Wikipedia:Teahouse

Eman235, a Teahouse host

Welcome to the Teahouse!
Your go-to place for friendly help with using and editing Wikipedia.

Ask a question

Question forumMeet your hostsArticles to improveBecome a host

New to Wikipedia? See our tutorial for new editors or introduction to contributing page.
Note: Newer questions appear at the bottom of the Teahouse. Completed questions are archived within 2–3 days.

Help Wikipedia

(Please remember to sign your posts on talk pages by typing four keyboard tildes like this: ~~~~. Or, you can use the [ reply ] button, which automatically signs posts.)

Are vs Is

In a recent discussion about a metallic band, I found it odd that the grammar stated: "The Mentally Ill were a punk band". I thought that the band is singular, while the members are plural? i.e. The Kingston Trio: "... is an American folk and pop music group." If you take away the "name" and merely refer to the actual organization for what it is - "band"; one would not say: "The band were ..." but "The band is ...". The Juilliard String Quartet is a classical music string quartet; not "are" a classical music string quartet - regardless of the name. Also, "Vienna Choir Boys is a choir of boy sopranos" not "are". Pentatonix is an American a cappella group in its lede. Why are certain bands like The Who described on WP in the lede as: "The Who are an English rock band" and not "The Who is an English rock band"; like "Nirvana was an American rock band"? This: "Fleetwood Mac are a British-American rock band" just does not sound right. Doesn't the same principles apply? Curious. Thanks in advance. Maineartists (talk) 23:23, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Apparently it's a British construction of long standing ("The Beatles are...") and seems to be preserved against American logical grammar. Dbfirs 23:39, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

They also pronounce aluminum: "aluminium". That doesn't make it right. Are these articles all written only by British WP editors? Maineartists (talk) 23:44, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Please take a look at MOS:ENGVAR and MOS:TIES, but in general Wikipedia doesn't have one preferred national variety of English and generally the style chosen by the first major contributor or through consensus agreed to upon on the article's tall page is the one followed per WP:RETAIN. Same goes for dates, citation style and many other things. You can always be WP:BOLD and change things you think should be change, but you might want to check the article history or its talk page (including the archives) to see whether it's something which has been discussed before. In addition, lots of editors add Wikipedia:Editnotices like {{Use British English}}, {{Use American English}}, etc. (see Category:Use English templates for some more examples ), but whether these were just added by some random editor or based upon some consensus sometimes takes a little digging to figure out. Regardless of which format/variety is used, WP:ARTCON (at least within the particular article and then perhaps to some degree with respect to other similar articles) should be one of the main things considered since mixing multiple formats/varieties of English is not a good idea. Cleaning up for the sake of consistency is probably not going to be much of an issue, but completing changing from one variety of English to another or one citation style to another often turns out to be even if done with the best of intentions. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:26, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Maineartists: errm, actually, we spell it "aluminium" and we also pronounce it "aluminium", too. We think that makes it right. But, if you really want to pick on our pronunciation, you'd be better off having a go at us for things like this. I can't offer any definitive explanation for the vagaries of the English language, but certain is/are combinations sound right, whilst others sound wrong. This sounds right to me: 'The Beatles' is the name given to a group of four lads from Liverpool who formed a popular beat combo in the 1960s. The Beatles (meaning the four lads) were the top-selling artists in the 1970s... That's my two penn'orth, anyway. Cheers, Nick Moyes (talk) 00:48, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Fascinating: Aluminum or Aluminium I learned something new today! Thanks! As for the other revelation as to "sound" versus correct terminology: I agree. In most cases, however, I do not believe it is being properly used here at WP: considering The Backstreet Boys has the same exact "sounds" (lede: Backstreet Boys is an American boy band) while your The Beatles has: The Beatles were an English rock band. Maineartists (talk) 01:59, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Our Manual of style has the valid option: "England are playing Germany", and this plural usage seems to be more common in articles on British bands. I recall a discussion some time ago, but I can't find it. Dbfirs 02:12, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

As someone put it somewhere recently, this is English Wikipedia, not American Wikipedia, so we over here in the U.S. have to live with the fact that most of the world speaks (or is it speak?) a variant of English that is different from ours. If it's consistent within an article with strong MOS:TIES to other countries, it's just something you get used to after a while. Now writing in those articles can be somewhat more challenging – it's easier to remember a valid difference in usage when you see it than it is to write with it. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 06:13, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

As a Brit, I find it annoying that this nonsense is blamed on us. I would say "Pink Floyd is a group"; and that is how I usually hear it said. Some people try to justify "are" by using "The Beatles" as an example; admittedly, I sometimes hear fellow Brits say "The Beatles are a group". But I don't believe that people in Britain generally treat singular group names as plurals. Maproom (talk) 09:54, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Rather to my surprise, The GloWbE corpus shows "The Beatles are/were" outnumbering "The Beatles is/was" not only in British sources (153:40) but also in US sources (145:20). But this may be an oddity of the Beatles, or because "Beatles" is plural anyway. Radiohead shows the pattern I expected: are/were:is/was = 45:15 (UK) 7:15 (US). Aerosmith shows 11:4 (UK), 4:10 (US). (Struggling to find other bands which are 1) well-known enough to appear in the corpus 2) with a name not appearing plural, and 3) not a word or phrase which might turn up in other contexts in the corpus.) --ColinFine (talk) 10:51, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

ColinFine: try Google ngrams. Maproom (talk) 18:01, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

ColinFine:Or this for The Who. Nick Moyes (talk) 01:58, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions of The Who, Maproom, and Metallica Nick Moyes, which give figures of 26:43 (UK), 10:38 (US); and 23:6 (UK), 7:23 (US) respectively in GloWbE. Metallica strongly shows the pattern I expected, but The Who doesn't. Not sure why you pointed me at Ngrams which a) is only books, and b) doesn't readily show the national differences which were my point. --ColinFine (talk) 10:38, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for this thorough discussion. I wonder if there is another forum to bring this to that might result in some form of policy regarding grammar. I say this because recently I saw a social media post stating: "The Two Popes" is on Netflix. Similarly, watching a Christmas episode of Two Fat Ladies, the article's lede states: "Two Fat Ladies is a BBC2 television cooking programme". There is absolutely nothing different in this statement than that of a band. Re: "The Beatles" (which seems to be the root of all evil in this), one does not say: "Roger Daltrey is a Who" like "Paul McCartney is a Beatle" so why should the lede state: "The Who are an English rock band"? Nick Carter may be a Backstreet Boy; but Justin Timberlake is not an NSYNC. Maineartists (talk) 02:13, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

This is a matter of variation between American English, which normally treats band names as singular, and British English, which normally (but not always) treats band names as plural. Band names and similar group names are plural collective nouns. Best practice is to use the forms appropriate to the national connection of the topic. In this particular case, The Mentally Ill was an American band, so should be referred to in the singular, using standard American usage, as I have done here and in the article. The great Elvis Costello played around with this distinction in his masterpiece Oliver's Army, where he writes:

