk) 16:33, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

thank you for ur valuble answer. Induvadhone (talk) 16:38, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How can i tell what a credible source is?

Are any of these credible sources and, if not please share the list of credible sources so I can know in the future. Is it just online news? Please notate the "credible" sources and all of their forms.

List of sources

Thanks! 2600:8802:3A12:E700:E1D8:F4B:925C:B2A (talk) 15:06, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and welcome. I can say that IMDB is not considered a reliable("credible") source as it is user editable. Reliable sources generally have a reputation of fact checking and editorial control. It may help you to read WP:RS as well as to view a list of commonly used sources and evaluations of their reliability. 331dot (talk) 15:10, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources Karenthewriter (talk) 15:11, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! TabbieCatz (talk) 15:48, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at some of these earlier after seeing and responding to your question about Woni Spotts. There are some sources here I think are reliable, but the problem for Spotts specifically is that interviews don't count for establishing notability. So https://travelnoire.com on a brief look seems ok to me - the name of the article's author is given and there is no indication that the content is promotional or paid for. But, again for Spotts specifically, the article I was looking at was an interview. You might find WP:Interviews useful (note that it is an essay and doesn't have policy status). I will add also that https://www.fotolog.com/woni-spotts looks as if it is a synthesis of interviews with Spotts which were published in other sources, so isn't additional coverage. Re the Sage Journals link, I would expect that to be a reliable source, but without the link to the actual article it is difficult to say. It could be reliable but not significant coverage of the subject. Apologies if I have got the wrong end of the stick and you are not evaluating these sources with a view to Spotts. Tacyarg (talk) 16:23, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If the Sage Journals article is this one, that seems reasonable coverage of Spotts from an independent and reliable source. The author says less about Spotts than Nabongo, but does discuss Spotts, particularly towards the end. Another couple of sources of this quality and I think Spotts would not be at risk of deletion again. Tacyarg (talk) 16:35, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Woni Spotts has a lot of coverage but it's difficult to tell what is acceptable. I'd like to create an article because she was overlooked for an Instagram personality. She was never allowed to provide verification but it's all on her page along with most of the coverage. https://www.wonispotts.com/media CNN and other outlets were forced to acknowledge Ms. Spotts. https://face2faceafrica.com/article/with-173-of-195-countries-visited-this-ugandan-woman-is-set-to-be-the-first-african-to-travel-the-world Thank you for all of your advice. TabbieCatz (talk) 17:42, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@TabbieCatz, I fear you misconstrue what Wikipedia is for. Wikipedia is a serious encyclopedia, and not a back-up plan for when a subject is overlooked by Insta. Rather than spin your wheels with Wikipedia right now, consider the possibility that it may be WP:TOOSOON for an article on Spotts, and wait for any major media coverage to be published. Not every interesting and popular person meets the criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia. Patience.-- Quisqualis (talk) 19:17, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up questions to archived topics

Hello, I had some follow-up questions to a topic of mine, that was answered. I only found it in the archive and clicked on the "reply" button available. Now I see that my questions were deleted with a comment "Reverted new user modifying archives": so my guess is that follow-up questions to archived topics are not possible. I think of the following possibilities for me in the future:

Ask follow-up questions faster, before the topic goes into archive
Open a new topic for my follow-up questions

Please advise.

I think it is strange, though, if follow-up questions of that kind would not be tolerated, but a reply button is provided nevertheless.

Bernhard.rulla (talk) 16:28, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I already found the answer to my question, at the top of the archive page. No further answer necessary, thanks! Bernhard.rulla (talk) 17:16, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Assistance With Newfold Digital Article Draft

Hello, all! Posting on the Teahouse to request help with Newfold Digital – as disclosed on my user page, I work for Newfold Digital.

For some quick background, I originally posted here on the Teahouse several months ago to request assistance creating a draft for a new article about Newfold Digital, a large holding company in the web presence business, which owns companies like Bluehost, Web.com, HostGator, Network Solutions and many more. Newfold Digital was formed from the combination of the holding companies Endurance International Group and Web.com Group; these holding companies no longer exist as a result (although the Web.com brand, which is distinct from the former holding company bearing its name, still exists).

I received assistance from a very helpful editor, and with his extensive help, put together an article draft. It was declined once, and I worked with that same editor to make improvements to the sourcing. It has been declined again, today, and so I am reaching out to the Teahouse in hopes of getting someone with interest in the industry/subject to take a look with a fresh set of eyes and let me know what I’m missing. I am very new to Wikipedia and would greatly appreciate any insight or guidance from a more experienced editor.

There are some key points I am confused on, that I hope to get some clarification on so I can make edits:

1) Notability. I believe Newfold Digital is notable based on the sources provided, which indicate it is the parent company for dozens of brands, many of them quite prominent in the web presence industry. Endurance International Group and Web.com each have their own Wikipedia pages, many of the brands under Newfold Digital have their own Wikipedia pages and all of these were evidently deemed notable; shouldn’t Newfold Digital, as the parent company of those brands and the combination of the holding companies that previously owned those brands, be even more notable? The sources provided for the article outline this ownership and the relationship between Newfold Digital and the previous holding companies.

2) WP:TOOSOON. The company has been around for nearly two years and there are over a dozen independent sources provided to speak to its notability; at what point is it no longer too soon? I feel there is some urgency here, because Endurance International Group and Web.com Group no longer exist; with millions of customers served by the brands under Newfold Digital, I feel there is a public interest in having information about the current company available on Wikipedia, rather than information about companies that ceased to exist nearly two years ago.

3) Routine sources – I am not sure what makes the sources provided ‘routine;’ coverage about web presence companies is rarely splashy or sexy; it is a large industry in terms of revenue and number of customers, but not something the New York Times, for example, is likely to report on with any frequency. Many of the brands under the Newfold Digital umbrella have their own articles with similar sourcing, and it is unclear to me how the sourcing could be improved in this regard. The sources provided are industry-specific, but credible, along with some local sources based in Jacksonville, Florida, because the company is based in Jacksonville, Florida.

4) Adding a mention of Newfold Digital to the sub-brands/holding companies – the last editor to comment on the article suggested adding a mention of Newfold Digital to the Web.com page; but Web.com is only one of the many brands Newfold Digital owns, and it would need to be added to all of them. It seems odd to me to mention a company on dozens of articles and have no article explaining what the company is, why it exists or what it does.

5) Reader experience. Ultimately, I am concerned the current reader experience on this subject is a poor one; at best, a reader who wishes to learn more about this company that owns many prominent brands in the web industry can read about a holding company (EIG) that hasn’t existed for nearly two years, with a brief note about the new holding company and no further information. I feel this is a poor reader experience, and one I believe the new article will rectify. I am not sure how adding a note about Newfold Digital to a number of existing articles without an article to link back to improves this experience.