"Oliver's army is here to stay

Oliver's army are on their way

And I would rather be anywhere else

But here today"

Editors dealing with these distinctions should base their decisions on the wise advice in the Manual of Style at National varieties of English and the subsection called "Strong national ties to a topic". Avoid counterproductive battles about such stylistic variations. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:39, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

That sounds advisable and reasonable in this case. I see that you have begun to administer your understanding of the matter already - re: The Mentally Ill: Revision History. Shall we as WP editors take this discussion without proper consensus to do the same: The Mamas and the Papas? I'm not saying this should be an across the board crusade; but it would be nice to have this as a throw-back in the event someone questions an edit. Thanks. Maineartists (talk) 13:02, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

It's not limited to bands – pretty much any organization seems to be treated as a plural, as if to recognize the people comprising it as the subject, not the organizational entity itself. E.g., "Selfridges have taken a decision to something_about_teapots_and_cricket." —[AlanM1(talk)]— 12:16, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

At the risk of unnecessarily keeping this discussion further going here at the Teahouse, the is/are question as it relates to collective nouns is something which is probably never going to be resolved. Even if it could be resolved through some grand meeting of the main minds of the entire English speaking world, things would probably sound strange to the somebody's ear for quite some time thereafter until the deprecated form had fallen out of use for so long a period of time that pretty much nobody remembered it ever even existing. I'd image that pretty much how any language evolves over time; after all, given all of the different national varieties of English there are in the world, I'd image that none of them or certainly not very many of them are exactly the same as that used by previous generations. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:19, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

It's a whole lot easier than all of this. Band names can be singular or plural, or collective singular, or implied plural, or ambiguous. In the case of The Beatles, it's clearly plural. In the case of The Grateful Dead, it could be an implied plural but it's ambiguous so usually defaults to collective singular. If you say Chanticleer Singers that would be plural, if you say just Chanticleer it's singular. The Mentally Ill strikes at least some as an implied plural because of the article. Make a case that it's similar to The Grateful Dead. Meg Zulick 22:03, 26 December 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zulick (talk • contribs)

Can I please use the picture of the link below? (Au Gov)

Dear senior users of Wikipedia,

Can I please use the picture of the link below? (it is Australia Government public article about ICBM technology)?
If it is acceptable, I would like to capture and add it to ICBM article of the wikipedia.

http://airpower.airforce.gov.au/APDC/media/PDF-Files/Pathfinder/PF305-Three-Stages-of-the-Inter-Continental-Ballistic-Missile-Flight.pdf > Figure 2 - Challenges faces by anti-missile defence systems during the different ICMB flight phases. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 23:53, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Goodtiming8871, and welcome to the Teahouse. I don't see any copyright notice anywhere in that document. Therefore, I'm afraid that Wikimedia assumes it is copyright and it may not be uploaded to Commons. The only other possibility is if it met all the criteria in WP:NFCC; but I think that is unlikely (it would be up to you to demonstrate that it did). Sorry. --ColinFine (talk) 00:17, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Dear, ColinFine (talk) Thank you for your kind response.

Regarding the information and link below, If I want to use it, should I ask specific licence notice from the author of the article?

Link

1) http://eprints.qut.edu.au/38364/20/CC_and_Govt_Guide_v3.2_110316_Final.pdf

2) https://creativecommons.org.au/learn/government/

(Page 33 out of total page 116) 5.8 Current licensing practices

Currently, the prevailing practice is for short copyright notices to be displayed – if at all – on

government websites.87 Government bodies sometimes endorse these short statements as

being succinct and easy for users to read. In reality, however, these statements often lack

sufficient detail or clarity for users to understand what they are permitted to do with the

material.

A survey of 130 New South Wales government websites conducted in mid-2006 found there

to be a diversity of licensing approaches and no uniform whole-of-government policy on

copyright notices.88 Eleven per cent of websites had no copyright notice at all, 8% had a basic

one and a further 8% displayed “All rights reserved” statements or stated that there was to be

“no reproduction without express permission”, requiring users to obtain written permission to

reproduce the content on the website for any purpose.89 A total of 52% of websites conveyed

“either no or few explicit permissions” other than those provided for in the Copyright Act.

90

These disparate and unclear practices do not properly facilitate Open Access to PSI.

• • • European "Public Sector Information" (EPSI) Platform Topic Report No. 13 - State of

Play: PSI Reuse in Australia

Goodtiming8871 (talk) 00:56, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes, Goodtiming8871, you would need to ask the copyright holders (who may or may not be authors of the article) to license it consistently with Wikimedia Commons' requirements. It would not be enough for them to give permission for it to be used in Wikipedia: they would have to license it under something like CC-BY-SA, which allows anybody to reuse it for any purpose, commercial or not, as long as they attribute it correctly. Furthermore, they would have to do so either publically (eg on an official website) or explicitly to Wikimedia (see donating copyright materials. --ColinFine (talk) 01:53, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

@Goodtiming8871 and ColinFine: There's also Trove which has a "Check copyright status" button (unfortunately inconclusive in this case). Interesting resource. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 03:23, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Quick sanity check, "US gov" tends to be PD (public domain) tagged with {{PD-US-Gov}}, but AU is a very different story, cf. c:project:Copyright rules by territory/Australia#Government-produced works. You can of course reference (cite) public sources, but you cannot copy them wholesale to commons without a free licence. IANAL: –84.46.52.84 (talk) 14:25, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

@AlanM1 and ColinFine:Thank you for your professional response. the site: Trove: it is interesting location for licence status. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 23:58, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Can anyone help me fix Richmond City Council (Richmond, California)?

I need to fix the citations I borrowed from the articles for the city councilmembers whose articles might be deleted or who I copy pasted the intros from. Also should the history be chronological or recent to past? Can anyone help collaborate with me here? Also does anyone have access through paywalls so I can get more sourcing from the San Jose Mercury News or East Bay Times at all? Just some questions here.Ndołkah (talk) 09:08, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Ndołkah, and welcome to the Teahouse. I will take a look at Richmond City Council (Richmond, California). I have a newspapers.com subscription, I don't know if it includes those papeers or not. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 15:58, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Ndołkah, I just took a quick look.st thing I noticed, there seems to be a lot of red links in the citations. Fir future reference, please do not include a link in a citation unless there is an already existing article to link to, or you plan to create the article pretty much right away. Red links in the body of an article are fine to indicate that the topic ought to ahve an article, but in the citations we are stricter. I notice that the first few citations are built manually, without citation templates. Is this consistent through teh article? Was that your intention?