I would appreciate any insight the editors here on the Teahouse would be willing to provide. I am open to taking any action to improve the article, and any help would be greatly appreciated! Zach at Newfold (talk) 17:15, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Zach at Newfold, I've checked the first six references in the article. One of them is behind a paywall, but the other five all report on what senior employees of the company have said, and so don't count as independent and don't contribute to establishing the subject as notable. If some of the other sources you cite are independent, you could consider removing some of the non-independent ones, so as to make the good ones easier for a reviewer to find. Maproom (talk) 17:30, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking a look @Maproom! Just want to make sure I understand – any article that includes a quote from company figures is not independent? Even if the outlet is independent/not owned or paid by the company in question and is just reporting on them? Isn't it pretty common for news articles to include quotes from their subjects? Zach at Newfold (talk) 18:39, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Zach at Newfold, you're correct that quotations are very often found in news and feature articles. There is a difference between using a pithy quote and simply being a conduit for the words of the subject. When it seems like we are transmitting "from the subject's lips to Wikipedia's pages", we have to draw a line. Quotations don't make a source verboten, but they can be a tipoff that the media being sourced are just echoing interviews, press releases, Twitter and the like. Hope this helps. Quisqualis (talk) 19:23, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response! That seems like a tough distinction to make. Is there a set of guidelines on this? I guess my confusion comes from the fact that these are independent media sources... the Jacksonville Daily Record, for example. It's a weekly newspaper, it publishes articles of interest to people in the Jacksonville area. If it publishes an article about Newfold Digital, and includes a direct quote from an executive, I don't see how that compromises the independence of the source. Would an article from a national newspaper of record like The New York Times or The Washington Post be held to the same level of scrutiny? Zach at Newfold (talk) 22:07, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Zach at Newfold To use ColinFine's words: 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.

That's why sources that are mostly interviews are not great. It does take some getting used to, as you indicate. David10244 (talk) 12:16, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your feedback! If you have a minute or two, could you take a look at this source I included in the article? It discusses Newfold Digital from the perspective of people unrelated to the company, who have chosen to publish a discussion of the company and related industry matters. Is this the type of source I should be looking for? Zach at Newfold (talk) 17:26, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To address some of your questions:

Notability is not inherited. Just because this company owns a lot of notable properties doesn't mean that this specific company is notable. The general notability guideline lays out the basics of what's required, but the sources can't be press releases or anything else company executives can arrange to put out there. Wikipedia also isn't a directory of companies; readers come here for information about notable subjects, not all subjects.

You may also want to read up on the conflict of interest and paid editing policies. ~T P W 19:36, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the response! I understand the requirement about general notability, thanks to assistance from an editor on here a few months ago. With his help, I selected independent sources, rather than press releases. I understand based on a comment above that some of the quotes may seem like they are coming directly from the executives, but I am not sure how to avoid that. Almost all articles about companies such as this one includes quotes from employees at the company. It seems a shame to exclude a fact-based article from an independent newspaper or website simply because it includes a quote from an executive. I am unsure where to find sources that do not include quotes from the subjects being covered.

I've read up on the conflict of interest and paid editing policies as well, which is why I've disclosed my conflict of interest and submitted a draft for review, rather than attempting to make edits. I want this article to be entirely unbiased and factual and am trying to get it into that state.

My efforts here are not promotional; I understand Wikipedia is not for marketing. But today there is an outdated and inaccurate article about a company that no longer exists live on Wikipedia, on the one hand. And then, on the other hand, there is a draft of a new article, which contains accurate, up-to-date information about a current, active company, which has been rejected twice. And the old article should be no more notable than the new article, because it uses similar sources and covers similar subject matter. The only major difference between the two is that one is outdated and inaccurate and one is not. So, I am scratching my head a bit here.
Zach at Newfold (talk) 22:02, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A comment, now that I've read more of the draft. Two non-notable private equity forms have formed a joint enterprise, which owns a bunch of other businesses, many of them notable. This draft is about the joint enterprise. But it's barely a thing at all, it's just a bookkeeping exercise. Maproom (talk) 20:29, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

“(…) it's barely a thing at all, it’s just a bookkeeping exercise.” Would you say the same thing applies to any parent company, joint venture, corporate group or holding company? There are many articles on Wikipedia covering those, including the outdated and inaccurate one about Endurance International Group that is currently live. One example: List of holding companies Another: Category:Joint ventures Zach at Newfold (talk) 21:45, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Zach at Newfold Please read other stuff exists. It could be that these other articles are also inappropriate and simply not addressed yet. As this is primarily a volunteer project where people do what they can when they can, it is possible for inappropriate content to get by us. 331dot (talk) 09:59, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for sharing that, it was helpful! If I'm understanding it correctly, the 'other stuff exists' argument can be valid or invalid depending on how it is used. In the case of using this argument for the creation of an article, I would want to "(...) demonstrate that articles of a similar nature and construct are included throughout Wikipedia." The joint ventures category alone includes 331 articles. There are 127 articles on holding companies based in the United States alone: Category:Holding companies of the United States That's not to say that this alone qualifies Draft:Newfold Digital for an article; I know that the sources provided need to demonstrate notability and I have been working to achieve that end. But I don't think the nature of the company should disqualify it from notability, given that articles of a similar nature and construct are included throughout Wikipedia. Zach at Newfold (talk) 17:22, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would say the same about any entity which does nothing itself except owning things, and is itself owned. Maproom (talk) 21:56, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How to qualify for an editor

Hello, I have some questions in order to clarify based on which criteria someone qualifies to relöease draft articles:

''a minimum of 500 undeleted edits to articles'' How is that number counted? Can I see my statistics on that somewhere? I do not find it on my profile... so far.
''thoroughly read and understood the reviewing instructions''. How is that understanding verified? Who verifies? On demand?
''a demonstrated understanding of the policies and guidelines ...'' Again, who verifies, after what kind of trigger?

Thanks in advance!

Bernhard.rulla (talk) 17:22, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Bernhard.rulla You can find out how many edits you have made to articles by navigating to your contributions page at Special:Contributions/Bernhard.rulla and using the drop-down menu "Search for contributions" to restrict the search to article space. There are two sorts of reviewers of new pages. One set look at draft articles and the details of how to participate is given at WP:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Participants. The second set are the new page patrollers, who check all new pages that haven't gone through the WP:AFC process. Their joining criteria are at WP:New_pages_patrol/School. Anyone who is autoconfirmed, (which you are already) can create articles in mainspace: if you do that, it will be subject to attention by the new page patrollers and will not be indexed by search engines until they have done so, or 6 months have elapsed. Bottom line: inexperienced users should always use WP:AFC. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:56, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Bernhard.rulla: @Michael D. Turnbull: Even experienced editors occasionally use AFC. I've been on Wikipedia 16 years, an administrator for over 10 years, and if I feel unsure about the notability of a topic, I can submit a draft to AFC and get some useful advice. For example, I started an draft about a best-selling author but the reviewer felt the sourcing was borderline for the author but stronger for the book, so after letting it sit for a year I finally re-cast it into an article about the book series, Gameknight999. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:11, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Anachronist Thanks so much for that reply! OK, I get it and will exercise in patience. I understand that Wikipedia needs reliable contents in order to be credible. I want to support that. Cheers from Germany. Bernhard.rulla (talk) 10:24, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Bernhard.rulla, @Michael D. Turnbull To find your edit count, it's easier to go to that Contributions page and click "Edit Count" at the bottom. That's a direct link to a page that will show how many edits you have made in various categories, and you won't have to filter. David10244 (talk) 12:25, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a valid page for me to try and publish?

I would like to draft a page for a charitable organisation called Iyengar Yoga London Maida Vale but I don't want to waste time if this seems like inappropriate content. I'd be grateful for any views. Many thanks in advance!

Rationale for page:

Iyengar Yoga London Maida Vale is a charitable centre founded by BKS Iyengar in 1983. It was the first Iyengar yoga institute outside of India and Iyengar yoga is now the most widely practised method of yoga in the world. BKS Iyengar taught at the centre and helped fund the original site and a new building constructed there which was Europe's first purpose built yoga studio. BKS Iyengar taught at the centre and stayed there on his visits to London.