You write above of having copy pasted the intros from other articles. It seems that you did not indicate exactly which articles were drawn on. Wikipedia';s license requires attribution of all contributions, and so when one copie3s text from one article to another, there must be a link so the contributions can be traced. Please see Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia for details. Can you please list here or on Talk:Richmond City Council (Richmond, California) the articles from which you copied text? That would help greatly.

This is a larger job than I have time for at the moment, Ndołkah, but I will get back to it later today. I hope to see the list of articles drawn on at that time. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 16:16, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi Ndołkah. I meant to answer your question yesterday, but got caught up in other things. Anyway, I was also going to point out, as DESiegel that you need to be carefully in copying and pasting content you find in other articles as explained in Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Even though Wikipedia's licensing does allow it's content to be freely used, it does requires that proper attribution be given; so, even though your using adding found in an existing Wikipedia article to another existing Wikipedia article, you need to make sure that your properly attribute the original source the article. You don't need to attribute the individual editors who originally added the content to the "source" article, but you do need to attribute the article and more specifically the version of the article you're getting the content from. Not doing this is technically a copyright violation in a sense that your violating the terms of Wikipedia's licensing.

In addition, the the copyright/attribution issue, there is also a contextual issue in what you're trying to do. Many of these individuals seem to have stand-alone articles written about them, and is in those articles where detailed information about them should be added. Of course, mentioning them by name in the article about the city council and perhaps any noteworthy roles they might have served as council members makes sense, but I think it's a bad idea to try and do any more than that; in other words, trying to create mini-bios about these people in city council article is not really something you should do. If you're concerned that some of the stand-alone articles about these people may end up deleted, then you can for sure try to improve the stand-alone articles in a way that might strength the case for them not being deleted, but you should not try and recreate (even partly recreate) these articles in the city council article just as a precaution in case some of the individual articles are deleted. The city council article can be split up into different sections about its history, but you should not try split it up into section where you simply just, once again, create mini articles about particular individuals who served as council members during a particular period. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:56, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

All right, so i wrote several of the articles and only copy pasted the into for most of them for others i copy pasted from the current version of the articles about the counsellors as a starting point, going forward i want to chronologically describe what the council and it's counsellors have been up to during each decade there is widespread coverage of a feud between Corky Boozé and Jovanka Beckels involving incivility and homophobia. Nat Bates had been on the council off and on since the 1970s Rosemary Corbin was the first woman mayor, Gayle McLaughlin the first green party mayor. I want to edit all that in. I will continue this on the talk page of the article and if you want or need more specifics i will give them there just ask.Ndołkah (talk) 07:17, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

I have added my contribution on behave of Phemex's page on my Sandbox

Sir, I need one question for you, If I create Wikipedia page and the page will relate to existing page, I can able to connect link existing to my page for the reference link?(Aureliojohn (talk) 14:02, 24 December 2019 (UTC))

Hello, Aureliojohn. It is not clear what you mean by "connect link existing to my page". Your sandbox User:Aureliojohn/sandbox contains wikilinks, so you presumably do not mean that. Do you mean a "see also" link? Please clarify what you want. --ColinFine (talk) 14:59, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

ColinFine. This is an existing wikipedia page (Cryptocurrency exchange) here's one section of Largest cryptocurrency exchanges (2018), This section have many company names included with country. Can I edit this section and add my company page name, country and wikilink? kindly find the red mark section here I can add my company name.(Aureliojohn (talk) 16:07, 24 December 2019 (UTC))

Largest cryptocurrency exchanges (2018)

Hello, Aureliojohn: if and when your draft is accepted as an article in main space, you can certainly link to it from any other article where it fits. Where the question is of adding a link to an article about a company or product, it is important to consider whether you are doing so to improve Wikipedia, or to promote that company or product; but if there is a list of companies into which this fits, it certainly makes sense to add it to the list. But you must not do that while the article is still in draft: Wikilinks from article space should not have targets in Draft or user space. --ColinFine (talk) 20:00, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Having looked at the article, I want to add something to my answer. If the article had a "list of cryptocurrency exchanges", without any specific criteria, then if Phemex is notable (as it must be for there to be an article about it), it can be added to that list. But since the list is of "Largest cryptocurrency exchanges", that is not enough. I would say that you can add it only if a reliable source (such as the ones mentioned in the paragraph) list or describe it as one of the largest. It is not enough that it reports it own figures as being large enough to feature: claims of being the "largest" anything (or any other extreme) need independent corroboration. --ColinFine (talk) 20:08, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello, ColinFine. Good to see you, Thank you for share me the wonderful guideline. If you don't mind kindly check my sandbox draft and let me know it will be accepted or I need some more changes.(Aureliojohn (talk) 21:22, 24 December 2019 (UTC))

Probably WP:TOOSOON, since Phemex was launched just a couple weeks ago. There's no way any statistics are meaningful at this point, and they're unlikely to be found in an independent source. @Aureliojohn: please see WP:COI, WP:PAID, and WP:PROMO. Thanks. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 05:01, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

@Aureliojohn: Please don't place your signature in parentheses – the ~~~~ should be the very last thing in your post. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 07:26, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Youtubers

Hi.

I just wanted to know, what is the creteria a youtuber has to meet for an article to be about them. How many subscribers they have, how many views they get, etc

thanks. Bill cage (talk) 17:35, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Bill cage, and welcome to the Teahouse. Neither number of subscribers not number of views is relevant to whether there should be an article. Articles will only be created about notable topics. Note that Wikipedia uses the word "Notable" in a special sense. Please follow the link.

The primary standard is the general notability criterion. This requires multiple (usually at least three) independent published reliable sources that discuss the topic (in this case the person) in some detail. "Independent" means not including statements by the person, nor from the person's employer, family, or business associates, nor interviews. "Reliable" means, among other things, no blogs, no fan sites, no fora, no user-generated content such as IMDB, no personal web sites or fan sites. Newspapers, magazines, scholarly articles, and their online equivalents are usually good, but the actual determination is case-by-case. Coverage should usually be continued across a period of time, also. Please follow all these links.

Another option is our guideline on the notability of creative people, which has several sub-criteria. Please read it. Note that again reliable independent sources will be needed.

I hope that is helpful. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 17:50, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Note also, Bill cage that creating an article about a living person from a blank start is one of the harder tasks hre on Wikipedia. It is easy to get it wrong. Below are soem steps that, if followed, often lead to success in creating a valid article:

• First, review our guideline on notability, our policy on Verifiability, and our specific guideline on the notability of people. Consider whether your subject clearly meets the standards listed there. Also, check if the topic is already covered, perhaps under a different spelling or in a section of an article about a wider topic. You will waste a lot of time, if you create a new article, and then find that the encyclopedia already has an article about that.
• Second, read how to create Your First Article and referencing for beginners and again consider if you want to go ahead.
• Third, If you have any connection or affiliation with the subject, disclose it in accordance with our guideline on Conflict of interest. If you have been or expect to be paid for making edits, or are making them as part of your job, disclose this according to the strict rules of the Paid-contribution disclosure. This is absolutely required; omitting it can result in you being blocked from further editing.
• Fourth, gather sources. You want independent, professionally published, reliable sources with each discussing the subject in some detail. If you can't find several such sources, stop; an article will not be created! Sources do NOT need to be online, or in English, although it is helpful if at least some are. The "independent" part is vital. Wikipedia does not consider as independent sources such as press releases, or news stories based on press releases, or anything published by the subject itself or an affiliate of the subject. Strictly local coverage is also not preferred. Regional or national newspapers or magazines, books published by mainstream publishers (not self-published), or scholarly journals are usually good. So are online equivalents of these. (Additional sources may verify particular statements but not discuss the subject in detail. But those significant detailed sources are needed first.)
• Fifth, use the article wizard to create a draft under the articles for creation project. This is always a good idea for an inexperienced editor, but in the case of an editor with a conflict of interest it is essential.
• Sixth, use the sources gathered before (and other sources you may find along the way) to write the article. Cite all significant statements to sources. Do not express opinions or judgements, unless they are explicitly attributed to named people or entities, preferably in a direct quotation, and cited to a source. Do not use puffery or marketing-speak. Provide page numbers, dates, authors and titles for sources to the extent these are available. A title is always needed. Submit the draaft when you thimnk it is ready for reviewq. Be prepared to wait a while for a review (several weeks or more).
• Seventh, when (well perhaps if) your draft is declined, pay attention to the comments of the reviewer, and correct the draft and resubmit it. During this whole process, if you face any unresolvable editing hurdles, or cannot comprehend any editing issue, feel free to post a request here or at the help desk and ask the regulars. Repeat this until the draft passes review.

Congratulations, you have now created a valid Wikipedia article. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 17:54, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

So Bill cage, keeping in mind all of the guidelines that DESiegel brought up above, I can tell you from the perspective of an Articles for Creation reviewer that I very rarely, if ever, accept drafts about Youtubers precisely because of notability concerns. Usually these articles are written by superfans, so they are full of language that paints the person in a positive light or worse they are written by the Youtuber themself (or their PR team), and thus are overly promotional (BTW, don't forget to like and subscribe). Unless the person has wide-ranging news coverage (PewDiePie, GameGrumps, Vlogbrothers) (basically if they are famous enough that somebody's grandma might know who they are) then they probably wouldn't pass. I've been proven wrong before though. Which youtuber were you thinking of? Bkissin (talk) 21:44, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

no one in particular. i just needed felt i needed to know as i'm a youtuber myself. Bill cage (talk) 10:47, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Users in Categories

Hello, in Category:Wikipedia template management you'll see under pages, A, E, L, T and W 5 different userpages. This isn't the first time I've come across this. Untill now I've left messages on their talkpages alerting those users, but now I'm seeing a bot. Am I right in assuming userpages shouldn't be in categories or should I just leave them alone? --Dutchy45 (talk) 21:33, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Dutchy45, and welcome to the Teahouse. That category is for pages concerned with managing templates, but some such pages are in user space. For example, User:Ashishmaurya15697 starts: This page provides an index of templates used within Wikipedia, many of which convey messages; they are grouped into topic-specific headings. Such a page properly belongs in that category. You will need to check individually to see if a page seems to be improperly categorized. If it does, drop the user invo9lded note on his or her user talk page. If it is a bot, drop the bot-owner a note. Beyond that I would leave them alone, no major harm seems to be done by this. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 22:20, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

And of course, there are categories intended specifically for users. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 22:22, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

User (sub-)pages showing up in categories not designed for user (sub-)pages, e.g., files only, cats only, templates only, etc., are about the only case where I'd edit any "not me" user (sub-)page, typically adding a colon between [[ and category:…]] to disable the effect. –84.46.52.84 (talk) 22:57, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

​Most of these instances are sandboxes that someone forgot to remove from the categories. You can disable these categories by converting "[[Category" to "[[:Category" and writing in your edit summary "WP:DRAFTNOCAT", you don't need to inform the user in those cases. The page User:Ashishmaurya15697 was for example just a copy of WP:TM and so didn't belong in that category. User:Evad37/TFDcloser is a script for managing template discussions, and so it belongs in the category. – Thjarkur (talk) 08:43, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks I'll do this! Dutchy45 (talk) 04:56, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello Thjarkur, in Category:Wikipedia directories under N there is a user. When I go in there there's no category to "[[:Category". What do you suggest I do in this case? Dutchy45 (talk) 06:07, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

 Fixed.--Moxy 🍁 07:32, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Help Editing "Achievement Table, USA"

Hello, I am updating this page for an athlete. There is an existing table that uses Achievement Table, USA Template. I am having some difficulties editing this template to reflect the current changes. What should I do? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:C1:8180:4840:8EA:DB1C:65A6:5DFD (talk) 01:37, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

What is the article in question, and what would you like to update? Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 06:40, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

I guess from your edits that this is about Template:AchievementTable at Monique Hennagan#Achievements. The template only makes a header row. The rest of the table uses normal table syntax. See Help:Basic table markup or Help:Table for that, and ask a more specific question if you need help. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:13, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

@PrimeHunter Thanks for your response. Yes I am attempting to update the table on Monique Hennagan's page. Is there an easier or simpler method to edit the existing table? When I select the visual editor, then edit, the box that appears is called Transclusion with the formatted table entered in the content area. When I add a word it doesn't appear in the table it appears as a standard word above the table. I am not educated in HTML code. I need a simpler method; I recreated the table in word but I am not sure how to convert it to HTML to appear like the existing table.

Kalani Pe'a Music Album Pages

Aloha! Creating record/album pages for music artist Kalani Pe'a. I have two albums done so far. Can you folks assist to have it moved into main space. I'm a new editor, and I kind of understand once of draft is ready I then usually request a experienced editor to help start the review process. I'm also having trouble uploading the cd cover images as well. I did already submit a contact email for the wikicommons page and have a open ticket Ticket#2019122310007179 Draft:E Walea - Also see album 2 Draft:No 'Ane'i Allanbcool (talk) 04:40, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Allanbcool. Images of CD covers should not be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons because in almost all cases, they are restricted by copyright, and only freely licensed or copyright free images are allowed on Commons. Instead, the covers should be uploaded here on English Wikipedia but not for use in a draft. Cover art is only allowed in the main space in an encylopedia article about the album or contemporary book in question. Contemporary movie posters are treated the same way. Non-free images are not allowed in drafts, sandbox pages or on talk pages. Please read the policy at Wikipedia:Non-free content/Images #1.