The site is of historical as well as architectural interest, “One of the main theories behind yoga is that the mind must be freed from all external disturbance and distractions to achieve inner peace. This philosophy has been translated into the design” (2)

(1) Suzanne Newcombe https://www.equinoxpub.com/home/yoga-britain/

(2) The Architects Journal, July 1994 by Deborah Singmaster, "Simple approach helps yoga hall unite mind and matter"

(3) Transcription of original typed speech held at Iyengar Yoga London archive: https://iyengaryogalondon.co.uk/bks-iyengars-speech-at-opening-of-maida-vale-institute-november-1997/Melissaloddo (talk) 16:25, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply][reply]

(4) Goldberg 2016, p. 384.Goldberg, Elliott (2016). The Path of Modern Yoga: The History of an Embodied Spiritual Practice. Rochester, Vermont: Inner Traditions. ISBN 978-1-62055-567-5.Melissaloddo (talk) 17:27, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Melissaloddo, in order to have an article accepted into Wikipedia, you need to be aware of Wikipedia's notability criteria, as well as the characteristics of a reliable source. Also, please check out Your first article. Quisqualis (talk) 17:43, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much I'll have a read Melissaloddo (talk) 18:44, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable South Park character

I doubt whether Clyde Donovan is notable enough for a separate article. There are no sources that focus on this particular character, and a few of the sources on that page don't seem to mention this character's name at all. I think almost all the information is already at List of students at South Park Elementary#Clyde Donovan or List of South Park characters#Clyde Donovan (why are these two separate pages anyway?) So am I wrong or should something be done about this? 2601:640:4000:3170:0:0:0:F6D3 (talk) 18:08, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you really don't feel the article should exist, you could propose its deletion, or nominate it for deletion at AfD, instructions are available here. However, since quite a lot of characters at the main list have individual articles, you might prefer to start a discussion at the talk page of the main list to check with other editors which of the characters are sufficiently notable to need a separate article. I personally worry about individual articles about characters from fiction, which often degenerate into plot summary fan-cruft. Elemimele (talk) 18:14, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draft question

Can drafts explain information? 172.56.216.64 (talk) 19:44, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello IP user. Welcome to Teahouse. I do not quite understand your question. What information specifically? To understand what drafts are see WP:DRAFT. It's a space to make experimental/test edits before an article goes into regular mainspace. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 19:49, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am just asking that could have drafts would explain information to users. 172.56.216.64 (talk) 19:51, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Drafts should be articles that will ultimately explain information to readers, but as drafts, they do it very inefficiently, because they are not listed by Google or other search engines, they will not be linked from other Wikipedia articles, and they're quite hard to find (unless you know how to use the Wikipedia search system rather well). Think of them as unpublished articles, waiting for publication as soon as those writing them feel they're sufficiently complete. Elemimele (talk) 19:57, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Elemimele and Shushugah:

OK, question done 172.56.216.64 (talk) 20:00, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Important to note that drafts that are not edited in 6 months will be deleted. David10244 (talk) 12:27, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

help

can someone put this [3] template on my userpage? i want it the same size place etc as on the template page Allaoii ^talk 21:02, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Allaoii and welcome to the Teahouse. Copy the following code to the top of your user page:

<div style="position: absolute; top: {{{top|3.5}}}em; width: {{{size|150}}}px; right: {{{right|2}}}em;">[[File:Cabal approved.svg|{{{size|150}}}px|right|link={{{link|WP:TINC}}}|alt=There is no Cabal]]</div>

◇HelenDegenerate◆ 21:59, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

i was hoping to maybe get it over where my topicons are, what do i need to put in for that? Allaoii ^talk 22:11, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Allaoii: Got it. {{Top icon|imagename = Cabal approved.svg|wikilink = WP:TINC|width = 50|height = 50}} I’ve set the image size at 50x50 pixels, but if that’s too large or too small, feel free to toy with the numbers. ◇HelenDegenerate◆ 22:20, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

no i dont want it as a topicon, i want it over where my topicons are, as in i want it to look like its covering my topicons but the topicons are still legible Allaoii ^talk 22:25, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Allaoii I see what you mean. Try: {{tinc| size = 50| right = 3.5| top = 1| link =WP:TINC}} ◇HelenDegenerate◆ 22:31, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

still not working, can you maybe help me to get it like it is in the template? Allaoii ^talk 23:07, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Allaoii Something like this {{tinc|size = 125|right = 1.5|top = 0.5|link =WP:TINC}} might work. I changed the size of the image, as well as the ‘right’ and ‘top’ parameters, so that it appears over the topicons. Let me know what you think; I’d be happy to adjust it further if needed. ◇HelenDegenerate◆ 00:15, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

its still not working, is there a way i can let you edit my userpage so you can try things out there? Allaoii ^talk 02:37, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Allaoii Of course! ◇HelenDegenerate◆ 02:56, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

it still doesnt work, and please don't move things around uneceraly Allaoii ^talk 03:08, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Allaoii Which part isn't working? Also, my apologies for that. ◇HelenDegenerate◆ 19:30, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

it isnt over the topicons, could you maybe help me to get it exactly as it is in the template page? Allaoii ^talk 20:25, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Allaoii, I’m unsure of what you mean by ‘over’. Do you mean to say that the template should be on top of your topicons (covering them, like this), or in the space above them (like this line)? ◇HelenDegenerate◆ 21:29, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unreadable

Why are science articles often unreadable? Azbookmobile (talk) 21:19, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Azbookmobile Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. It would help to know if there is a specific article you are referencing. 331dot (talk) 21:24, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Azbookmobile, science articles are often made by scientists who fail to make the article easily readable. Some [featured] articles have introduction versions, such as Introduction to viruses. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 21:41, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You may find something useful at Simple English Wikipedia. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 22:19, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If there are specific articles that you find incomprehensible, feel free to point them out. Some subjects are inherently difficult, but most can be explained. Articles are often written by people with a lot of knowledge about the subject, and they often forget that readers know less. There is also the fundamental problem that Wikipedia is not a textbook, and editors here are not allowed to write things that they cannot support with references. This can make it hard to add extraneous explanation to help the reader. If it's seen as original content rather than something gleaned from sources, it's liable to removal. For the purposes of learning, I would recommend not relying on Wikipedia alone. There are many resources offered by academics on their own sites, sometimes for their students, which are more approachable (less encyclopaedic, more geared towards teaching). Nevertheless, if you find an article that you feel is unnecessarily unreadable, tell us here, and/or say so on the article's talk-page. If you're lucky, a friendly editor will agree, and attempt to improve the article. If it's any consolation, I feel much as you do, about many of our maths articles. Elemimele (talk) 22:55, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Many of our articles, particularly on mathematics, science, and medical topics, are not written to be comprehensible to a layperson audience. I have been battling this since I started editing, and getting nowhere. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:59, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Again, some examples would help so that they can be improved or tagged appropriately. Shantavira|^{feed me} 09:06, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

good to go now

Please, I believe that this page now meets all the requirements to be featured on Wikipedia. Draft:BJ_Sam

Though It was rejected before because some of the sources used wasn't independent, reputable nor reliable but now all the cited sources mentioned in the draft are from independent, reputable, authoritative and widely read sources. Please kindly review and approve this draft Aniekan7777 (talk) 22:18, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Aniekan7777: No. Not until you and User:Rubiesar comply with WP:PAID requirements, which is a legal obligation agreed upon creation of an account here. Are you the same people? What is your association with the subject? ~Anachronist (talk) 23:05, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Both accounts now blocked for undisclosed paid editing. Mike Turnbull (talk) 23:09, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Michael D. Turnbull The OP posted a "what do I do" (about getting the article approved) question to User talk:Aniekan7777, after being blocked. They declared that they do own both account names, and also the music company. And they still don't understand what "paid" means. David10244 (talk) 12:48, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, blocked. Anyway, the sentence structure is convoluted in this short article. It's hard to tell which thought in a sentence is being referenced by a footnote. The claim "the 3rd most available television network in the word [sic]" is not supported. David10244 (talk) 12:38, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How do i add pictures or images to articles?