Your two drafts are about albums that both won Grammy awards. I believe that these albums are notable on that basis, and so I am going to move your drafts to the encyclopedia. Please continue improving the articles by adding more sourced critical commentary, such as reviews in reliable sources. And you can upload the cover art. Good work. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:53, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

@Allanbcool: I did some cleanup on the two articles. I noticed that Allan B. Cool is listed as producer. If that is you, please read WP:COI and comply with WP:PAID. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 12:51, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Reliable sources

What kind of source of information can be used for references/citation. Please let me know. Looking forward for your reply. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RohitMishra001 (talk • contribs) 14:38, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

You will find advice at WP:Reliable sources. --David Biddulph (talk) 15:07, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Steps for uploading a crest

I want to know about the steps of properly uploading a crest of a football club, in particular the copyright details and steps. The Lord of Math (Message; contribs) 15:40, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

@數神: please see Help:Images and Wikipedia:Image policy. Thanks, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 16:08, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

@The Lord of Math: pinging alt name. Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 16:09, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Block An User

How To Block An User Who Posting His Personal Agendas on Wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by KumarVenati (talk • contribs)

@KumarVenati: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Only administrators can block users. They cannot block whomever they want, whenever they want. They must comply with the blocking policy. May I know which user you are talking about and I'll take a look? Interstellarity (talk) 16:51, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

KumarVenati, I looked at the recent edits of User:Yashodhan Ganu I did not see any obvious vandalism. I did see a number of edits to the party membership of various legislative bodies in India. It is possible that some of these are incorrect, or not supported by sources, but other editors do not seem to have reverted these changes. Please identify the specific changes which, in your view constitute vandalism or other improper behavior. If possible, please indicate the sources which indicate factual errors or intentional misstatements. In future please do not request blocks or accuse editors of improper actions without citing specific edits that you can honestly say are incorrect and problematic. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 18:21, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

I have a question please answer it.

I'm talking to Robert McClenon and he said if you think that your draft is notable for Wikipedia article you need to confirm on the Teahouse and there are some changes required from your draft you need to fixed it. kindly review and let me know please.(Aureliojohn (talk) 18:29, 25 December 2019 (UTC))

This is about Draft:Phemex which was declined recently. To Aureliojohn - Teahouse is a place for specific questions. You were directed here if you have questions about the reasons your draft was declined. There is no 'confirm'. David notMD (talk) 18:46, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Please read and understand the requirements for a notable corporation, Aureliojohn, as requested on your Talk page.--2601:648:8202:BC00:6495:4B5F:3EC9:BF49 (talk) 19:33, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

David notMD,2601:648:8202:BC00:6495:4B5F:3EC9:BF49. Thank you so much.(Aureliojohn (talk) 20:18, 25 December 2019 (UTC))

Wikipeda Editing Fraud

How does one track all content submission ip addresses and expose the people who submitted content related to Erick the Red, Leif Erickson, Nicholas II, Alexie Nicoloviche Tsarevich Romanov and the Danish, Swedish, and Norwegian Monarchy?

It is my belief that people are trying to rewrite history to hide and mislead facts by recreating fake reports, fake news articles dated to a time unrelatable, posting falsified journals in PDF format online so that they are seen first in a search... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.77.229.224 (talk) 21:53, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Why would you need to do that? LampGenie01 (talk) 22:08, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

If it's vandalism, then just revert it. You can see all IP contributions in the history of each article, and if the same IPs keep turning up with unhelpful edits, then warn them on their talk pages. Dbfirs 22:24, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hello, IP editor, and welcome to the Teahouse. Please see Wikimedia:Privacy policy and WP:OUTING. Information on who posted a particular edit to a Wikipedia article is not publicly available, even in those few cases when it is known to Wikipedia, except for those editors (like myself) who choose to edit under their legal names. Attempting to expose and publish such personal information is not acceptable here.

If you think that incorrect information is in any article, post on that article's talk page, if possible providing reliable sources that show the correct facts. If you have evidence of a continuing attempt to post false information you can report it to WP:AIV, but do not attempt to do so without evidence in the form of diffs. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 22:29, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

How do I see my published articles?

I have created page TM Malhotra, i wrote about him, but I am not able to see my page. how can i see it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TM Malhotra (talk • contribs) 05:06, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

@TM Malhotra: Please see your talk page. The page you created as your user page was considered clear advertising or promotion, which is not allowed on Wikipedia. Please see those links and those on your talk page for more information. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 06:43, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello TM Malhotra. Looking at your contribution history, the only edit you have ever made using this signon is the one asking this question. Are you sure you Saved the changes, and didn't Cancel? Separately, you say you wrote about TM Malhotra - but that is your own user name. Did you intend to write about yourself? --Gronk Oz (talk) 06:42, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello, TM Malhotra. I am an administrator and can review deleted content. You created an autobiographical page which was deleted. Among other things, you wrote "Mr. Tarun is passionate about everything and a self-driven man with enthusiasm and positivity . He is a gadget lover. When in 2007 mobile phones have boosted up the Indian market, he jumped his feet into this new gadget." I am sorry, but self promotion is not allowed on Wikipedia, and that type of content is inappropriate for an encylopedia. There are plenty of social media websites where you are welcome to promote yourself. Wikipedia is not one of those websites. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:01, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Pin Point Map

Hello Teahouse hosts. I am editing the article New Albion specifically for a GAN. A suggestion, which I believe is worthy, has been put forth to include a push pin map such as the example for Jamestown which you may view HERE. I am quite uncertain how to insert this, particularly with determining coordinates. Where might I find further information as to the editing necessary to enable this feature on the New Albion article? I appreciate hearing from any of you. Most kind regards.Hu Nhu (talk) 06:03, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

@Hu Nhu: I've added a pushpin map in the infobox and made a few other tweaks in the article. (I used the coordinates of the monument at Drake's Cove.) Does this look OK? If there are any problems with what I've done, please leave a message on my talk page. Deor (talk) 16:40, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Definitions

'Defining a term in the words of the copyright holder and acknowledging the same', does it violate the copyright policy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dattatray Sankpal (talk • contribs) 08:04, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Dattatray Sankpal, and welcome to the TYeahouse.That depends on the exact circumstances. If the definition is quoted from an outside source, then more is needed than acknowledging the same. One must attribute the quote in article prose, must mark it by quote mark or with <blockquote>...</blockquote> tags (or with one of the templates, such as {{quote}} that provide proper block quotes, personally I prefer the raw tag), and one must cite a reliable source inline just after the quote, that specifically says that this quote is by this person (or entity, or that is it self by the person quoted, and contains the quote.

For example an article might include the following:

Jones, in Considerations of FooBar, wrote: "FooBar may be defined as ..."

References

See how all the elements must work together?