Kindly put me through on how to add images to articles on wiki page, thanks.

SANGODINA (talk) 22:27, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@SANGODINA Welcome to the Teahouse. Basic rule of thumb: any random picture you find online is probably under some sort of copyright and can't be used on Wikipedia. Now see WP:IMAGES. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 22:53, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any photos of Champagne Delamotte that can be used on the article for it.

I'm trying to find photos of Champagne Delamotte to add that are copyright free. I don't know how to add photos either. Any help is appreciated. Hellworld72 (talk) 00:19, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hellworld72, the text of Champagne Delamotte has serious problems. Adding photos to this article would do nothing to fix those problems (or to lessen the risk of deletion). I suggest that you work (from reliable sources, of course) on the text. -- Hoary (talk) 00:27, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Volunteers

Is everyone on Wikipedia a volunteer? Is there anyone that is employed by Wikipedia? CharlemagneJane (talk) 01:12, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nearly everyone you may notice editing and participating in discussions here is solely a volunteer, although Wikimedia.org employees can choose to volunteer on their free time. Paid Wikimedia employees maintain the servers and do programming and administrative work, among other things. Quisqualis (talk) 01:19, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Are the names of paid employees public information? CharlemagneJane (talk) 01:25, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You may see some names of higher-ups on the Wikimedia.org website. The rest have no reason to be publicized there, for the sake of their privacy. Quisqualis (talk) 01:29, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So, are you saying that some employee do not fall under the "Open Records Act?" CharlemagneJane (talk) 20:09, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Some names at Category:Wikimedia Foundation people subcats. There is also the founder's talkpage, User talk:Jimbo Wales. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:43, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

When Wikimedia Foundation staffers edit, which is very rare except when discussing relationships between the Foundation and the volunteer community, you will always see "WMF" in their signatures. Cullen328 (talk) 08:50, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! CharlemagneJane (talk) 20:06, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Very interesting! CharlemagneJane (talk) 20:08, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Paid editing is against Wikipedia's rules unless disclosed properly, per WP:PAID. The vast majority of editors are volunteers. However, the Wikimedia Foundation runs and hosts Wikipedia and other Wikimedia Projects. Their employees are paid and will have "WMF" in their user signatures. Iscargra (talk) 10:33, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you; this is interesting to know. CharlemagneJane (talk) 20:05, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi.

I wanted to know that is my article eligible or should I make some changes? Draft:Fit India Quiz-First Edition

I made an article today, is it eligible for being a proper article now, made some changes. Manan Sethia (talk) 08:41, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Manan Sethia. A topic is considered notable when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. As far as I can see, none of the references now in your draft meet that rigorous three part standard, so it seems unlikely that your draft will be accepted at this time. Cullen328 (talk) 09:01, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But, how can I make it more independent? It is based on the movements and citations mentioned and as I have been a part of that quiz, I wrote it in a way that every other participant has felt. Manan Sethia (talk) 09:09, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the sources and the paragraphs I have added are totally reliable, as this topic doesn't completely have an independent source, I am the first to make a source other than the news articles and government websites. Manan Sethia (talk) 09:12, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Manan Sethia You've submitted it for a review- and we don't usually do pre-review reviews- but, since you're here- You can't "make it" independent. Wikipedia is not a place to just document the existence of something and tell about it. A Wikipedia article must summarize what independent reliable sources say about the topic. If no independent sources write about this quiz, it would not merit a Wikipedia article at this time. 331dot (talk) 09:13, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, Thanks for your help🙏. New here but, will learn.👍 Manan Sethia (talk) 09:16, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Manan Sethia The draft has some cases of "it's" that should be "its". David10244 (talk) 06:59, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How can I find the references?

I did a experiment about cockatiels and came to a conclusion.Then I edited Lutino-pearl cockatiel. But later I got a messang.It says I don't have good references.There is no authoritative articles on the internet.Can you help me solve the problems?Just find some authoritative articles about it is OK.Thanks. SecondFatBudgie (talk) 10:09, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SecondFatBudgie Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. If there are no independent reliable sources that write about your experiment, it would not merit a Wikipedia article at this time. 331dot (talk) 10:12, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy link: Draft:Lutino-pearl cockatiel. 331dot (talk) 10:13, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Given that you created the draft, you are responsible for including references. The draft was Rejected because there are no references. (You writing about your experimental breeding is forbidden as a ref as being original research.) Request that an Administrator delete your draft by adding Db-author inside of {{ }} at the top. David notMD (talk) 10:38, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!I've already got some articles. SecondFatBudgie (talk) 10:58, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, SecondFatBudgie - you may have missed part of what David said, or I may be misunderstanding what you have said. But until your research and your conclusions have been published by a reputable publisher, they are original research, and may not appear in any Wikipedia article.

If you write up your conclusions and are published by a reputable publisher, then it is possible that this could be cited in a Wikipedia article. But you should not make an edit based on your publication, as that is a conflict of interest. Instead, you would need to make an edit request; then an uninvolved editor would decide what change was appropriate. depending on various factors (including how far your conclusions were different from the established understandings in the field). ColinFine (talk) 11:50, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@SecondFatBudgie Today you added text to Lutino cockatiel that had no citation to any source: this is against Wikipedia's policy that all information in articles must be capable of being verifed by the reader as being supported by the quoted source. Please go back and add the citation, or delete what you added. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:02, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your additions to Lutino cockatiel reverted (reversed) for not having a reference, and confusing whether albino or not. David notMD (talk) 16:13, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry that I didn't add a reference.But I don't think I am wrong.People call it albino because at first they think it's the result of albinism,but in fact it is not.Then,the name carried on.So that's why it doesn't have albinism,I still call it albino.Its true name is whiteface lutino.

I am sorry for my mistake.I am wondering that if I can use some Chinese references.In fact,I am a Chinese student.I came here because I want to learn English and learn more about foreign countries.So it's very difficult for me to find references written in Engligh.

I mainly translate Chinese Wikipedia to write this article.But there is no reference on Chinese Wikipedia.You can go to https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E9%9B%9E%E5%B0%BE%E9%B8%9A%E9%B5%A1#%E9%A1%AF%E6%80%A7%E5%9F%BA%E5%9B%A0 to have a look.Can I just use Chinese Wikipedia as a reference?Thanks for your help. SecondFatBudgie (talk) 00:21, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@SecondFatBudgie: Welcome to the Teahouse. It doesn't matter whether or not you think you're wrong; information has to be verified by reliable sources per policy. You are free to use non-English sources so long as they're reliable.
Can I just use Chinese Wikipedia as a reference?
You may not, as that would be citogenesis. Wikipedia doesn't pass as a reliable source for itself as content is user-generated. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:46, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@SecondFatBudgie Note that if the Chinese article itself cites sources, which it should because verifiability is a core policy across the whole of Wikipedia, then you can use these sources for the English article. You need to convert them into appropriate {{cite news}} or {{cite book}} or {{cite journal}} format and add |quote= alongside |trans-quote= parameters to show English readers how the source supports the point you are making. See the templates I've linked for the details. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:52, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please help me edit my article

Courtesy link: Draft:Anthony Golez

Hi! I have posted a draft of a biography about a certain politician in the Philippines whom I work for. I have already disclosed my employer in my userpage and I since I am not allowed to further edit the article I would like to ask for your help to edit my article. I don't know how to insert links here but I think the title was Draft:Anthony Golez. Please please help me with this so it can get published. thanks! Madona Jace (talk) 10:34, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Anthony Golez I think this was the link. I hope I don't violate any rules. Madona Jace (talk) 10:41, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@madona jace: erm, you can edit a draft. when it is no longer a draft, then you may not edit the article. lettherebedarklight 晚安 10:42, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not even sure if the article meets the notability guidelines (WP:N). Someone at AfC will probably have to decide that. But, for now, you can edit the draft. You haven't submitted it for review yet. Iscargra (talk) 10:44, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I just recently noticed that I had to submit it for review in which I now did. Would it still be okay for me to edit the draft? Madona Jace (talk) 10:48, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you probably can. But your article will have to be reviewed by a reviewer at the Articles for Creation project and have cleanup work done on it by non-involved editors if it is approved. Iscargra (talk) 10:55, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Madona Jace Yes, your WP:PAID relationship to the subject of the draft still allows you to edit it up to the point that it is accepted into mainspace. If it is declined, the reviewer will specify what needs to be improved and you can address these concerns before re-submitting. Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:58, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Madona Jace. Since this is related to this previous question you asked at the Teahouse a little more than a week ago, I've asked Cullen328 (who is one of those who responded to your original question) to take a look at your draft and see if he has any suggestions for you. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:07, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The draft has been accepted by an AfC reviewer. I made a couple of minor edits but I do not know enough about the politics of the Philippines to do much more. Cullen328 (talk) 17:19, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the help! Madona Jace (talk) 01:28, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Editing football team's kits

Hello i tried to edit a football team kit (the third one). It was quite succesfull, the color kit was shown, but remains visible on the back of the kit the description of each item (for example "genoa2223t.pgn)... any help? Thanks Bertox77 (talk) 10:42, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I quite understand your comment. Do you need help with editing, writing articles, the user interface, or another aspect of Wikipedia? Since your account seems to be relatively new, you may find Help:Introduction a useful resource. Iscargra (talk) 11:09, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

to be more clear, check the third kit of the team on this page :

https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genoa_Cricket_and_Football_Club Bertox77 (talk) 11:16, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That is the Italian Wikipedia. This forum is for the English Wikipedia. All Wikipedias have different policies and management. The Italian Wikipedia seems to have a help page here on where to ask questions. Iscargra (talk) 11:29, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Company taken over by new management, but can't make any edits

Hi, we have recently taken over a company through NCLT (Indian court),and all the assets including patent, digital assets, etc belong to us by the order of court. but whenever I try to edit the page, it is edited by others to previous page. I have also put in the order of the court stating the our new ownership. the issue is that previous page seems to be very negative stating how the employees resigned, how the owner went bankrupt ( who is not the owner anymore is still shown to be the owner) and company was dysfunctional. I want to edit that page and show that who are the current owners and we are back into production , is there any way I can get that old page down and get a new one? thanks in advance Sanchitsekhwal (talk) 10:51, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia articles are not owned by the subjects of their articles. You did not buy the article when you bought the company. See WP:COI. All editors here have to abide by all Wikipedia policies on editing, including subjects of articles when it comes to editng those articles. He iro 10:54, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, but how can I make edits to that page. they keep on removing the edit. I am citing the order of the court also. pl help Sanchitsekhwal (talk) 10:59, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sanchitsekhwal. I've added a welcome template to your user talk page that contains (blue) links to various Wikipedia pages that you might find helpful. Please take the time to read through these pages because I believe they will help you understand some things about Wikipedia that you might not know and how to proceed in making changes to the article about your company. You might also want to take a look at Wikipedia:Ownership of content because it further clarifies what Heiro mentioned above about "owning" pages. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:03, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Sanchitsekhwal Your contribution history shows no edits except here at the Teahouse. Which article are you referring to? The correct way for editors who have a WP:PAID relationship to a company to suggest changes to the article is to make {{edit request}}s on its Talk Page, for non-involved volunteers to decide what should be included in the live article. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:06, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Sanchitsekhwal, and welcome to the Teahouse. One of the reasons why you should not edit that article yourself is that you may be tempted to remove or reduce the "negative" material in the article. Wikipedia will not remove that part of the company's history just because the owner wants it removed; but if you make an edit request with a reliable source that says that the company is under new ownership, the article can certainly be edited to say that. What it may not say, until there is a reliable independent source to cite, is anything about the company's intentions or behaviour since it was taken over. ColinFine (talk) 21:14, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How to recover my Sandbox

I foolishly "Published£ the content of my Sandbox when I wished to simply "save" my work. I have now, quite rightly, had it declined twice. I seem to need to have the text deleted so that I can again access an empty Sandbox. How can the current content be deleted? Many thanks Stevepem (talk) 12:21, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Stevepem. You can simply WP:BLANK your sandbox if you want to start working on something new. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:25, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Very many thanks for your swift reply. I will try to do that. Stevepem (talk) 12:29, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again Stevepem. You may and probably should remove all of the content from your sandbox. There's no need for the AfC decline notices and comments at the top of the page. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:45, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

do i need permission to cut a copy this info to face book

Added this line Subject: May i ask this Q: Would anyone of you non bots know do i need permission to re-post for public use and privet use. And or to copy and paste this search for Wikipedia, (below) Article copied Via cut and paste from: Wikipedia site from a originally generated popup window from Wikipedia home page.To my both public and or privet, Face book page status FEEDS or REPLY INPUT FEED on my Face book site. From Wikipedia and their affiliates END of Q: Original martial from: Wikipedia.org/ END. START: OF MY CUT AND PASTED (Following) Article,] (BELOW). Wikipedia is not for sale. A personal appeal from Jimmy Wales Please don't scroll past this 1-minute read. This Wednesday, December 28, as 2022 draws to a close, I humbly ask you to reflect on the number of times you visited Wikipedia this year, the value you got from it, and whether you're able to give $2 back. If you can, please join the 2% of readers who give. If everyone reading this right now gave just $2, we'd hit our annual goal in a couple of hours. The price of a cup of coffee is all I ask. Wikipedia is different. No advertising, no subscription fees, no paywalls. Those don't belong here. Instead, the Wikimedia Foundation relies on readers to support the technology that makes Wikipedia and our other projects possible. Being a nonprofit means there is no danger that someone will buy Wikipedia and turn it into their personal playground. If Wikipedia has given you $2 worth of knowledge this year, please donate now, it really matters. 2601:18C:4201:3F60:0:0:0:FBD5 (talk) 14:10, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anything you find on Wikipedia can be used freely. ~T P W 15:02, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Reusing Wikipedia content. And no, contrary to what True Pagan Warrior wrote, not everything you find on Wikipedia is freely licensed. Media files in particular, might not be freely licensed, but rather hosted here under the US Fair Use doctrine, and using them elsewhere might be copyright infringment. Victor Schmidt (talk) 15:53, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You want to copy the Wikimedia Foundation's appeal for funds, to a Facebook page? First, the Wikimedia Foundation has lots of money, the wording of the above notwithstanding. Second, just FYI, the volunteer editors here at Wikipedia are not involved in the fundraising (we have no control over it).

I suppose you could copy that text to FB. I'm not sure if the "donation link" will survive being copied to another domain. But good luck! David10244 (talk) 07:06, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting Peer Review

I wanted to try out peer review for a draft I'm working on. As instructed in the directions I added {{subst:PR}} to the top of the article's talk page and saved it, producing a message of "This template should be substituted on the article's talk page." What does that mean? It's already on the talk page!? Iguana0000 (talk) 14:43, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Iguana0000: The peer review process is not for draft articles. If you go to Draft:Welfare Colonialism, you will see "Review waiting, please be patient.", indicating that the draft has already been submitted for review via the articles for creation process. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 14:47, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's not clear whether the "Welfare Colonialism" of the draft refers to

Investment by wealthy organisations in poor communities, or to
the belief (or fact, or theory) that such investment generally turns out to have bad consequences for the communities.