Beyond that, the length of the quote must not be excessive, which is a judgement call. See WP:MOSQUOTE and WP:QUOTE for more details on when quotations are appropriate. A definition is no different, except that if it is a widely used definition and the exact wording is significant, that helps make the case for fair use of the quotation. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 12:12, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Note that Wikipedia's copyright policy is generally more restrictive than is US Copyright law (17 USC). Some things which would be held to be fair use, or otherwise not a copyright infringement, under US law are still not allowed under the policy. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 12:24, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

How to change the editing toolbar?

Even though I change the way to edit (Visual vs Source), the editing toolbar does not change as expected in the Help:Edit toolbar. What is wrong? Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 11:27, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

A missing article there is nothing on Brian Maccaba

The longest slander action in English legal history came to a close yesterday as the multi-millionaire Brian Maccaba lost his High Court action against a leading rabbi. In a case that had infamously been dubbed the "Indecent Proposal" action, the father of six had denied offering $1m for a friend's wife — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.191.199.221 (talk) 13:14, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Are you proposing there should be an article about Brian Maccaba, with the scandal and litigation being a part? Or an article about the legal case as being notable by itself? David notMD (talk) 13:26, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

How can I undo vandalism faster?

Hello. I have been looking through recent changes in the past few days to find instances of vandalism to undo, but it seems like other editors are usually beating me to it. Then I look at their contributions and see that somehow they can undo many vandal edits within just one minute! Is there something I’m doing wrong or inefficiently? I would like to help keep the encyclopedia free of vandalism but it seems I am unfortunately slower than most. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cunnfum (talk • contribs) 13:56, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi Cunnfum. Those other user are may be using something called WP:TWINKLE or some other type of automated script that allows them to make lots of edits in a short amount of time. Anyway, all that matters is that someone is taking care of the vandalism not really who is taking care of it. Although fighting vandalism is an important thing, it's not like a video game where be the fastest or doing more than others might get you some type of bonus; moreover, there are lots of ways to help improve Wikipedia besides fighting vandalism. So, I wouldn't worry too much if others are doing it faster than you; you can always find another way to help improve articles; furthermore, sometimes it's actually better to do something slowly because it often reduces the chance of making a mistake. —- Marchjuly (talk) 14:35, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes, Cunnfum, I prefer to delay by several hours or even a few days, finding only those more subtle problems that users of quicker automated or semi-automated methods fail to notice. Actually, letting others handle the easy ones is pretty much a necessity for me, with five and a half thousand items on my watchlist. Jim.henderson (talk) 14:57, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

@Cunnfum: I also agree with the above. I often monitor for vandalism quite late at night. But once I see other editors (like the fantastic Shellwood and others) making immediate reverts, I either go to bed, or start looking lower down the Recent Changes list for the stuff these folks have missed. Boy, do they miss them! I use this setting to reveal the most likely bad faith edits. I've turned off the default Page Preview function, and have enabled 'Navigation Popups' in 'Preferences'. For vandal-fighters, this is brilliant! Simply by mousing-over, you see a preview of the recent edit. So it's easy to assess the changes. If they're bad, I use Twinkle to warn or to report repeat offenders. I focus on the most likely bad faith edits, watching especially for either no edit summary, or for summaries like 'fixed typo' - especially if there is a large change in byte content. I ignore popular topics I know little about (someone else will undoubtedly fix these); I focus on my own areas of interest in sciences, geography, or topics I'm personally aware of. I also check every school or college edit, as these are often vandalised. Nobody can do everything; do what you can, and do it well! Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 00:00, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

@Cunnfum: Hi - just a sanity check. Are you using the undo to revert? I looked at some of your reverts and there is no edit summery and so I wondered if you are actually typing or copying the fixes by hand? In case you have not found it yet (and forgive me if I am telling you things you already know), to undo vandalism, compare the two versions in the page history and click the undo button. The reverts will be filled in automatically and you will be given an edit summary that you can leave alone. Just click undo, glance over it to make sure it looks like what you intended, click the "minor edit" check box and publish. See: [[1]] -- Sirfurboy (talk) 15:23, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

How can I contact?

Hello. I want to contact one of my nice and kindhearted fellow editor "Eman 235". He is not responding on his talk page but active on tea house. Why is it so? I hope everything is fine with him. Can anyone tell me the way to contact him? Thanks.(223.230.172.15 (talk) 16:48, 26 December 2019 (UTC))

Looking at your request, it's not really surprisingly they haven't responded. Editors are volunteers, and edit what they want to. Giving someone a long list of requests you'd like them to do isn't going to get the best reaction.

If an edit needs doing, wp:BeBold and do it yourself. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 16:51, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

What the IP hasn't told you, OxonAlex, is that they are determined to edit against consensus. See Talk:Shamsheer Vayalil. --ColinFine (talk) 18:58, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

@OxonAlex: Note the editor is a young person. The relevant range is 223.230.128.0/18 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) with collateral. I imagine things may subside when school is back in session. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 04:18, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

I don't understand why this website likes messing with me

I can't find my own questions anymore! I don't get this! (user:Vincentmacefe) December 26, 2019

Hi. After your questions have been answered (and after a few days) they are archived. Here's the link to the archives of your previous questions.

• Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1033#Comedy
• Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1036#I edited_the plot for Child's Play (2019), but it went back to normal. Why?
• Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1037#Playing With Fire plot needs corrected

I got these links from your talk page. When your question here at the Teahouse is archived, a bot posts a link on your talk page which links to that archive. Hope this helps. OkayKenji ^{(talk page)} 20:39, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

One way to find your questions is to look at your own userpage (User:Vincentmacefe) or talk page (User talk:Vincentmacefe) and click on "What links here" in the left column. (Wow, it works even if the page does not exist.) The resulting list may not be in any useful order; but in your case it's short. —Tamfang (talk) 03:46, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

@Vincentmacefe: Please try to assume good faith – nobody is "messing with you". Archiving of sections after a few days of inactivity is necessary to keep the page to a reasonable size (currently 38 sections), and allow it to load within a reasonable amount of time. There is a search box near the top of this page, under the table of contents, from which you can search all the archives. If you put your username in there, you'll get a list of all the archive pages containing it, sometimes even with links to the first section in which it is found. Note you can search for other things there, too, if you have a question about a topic that may have been answered before. I hope this helps. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 04:26, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

CNR Bridge

When I read the page titled "CNR Bridge", I changed it to "Queensborough CNR Bridge", then "Queensborough SRY Bridge", only then realising the brief article which said the bridge linked to Queensborough on Lulu Island, was not actually on the subject of the Queensborough rail bridge, but was in fact regarding the CNR bridge downstream (not into Queensborough) that links onto the Richmond part of Lulu Island. The CNR Bridge should be the "Lulu Island CNR Bridge" Is there way of actually deleting my move changes. I am hesitant to proceed further in ignorance because I fear if someone later writes an article entitled the "Queensborough SRY Bridge" on that actual bridge, it will be redirected to the other bridge. DMBanks1 (talk) 20:58, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello, DMBanks1. and welcome to the Teahouse. Moves can always be undone. But it is really best to have a source or sources that indicate what the name should be. Note that Wikipedia follows the common name, that is, the name most often used in reliable sources, not the official name when that is different. If there is any doubt, it is usually better to discuss a move in advance on the talk page of the article(s) concerned, to avoid confusion and complicated moves and un-dos. Do you have any source indicating what the name of this article should be? Do I take it you wan thtings back as they were before you started? DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 22:50, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