The draft needs to be clear on this, and to use the term consistently. Its current state suggests PoV writing, by someone who believes that the results of such investment must be negative. (I agree with this belief. But it shouldn't be stated in Wikipedia's voice.) Maproom (talk) 16:50, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Creating a Wikipedia page for my father, a published author

My father (Bernard J. Packer) is the author of 12 novels, 4 that were published in the 1970s and 1980s, and the last eight self-published and available on Mr. Bezos's platform.

The author has led an interesting life, traveled extensively, and the film rights to his first published novel were opted, though the powers-that-be in Hollywood decided to produce "The Boys From Brazil" and shelved my father's's darker, twistier revenge plot.

I have the text (biographical data) and external links prepared. Are there Wikipedia contributors willing to complete the entry (even for a minor fee)? He's 89 years of age and deserves a modicum of recognition. I run two small companies, and as the sole employee, am hesitant to undertake too many projects right now. Language Service (talk) 16:22, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, @Language Service welcome to the Teahouse, I strongly advice you not to do so, because this is clearly WP:COI Lemonaka (talk) 17:29, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Language Service, I do understand what you're trying to do, and it's admirable, of course. So I'm going to try to be tactful--a quality for which I'm not noted. I'm afraid that one does not get a "page for oneself" on Wikipedia to achieve recognition. It's really more the other way around; if one has attained recognition, someone might then write an ARTICLE ABOUT that person. Wikipedia is ideally one of the last places to give someone recognition--after they've been recognized by others. And then, it won't be a "page for" your father, because neither you nor your father will have any control over it.

I see someone put a notice on your own talk page about paid contributions; you responded that you are not being paid and don't expect to be. I wonder if someone put that there because of this (it WAS a "canned" notice), where you proposed paying a small fee to a contributor. That, of course, would entail some contributor working for a fee--for someone, you, with a direct interest in the subject. The ideal contributors to Wikipedia are all volunteers, and many of them frown on people who get fees to contribute (and many of those who take fees are scam artists, anyway). Uporządnicki (talk) 18:00, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Language Service. First, I would like to welcome you to the Teahouse and thank you for coming here to inquire about an article about your father rather than attempting to write an article first. Much of what is said above is very sound advice and I would recommend you consider it before making a decision. There is nothing on Wikipedia which specifically forbids you from writing a Wikipedia article on your father or assisting other editors with writing an article on your father provided it is written in a neutral and encyclopedic way cited to reliable and verifiable sources. Like my fellow editors above I would caution you though, that neither you nor your father would have any control over what was written at any given time. This could lead to much heartache and consternation for both you and your father so you both should weigh and consider that. The concern with you authoring such an article would be your closeness and obvious fondness for your father. I can tell you love him because you are here wanting him recognized for what I am sure has been a very successful and truly remarkable life. Because of that fact it may be difficult for you to maintain a neutral position. That isn't a bad thing. It's actually commendable and admirable but makes you a terrible source. I learned long ago that something's worth and value is not dependent upon whether it has a Wikipedia article or not, neither is it's truth confirmed or denied by it. The articles in this encyclopedia are primarily supposed to be what reliable sources say about a subject (i.e. notability). Please do not pay someone to write an article about your father. I fear it will not go as you hope and I would hate to see you or your father affected negatively. --ARose Wolf 18:30, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

can i re post this info from a popup window i received when i loaded Wikipedia home page.

Added this line Subject: May i ask this Q: Would anyone of you non bots know do i need permission to re-post for public use and privet use. And or to copy and paste this search for Wikipedia, (below) Article copied Via cut and paste from: Wikipedia site from a originally generated popup window from Wikipedia home page.To my both public and or privet, Face book page status FEEDS or REPLY INPUT FEED on my Face book site. From Wikipedia and their affiliates END of Q: Original martial from: Wikipedia.org/ END. START: OF MY CUT AND PASTED (Following) Article,] (BELOW). Wikipedia is not for sale. A personal appeal from Jimmy Wales Please don't scroll past this 1-minute read. This Wednesday, December 28, as 2022 draws to a close, I humbly ask you to reflect on the number of times you visited Wikipedia this year, the value you got from it, and whether you're able to give $2 back. If you can, please join the 2% of readers who give. If everyone reading this right now gave just $2, we'd hit our annual goal in a couple of hours. The price of a cup of coffee is all I ask.

Wikipedia is different. No advertising, no subscription fees, no paywalls. Those don't belong here. Instead, the Wikimedia Foundation relies on readers to support the technology that makes Wikipedia and our other projects possible. Being a nonprofit means there is no danger that someone will buy Wikipedia and turn it into their personal playground.

If Wikipedia has given you $2 worth of knowledge this year, please donate now, it really matters. 2601:18C:4201:3F60:0:0:0:FBD5 (talk) 16:43, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you posting essentially the same question twice to the same page, within the space of a few hours? Uporządnicki (talk) 17:01, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And there are answers to the first posted question, above. David10244 (talk) 07:09, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need permission, but I urge you to first familiarize yourself with Wikipedia finances in order to understand more of the context before your Facebook friends politely point this out to you. Shantavira|^{feed me} 17:02, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Article Creation

Courtesy link: Draft:Marius Andrei Feder

Hello here, I a new editor and iIcreated my first article ,but it was not accepted ,and iIdont' seem to get the reason for it.

Thanks for your help in advance. QDJ22 (talk) 18:52, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello QDJ22 and welcome to the Teahouse. The reason given is in the edit summery of the decline. [4] --ARose Wolf 19:07, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, QDJ22, and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm afraid that you have made the extremely common mistake of assuming that, because Wikipedia is "the encyclopaedia that anyone can edit" that means that anyone can create a new article without studying what this involves. This usually leads to a lot of frustration and disappointment.

I always advise new editors to spend a few months learning how Wikipedia works by making small improvements to existing articles before they try it. (I see you did spend a day making small improvements; but copy edits, while they are important, will not give you a chance to learn anything significant about Wikipedia's policies).

Please read WP:notability. I observe that not one of your sources meets the triple requirement of being reliable, independent and having significant coverage of Feder. ColinFine (talk) 21:28, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jim newton article deleted

Hi there, I was working on an article about Jim Newton and was wondering if I could get some help on finding independent sources that would allow the article to meet the necessary wiki criteria? I thought I included enough second-hand sources, but I would really appreciate any advice you can offer! Thanks! Lauren Laurenmunro810 (talk) 19:08, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that Draft:Jim Newton (journalist) is the correct link. Karenthewriter (talk) 22:38, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

user creating multiple accounts

What do I do if I suspect a user has created several accounts with different names in order to make it appear like more users support their position in an argument about an article? Red Slapper (talk) 19:25, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:SPI. Shantavira|^{feed me} 19:35, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Should a WikiProject be created that focuses on a single aspect of an article?

Hey. I was considering making a WikiProject based on adding audio files to people's infoboxes. However, I'm not sure if that function would be critical enough to warrant a WP. Additionally, if I recall correctly, WPs require deticated articles, and unless we're willing to slap a WP Voices in Infoboxes banner in the talk pages of people born in the past 150 years, I'm not sure if this is a critical topic that requires the formation of a WP. I primarily wanted to establish one since I was starting to add audio files to biographical articles and wanted aid from fellow editors to hasten the process. Should I still form a seperate WP or should this matter be relegated to either WP Biography or WP Infobox? Knightoftheswords281 (talk) 19:47, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Review of draft: Larry Packer

Hi - How do I get someone to review my draft article on Larry Packer and provide useful feedback. My previous attempts to publish were denied. I've addressed all the issues as I see it. Thank you, Phil Hildenbrand

CMScrapbook (talk) 19:49, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, CMScrapbook. I guess this is about User:CMScrapbook/sandbox. Your draft is filled with promotional language and name-dropping, which violates the Neutral point of view, a core content policy. Vast swathes of your draft are unreferenced, which violates Verifiability, another core content policy. In other words, the draft needs a lot of work before it can be accepted. What is your relationship with Larry Packer? Cullen328 (talk) 21:23, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can one link to a specific portion of a graph via redirect?

Hey y'all. I'm working on the article List of Generation Z slang and I was wondering if it was possible to create redirects that direct the reader towards specific entries in the graph (e.g, [[Rizz (slang}]] to the part of the graph where Rizz is actually mentioned, rather than just redirecting towards the article)? I'm primarily asking this to better format the disambiguation pages for a lot of these terms. Knightoftheswords281 (talk) 20:09, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

{{Anchor}} should do the trick! DecafPotato (talk) 20:39, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Approving draft for entry about the film Esme, My Love

Hi there! I have a draft wikipedia page for a movie, and I'm hoping to get it live: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Esme,_My_Love It seems to meet all the requirements-- can someone help with this? Thanks! 98.116.59.83 (talk) 21:18, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IP user, welcome to the Teahouse. The draft is waiting for review, but there is nothing to prevent you from editing it in the meantime. --bonadea contributions talk 22:57, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Largest Women's Only Riding Club is Wind Sisters International

Largest Women's Only Riding Club is Wind Sisters International and nobody is reporting this correctly. Linda Begin has a facebook group and they are fully organized and patched internationally, estimated to have 5500 members. 174.112.171.182 (talk) 22:06, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse. Did you have a question about editing or using Wikipedia? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 23:27, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, IP editor. If Wind Sisters International meets our essential notability criteria for organizations (see here), then it may merit a page in Wikipedia. In that case, you are welcome to start working on a draft article and then submitting it at Articles for Creation.

Notability is the bar here - meaning that any subject must have been written about in detail and in depth by totally independent sources. We never base pages on the existence of a group's own website or FB page, nor what it or its fans or members say about itself. If those Reliable Sources don't exist in print or online, then it would not merit a page. Does that address your concerns? Nick Moyes (talk) 23:42, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn a Speedy Deletion Please!

Hi, could someone please remove this "Speedy Deletion" from my page! I can't really enjoy Wikipedia until this is gone, made when I was just starting. Thanks, HistoryIsKeytoKnow. HistoryIsKeyToKnow (talk) 22:12, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello HistoryIsKeyToKnow, and welcome to the Teahouse. I presume you are referring to a speedy deletion notice on your userpage which resulted in it being deleted on 28 November by an admonstrator named Explicit? These edits (though not fitting in with what we permit on userpages) were totally innocuous and are only visible to administrators like them and myself. They are not of any concern to anyone, and do not - and will not - reflect badly on your editing habits. But neither do they fall within the criteria for total removal through WP:OVERSIGHT. Just don't fret, and move on, now adding whatever you wish to your userpage that does conform to guidance available at WP:USERPAGE. Hope this helps, Nick Moyes (talk) 23:31, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If the notice on your talk page is bothering you, just edit your talk page and remove it or WP:ARCHIVE if you want to take the time to learn it now. WP:OWNTALK if you want to learn more about your user talk pageSlywriter (talk) 23:50, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Start article

How can I make a start arcicle better? Should I leave it alone and go on to the article that I have to offer? CharlemagneJane (talk) 00:48, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

CharlemagneJane you look for good reliable references that contain information not in the article and add new sentences in appropriate places. Or, if the article has a sentence that seems rather awkward, you can rewrite the sentence so that it is easier to understand. Thank you for wanting to improve Wikipedia articles. Karenthewriter (talk) 02:40, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you'd like to read some tutorial instructions you can go to Help:Introduction, which also has links to other helpful information for beginner editors. I hope this helps. Karenthewriter (talk) 02:50, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much. CharlemagneJane (talk) 04:33, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, CharlemagneJane. I assume that you are taking about Ray Byars and Tommy Byars. Always let us know which article you are talking about. Both articles have single sentence lead sections. According to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section, the lead section should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies. The notability of the article's subject is usually established in the first few sentences. As in the body of the article itself, the emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources. So. your lead sections are way too short and should summarize the notabilty of these people in a far better way.

On the other hand, the bodies of the two articles are way too long, and include an inappropriate level of detail, some of which is unreferenced. You need to put yourself into the shoes of an ordinary reader, and trim all unnecessary and poorly referenced detail that is more appropriate to a family history website instead of a neutral encyclopedia article. You need to write in a concise fashion that is engaging to the readers of an encyclopedia, instead of overwhelming them with excessive detail, especially when it is unreferenced. Cullen328 (talk) 04:45, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I do not intend to do any more on the Tommy Byars and Ray Byars articles unless someone asks me to. I am leaving it up to you and the more experienced editors to make it better but I will try harder on my next article. CharlemagneJane (talk) 06:06, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

CharlemagneJane Many (most?) of the references for the two Byars articles appear to be to URLs for images of newspaper articles (most of those behind a paywall), so I am raising a query to those more experienced than I as to whether all this represents copyright infringement. David notMD (talk) 07:08, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If a Prod is disputed by a blocked editor

Hello Teahouse folks. I have some general questions please, that doesn't relate to any specific article. Are blocked editors allowed to dispute Prods?

If not, and a Prod is disputed by a sockpuppet of an editor who was blocked at the time, then can the article be re-prodded? Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 03:51, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MrsSnoozyTurtle. I would say no, in principle, since even an article WP:DEPRODded in bad-faith or without any reason being given is considered to be a valid deprod; thus, making the article no longer eligible for WP:PROD. Of course, there might be extenuating circumstances in which an administrator might restore a prod template removed by a sockpuppet or otherwise WP:BANned or WP:BLOCKed editor and these are covered in WP:DEPROD, but it's probably less of a hassle to simply take the article to WP:AFD and let the community determine whether it should be deleted. If the sockpuppets show up in the AfD, they will be dealt with accordingly. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:10, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. If I understand you correctly, when you mention Prod you mean WP:PROD (forum to propose articles for deletion), right? Now I may not have the right answer to your question and someone else is free to correct me or advise you in a better manner. My understanding is that any blocked editor is simply blocked from making any edits for the specified period apart from appealing the block. In short, the answer is no. Volten001 ^☎ 05:17, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Volten. To clarify, yes I mean WP:PROD. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 07:47, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm...simply said, a blocked editor can essentially not contest a prod; as has been mentioned, they can not edit. Would the sockpuppet you mention be a confirmed sockpuppet, or just someone who one thinks is a sockpuppet? And even though you said this isn't related to any actual article...it seems to be, to me at least, a very specific case. So if this is related to an article, listing it here would be helpful, as all circumstanceshave to be taken into account. Lectonar (talk) 07:53, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think both the question and answer are pretty clear. If a sock de-prod's an article it can be re-prodded. MrsSnoozyTurtle specifically stated their query does not relate to a particular article. Polyamorph (talk) 09:34, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would just add that it probably should be an account that's been confirmed to be a sock puppet and not just an account suspected of being a sock puppet. In the first case, WP:EVADE applies and edits made by a blocked editor using sock puppet accounts can be reverted when found. Before doing so, however, you should make sure the edits were made after the primary account had been blocked, and not before. -- Marchjuly (talk) 09:47, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you everyone for the advice. There is no current article that this relates to, it is just a situation that I have seen a few times in the past, so I would like to know how it works for future reference.