The article is now back at CNR Bridge, DMBanks1, with all redirects created by the move now deleted. Please discuss at Talk:CNR Bridge#Article name before moving again. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 23:21, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. I doubt anybody on the talk pages has an intimate knowledge of this bridge. I have lived in Richmond BC for over 25 years and this bridge has never been assigned a precise definition in the press. It has been referred to as the crossing of the North Arm of the Fraser, link to Lulu Island, or link to Richmond. Since it is in rural land far from the commercial and residential centre of Richmond, my suggestion of "Lulu Island CNR Bridge" seems safest. I suspect the CN official designation would use Lulu Island, based on the bridge vintage. The name "CNR Bridge" definitely has to change, since there are numerous CN bridges in Metro Vancouver alone, never mind the rest of Canada. I will briefly edit the content so others will not confuse it with the swing rail bridge at Queensborough. I will leave renaming the page up to you.DMBanks1 (talk) 00:11, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

@DMBanks1: Actually, the best place to find people interested in, and knowledgeable about, a particular article is indeed that article's talk page. It's also desirable to keep the discussions there for the benefit of future contributors to allow easy referral to them and prevent duplicate work. If the page has little activity or few watchers (see the Page information link usually found on the left-side toolbar), you can also post a note to the talk page of one of the adoptive WikiProjects mentioned on the article's talk page, in this case WT:WikiProject Vancouver or WT:WikiProject British Columbia, with a link back to the section on the article's talk page (e.g. Talk:CNR Bridge#Article name), to get more eyeballs on it. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 04:37, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

I have since added naming questions to the talk pages for a couple of other rail bridges near here. Where there is no single name in common usage, has Wikipedia developed any standardised naming convention?DMBanks1 (talk) 16:31, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Restoring my listing?

Naive as I was, 5 years ago, I made the mistake of adding a new credential to my own Wikipedia listing. I was appointed the first Volusia County (Florida) Poet Laureate and thought, as with other biographical listings, I could simple insert that fact as an update. My edit triggered a review of my credentials and I was deleted from Wikipedia. I am as susceptible to pangs of ego as any other author/individual. Thus, I confess to feeling bruised. Yet, I also feel that the accomplishments offered, accepted and listed at Wikipedia were worthy of inclusion. Once the review/deletion process began, it seemed nothing could save the entry. The fact that much of my life was lived prior to the internet impeded documentation of many of my credentials. The fact that it was I, myself, asking for consideration simply further discredited me. Can anything be done to reconsider my career? Might someone advise and/or offer assistance ?I am easily found online. I would ask that you reply via this Wiki portal or contact me directly. Gratefully, David B. Axelrod — Preceding unsigned comment added by Axelrodthepoet (talk • contribs) 23:16, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

@Axelrodthepoet: Remember that this is an encyclopedia, not a place for "listings" or promotion. Read WP:AUTO as to why trying to write about yourself is not a good idea. RudolfRed (talk) 23:22, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Axelrodthepoet and welcome to Wikipedia. The arrticle (not listing as RudolfRed points out David B. Axelrod was deleted after the discussion preserved at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David B. Axelrod. Please read it. YTou will see that it was deleted not because the poet-laureate post was added, but because taken as a whole, even with that post, the editors expressing an opinion back in August 2015 did nopt think that you were notable in the particular sense in which Wikipedia muses that term. Please look over WP:NBIO and WP:NAUTHOR and consider if a proper article can honestly be written about you. If you like, I will undelete the article as a draft. But there will need to be additional sources clearly establishing notability before it is moved back to the main article space. If there are not, it will surely be deleted again. Also, do remember that if an article is once created and notability is established, it is permanent. Even if things are later added to the article that you do not like or want in such an articel, you will not be able to delete them or the article if they are well sourced. So what say you? DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 23:37, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Axelrodthepoet, You might want to read #how do I request a deletion of a wikipedia page about me? above on this page. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 23:39, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

My intention is not to debate but to ask for assistance. Yes, "encyclopedia." Yes, not self-promotion. Exactly that. And I am respectful of the editorial expertise of you police, produce and publish suitable ientries in the encyclopedia. Thus, yes, I would appreciate the restoration of the entry, archived but presently not publically accesible, on David B. Axelrod. I am not the person to improve, defend, prmote my own entry. I would, however, appreciate a further objective evaluation so that the facts may speak for their "notability." The old discusion consisted of increasingly negative coclusions that an adept researcher might cure. Thanks for your responses. I'm sorry I'm not adept enough to repky in a proper place or manor. I entrust you to remedy matters once the old entry is restored for edits and verification. David B. Axelrod — Preceding unsigned comment added by Axelrodthepoet (talk • contribs) 01:00, 27 December 2019 (UTC)‎

Hi Axelrodthepoet. First some general stuff about posting comment on Wikipedia talk pages. The best way to do so is to add a new separate post below the one you're responding to or below the last post added to the thread. Trying to insert you posts/replies into comments made by others almost always creates problems with formatting and other issues. You can found a little more about how to use talk pages at Help:Talk pages. The next thing to try an remember is to always WP:SIGN your posts. There's a few ways to do this, but the easiest is typically as explained in WP:TILDE. Signing posts not only makes it easier for others to see who posted what and when, it also helps separate comments made by different editors.

As for the comments about the article David B. Axelrod, articles are usually only deleted via Wikipedia:Articles for deletion when the community consensus is that the subject matter doesn't meet Wikipedia:Notability, which appears to have been the case with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David B. Axelrod. If you disagree with the close of that discussion, you can ask that it be reviewed per Wikipedia:Deletion review. That discussion took place in 2015, and it's possible that things have changed since then so that you actually now satisfy the two notability that DES mentioned above. Many created about subjects (e.g. actors, writers) early on in their careers are deleted because it's simply WP:TOOSOON for a Wikipedia article to be written about them, but over time things change and as they move on in their careers they accomplish things or receive significant coverage that pushes them over the Wikipedia notability threshold. If you feel that is an accurate reflection the situation, then perhaps that would be something to bring up in a deletion review and may actually lead to a "new" article being written about you. At the same time, if your primary argument is going to be that the discussion which led to the previous article's deletion was "increasingly negative" and that the "old entry" should be restored for editing and verification, then you might have some trouble convincing others. Articles are not really intended to be written by "adept researchers" any more than they are intended to be read by readers "knowledgeable/well-versed" in the subject matter. Anyone can, in principle, write a Wikipedia article and whatever personal writing/research skills they may possess are skills that may help them do that better than some, but all of the great writing/researching ability an editor has is not really go to help them if the subject they want to write about is not Wikipedia notable. In this case, the consensus of the discussion was that the subject matter failed to satisfy any of Wikipedia's notability guidelines. not that the article was badly researched or written; if things have changed since 2015, then perhaps a new consensus can be established to reflect this new state of things. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:10, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