Marchjuly, after your latest reply, I am confused about the earlier one sorry: "I would say no, in principle, since even an article WP:DEPRODded in bad-faith or without any reason being given is considered to be a valid deprod; thus, making the article no longer eligible for WP:PROD". Are you saying that if a PROD is removed by a confirmed sockpuppet (and the sockmaster was blocked at the time of de-PRODding), then the article can't be re-PRODded? Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 10:43, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@MrsSnoozyTurtle: it's an interesting question, and my take is a little different. Of course a genuine proven sock shouldn't be editing. But there is no obligation to use PROD; in fact PROD is really supposed to be for uncontroversial deletions, with any deletion likely to require discussion going to AfD. I would take the attitude that if a blocked editor objects to a deletion, then although they have no right to be heard, nevertheless it's possible that others might share their point of view, so to be on the safe side, I'd send the article to AfD. It is unlikely that whoever closes it at AfD will have much sympathy with input from socks. If no one in good standing expresses the sock's point of view there, then the article can potentially be soft-deleted if the closing admin (in my view correctly) considers the prod-deletion invalid, and therefore the article has never previously survived a valid prod. Elemimele (talk) 11:06, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A prod can be contested after deletion and the article restored. I really don't see any reason to consider a sock de-prod any different to vandalism. Polyamorph (talk) 11:12, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@MrsSnoozyTurtle: The sentence that came after the one in my first post that you quoted begins with Of course, there might be extenuating circumstances in which an administrator might restore a prod template removed by a sockpuppet or otherwise WP:BANned or WP:BLOCKed editor and these are covered in WP:DEPROD. Does that answer your question? In principle, an article can only be prodded once; however, there might be certain cases (e.g. random vandalism) in which the removal of a prod tag is deemed invalid. Unless you're absolutely sure that a deprod is invalid and are sure that pretty much everyone else is going to see it that way, you're probably better off starting a discussion at AfD than try to re-add the prod tag. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:39, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Making articles

Ok, I have one problem: I want to create an article about the alolan tapu pokemon, but I don't know how! Please help me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.40.1.167 (talk) 04:21, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, IP editor. Writing an acceptable new Wikipedia article for the first time is a challenging task that requires a considerable amount of study and practice. If you have never played music before, I do not think that you would expect to play a public lead guitar solo they day after you bought your first guitar, would you? So, I suggest that you spend some time studying Wikipedia's Policies and guidelines, and improving existing articles. Read and study Your first article until you understand it completely. Cullen328 (talk) 04:58, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Does it need its own WP article or can it be included in another existing article. Some "new" articles have come out of existing articles that have for whatever reason been sectioned off. Search pokemon in WP and see if what you want can be placed in an existing article. If others find that a new article is neede3ed then you can pow wow on it. The important thing is not that you are the author of an article but that you have contributed. Use what you find as your temporary template and go from there. There are plenty of other contributors in WP that will advise if you have gone off track. And if you think you are going off track then come on back to the Teahouse for some guidance.2603:8000:D300:D0F:A4A9:1E1:30A5:4340 (talk) 07:14, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are some Pokémon with their own articles, but I can't see any articles about specific groups as you're suggesting. The Pokémon probably aren't notable enough to warrant their own article (see Wikipedia:Pokémon_test). You could ask at the Pokémon WikiProject about this specific issue, and I'm sure they'd appreciate your help with a lot of other work, if you're interested. HerrWaus (talk) 09:53, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

National football team names

Redtree21 has objected to the consensus reached in the football project about the article names and truncated names of national football teams. What needs to be done to either uphold the consensus reached in the football project or for the discussion to continue? This type of objection has come of late several times. I do not know if it is because the person objecting is unaware of the consensus in the project or what.2603:8000:D300:D0F:A4A9:1E1:30A5:4340 (talk) 06:12, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your first step should be to discuss the issue with the editor. Explain the consensus and provide a link to the discussion that led to the consensus. Cullen328 (talk) 07:09, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My edit includes in the summary the appropriate reference.2603:8000:D300:D0F:A4A9:1E1:30A5:4340 (talk) 07:17, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My wiki username is Tekariroyals.

Courtesy link: Draft:Baigoman

My wiki username is Tekariroyals. I am working on an article "Baigoman" which as estate in British india. It is not getting accepted. I am not able to understand the reson behind it. Tekariroyals (talk) 09:48, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tekariroyals Well, I see one point right away. I won't sit here and tell you it will get your article accepted, but it might give it a better chance. It's actually raised on your draft page.

In the "Edit" mode, move the references so that each one is immediately after the fact(s) it supports. The list of References will still show in the section for "References" (assuming you coded them correctly, and I haven't looked at that). But the little numbers will appear in the article text where they should be. Right now, you have the little numbers appearing in a string at the top of the "References" section, where they are no use. I thought about trying to help out by moving them myself, but I can't do that because I can't read the ones in Hindi. Uporządnicki (talk) 10:47, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is handwritten script acceptable (mentioned by king of Tekari Raj) and their associates? Tekariroyals (talk) 11:00, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

probably not. Most handwritten sources will be primary sources, the evidence that a historian uses when they investigate history. We don't investigate primary sources ourselves, instead we wait for historians to publish the results of their investigation elsewhere, and then we summarise the historian's publications (which are secondary sources), not the original manuscript. If you've been doing your own work on this, you'll need to find somewhere else to get it published before it can be used in a place like Wikipedia. Elemimele (talk) 11:12, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the problem is not COI, however, is your article was written without Wikipedia:Reliable sources Lemonaka (talk) 11:24, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How to make the links vanish in the final.

I have to quote a lot of hyper links, I give the links, it appears on the page with an icon which when clicked gives the image. I need only the icon. The link can vanish. For that what to do? Sreejit TK Ramchand (talk) 11:29, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

in the new King James version of the Bible and most of the words the k is different different Jr321182 (talk) 12:45, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[1] ttps://www.facebook.com/SIIMAWARDS/photos/a.653333641346417/3752098848136532/

[2] ttps://twitter.com/siima/status/1321760429794717696?lang=en

[1]

[2]

Revision as of 12:39, 29 December 2022 edit Marchjuly (talk \| contribs) Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users 106,499 edits →‎If a Prod is disputed by a blocked editor: Added cmt. ← Previous edit		Revision as of 12:45, 29 December 2022 edit undo Jr321182 (talk \| contribs) 7 edits No edit summary Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Advanced mobile edit New topic Next edit →
Line 793:		Line 793:

	I have to quote a lot of hyper links, I give the links, it appears on the page with an icon which when clicked gives the image. I need only the icon. The link can vanish. For that what to do? [[User:Sreejit TK Ramchand\|Sreejit TK Ramchand]] ([[User talk:Sreejit TK Ramchand\|talk]]) 11:29, 29 December 2022 (UTC)		I have to quote a lot of hyper links, I give the links, it appears on the page with an icon which when clicked gives the image. I need only the icon. The link can vanish. For that what to do? [[User:Sreejit TK Ramchand\|Sreejit TK Ramchand]] ([[User talk:Sreejit TK Ramchand\|talk]]) 11:29, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

			in the new King James version of the Bible and most of the words the k is different different [[User:Jr321182\|Jr321182]] ([[User talk:Jr321182\|talk]]) 12:45, 29 December 2022 (UTC)