@Axelrodthepoet: Note that it helps if sources are online, but it's not a requirement. This is particularly an issue for people whose careers are largely pre-1990, though we do have online access to a lot of older newspapers and some journals, more as time goes by. If a Draft: article is either restored or re-created, it will be helpful if you can provide pointers to sources that may demonstrate notability, whether they are online or not. Try to focus on quality and independence – a few high-quality sources, instead of a pile of passing mentions, are more likely to get someone to do the necessary legwork of verifying offline/hard-to-find sources. Some folks at WP:RX may have access to offline archives as well. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 05:00, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Axelrodthepoet, I have restored the text as Draft:David B. Axelrod You will need to find significantly better sources than are now present. You will need to do your best to stick to the neutral point of view There are formatting issues also, but they are minor, sources are the thing. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 05:28, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

@DES: I'm not sure that was the best thing to do and I've gone into more detail as why I feel that way on your user talk page. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:44, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

I put some guidance comments on Axelrod's Talk page, including an example of an article about a poet. David notMD (talk) 12:37, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Please help me understand why the wiki I created has been deleted

Hello everyone, can anyone help me understand why the wiki I created has been deleted? This is the second time my contribution got deleted. The reason for deletion is section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion. I must admit that my first submission was objective. But this time, I used neutral POV as per wiki suggestions so it doesn't sound like promotional (I also had someone read it to get another's perspective). Still, no luck. This makes me believe that we can't possibly create a wiki article for someone not so famous? Or maybe I did miss something? What should I do to have it approved? Please help. Thanks and happy holidays! Ohjesabee (talk) 03:46, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

What is your intended subject matter? —Tamfang (talk) 03:57, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Only admins can see your deleted sandbox, an admin deleted "Matt Artisan is a dating coach and a Youtuber" (etc.) as U5: Blatant misuse of Wikipedia as a web host. –84.46.52.176 (talk) 04:31, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi Ohjesabee a person doesn't need to be "famous" to have a Wikipedia article written about them, and being famous does not automatically mean someone should have a Wikipedia article written about them. The only thing that matters is whether the person meets Wikipedia:Notability (more specifically Wikipedia:Notability (people)). While there is sometimes a strong connection between fame and Wikipedia notability, they aren't the same thing when it comes to Wikipedia. If you're able to demonstrate that the person you want to create an article about satisfies one of Wikipedia's various notability guidelines, then you can try and write an article about them. Even if the article you end up writing is filled with all kinds or promotional sounding content or just badly written overall, as long as the subject is Wikipedia article all of those things can cleaned up and the content of the article brought more in line with relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines per WP:PRESERVE. At the same time though, if you're trying to create an article about someone who is not Wikipedia notable or is at least not Wikipedia notable right now, then you could be the best writer that ever lived and write the perfect article with no mistakes of any kind at all, but none of that would make the subject Wikipedia notable. We can't make a subject Wikipedia notable through editing; they either are or aren't depending on whether they are receiving significant coverage in reliable sources which are writing about it out in the real world. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:07, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

(ec) @Ohjesabee: Pinging Fastily, who most recently deleted it. I see you already messaged the nominator Bonadea. While waiting, please note that in addition to being encyclopedic in tone, the article must have reliable, independent sources that demonstrate notability and you must declare a COI if you have one. (I can't see the deleted content, so I'm not commenting on whether you did this or not, just providing info in case it was missed.) —[AlanM1(talk)]— 05:25, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

I already responded on my user talk page, but from what I can recall of the sandbox page it was blatantly promotional – in addition it was obvious that the person was very far from being notable, but a sandbox draft would not be tagged or deleted for that reason. The original poster said that they are writing it on behalf of the subject, so WP:COI/WP:PAID also applies. (Also, given that any Wikipedia article about the person would certainly include critical content based on e.g. this reliable independent source, I suspect he would regret hiring someone to create the article in the first place!) --bonadea contributions talk 09:13, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Administrator guidance needed

Hello Belated Merry Christmas, everyone As I was working on the article, the image file which I uploaded was removed due to non-usage on infobox. So I would like to apply for a request for restoring the image File:Beautiful (2019 film).jpg as the article is ready and now the image file can be used on the article infobox. And one more request before restoring it please do the necessary file name changes and move it from the old title File:Beautiful (2019 film).jpg to the new title File:Beautiful (2020 film).jpg. Thanks, I duly respect the hardwork of an Administrator hatsoff. FascinateGuy (talk) 07:03, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi FascinateGuy. There are two things you can do in this case: (1) post a message on the user talk page of the administrator who actually deleted the file (who in this case is named Explicit) and ask him to restore it, or (2) post a request at WP:REFUND and ask that any administrator restore the file. It's possible for sure that an administrator who is also a Teahouse host will see this post and restore the file for you as well, but one of the other two ways might be faster. As for the name, you can request a file name change as described in WP:FMV/W per WP:FNC#1; perhaps the administrator who restores the file for you will also move it to a new name for you. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:15, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello @Marchjuly:, it is so nice of you to reply soon. But my friend I tried to ask assistance from the administrator cyphoidbomb and he is busy that I duly respect. And the admin who performed the action actually, he is inactive for a while due to holidays. Thanks for your reply. FascinateGuy (talk) 07:19, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

You can post a request at WP:REFUND, but the deleted file isn’t really going anywhere so whether you get restored today, tomorrow or in a few days won't matter much one way or another. While your waiting for the image to be restored, you can continue to work on improving the article. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:56, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

FascinateGuy,  Done Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:04, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

@Galobtter and Marchjuly: FascinateGuy was blocked as a sock of Vc4137. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:46, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Problems when referencing

So, today i tried to add references to MicroLED and Samsung Galaxy Fold, but i noticed that when i added a reference, the wiki software would treat the reference as plain text and not as a link, like it should. I discovered this problem when i was using reFill and i noticed that reFill was not recognizing the refs that i added. Thanks in advance. It turns out that it was because my refs didn't have "https://" in them. Pancho507 (talk) 09:09, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

why can't i create a page?

why can't i create a page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brep8 (talk • contribs) 14:48, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

To find out how to create an acceptable draft, try reading the advice at WP:Your first article. --David Biddulph (talk) 14:53, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Royal Albert Hall article/Events

The Rollingstones performed notable concert at Royal Albert Hall on 23. 09. 1966.