Wikipedia:Teahouse

Melecie, 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

Names of bands/teams/groups etc. are treated as singular, unless the name also applies to the individual members of the group. An individual member of The Mentally Ill would not be referred to as "a Mentally Ill", so the band "The Mentally Ill" is treated as singular. On the other hand, members of the Beatles, Rolling Stones, Yankees, Athletics, Flying Tigers, etc. are each referred to as a Beatle, Stone, Yankee, Athletic, and Flying Tiger, respectively, so these groups are treated as is they were plural.Sanctandriensis (talk) 13:58, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

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)

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)

Hi, Soumyabrata. If it's a Talk page, then currently there is no visual option, only source. I just noticed that I don't see a visual option here on the Teahouse either; the same limitation seems to apply to the Wikipedia: namespace. If you see a pencil icon at the right of the toolbar, you can use that to switch between source and visual mode. (There is also a setting in Preferences that will show two separate links for "Edit" and "Edit source", if you don't want to go with the software giving you whatever mode you used last.) Hope that helps, Pelagic (talk) 20:06, 28 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)

• @Eman235: You haven't responded to any request(mine as well as others)on your talk page since months. Why is it so? Please! reply.

Thanks. (223.230.132.104 (talk) 05:03, 28 December 2019 (UTC))

Sorry for not responding -- an oversight on my part. I've responded at User talk:Eman235#Needs update. Eman235/talk 22:34, 28 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)

I did not mention I am writing in behalf of the subject but I did say that "we want him" to be on wiki as one of the dating coaches listed on this site. I am also not paid to write a wiki for the subject nor using this site as a marketing tool, just as I mentioned in your talk page. Now, I'm not appealing to your assessment. I'm just puzzled for the reason of deletion because you say it is "blatantly promotional" when in fact, I did not use promotional or subjective words, just as how this reliable independent source created her article. AND I do not know how you suspect the subject would regret "hiring" a person to create a wiki. Did you ever made an inquiry? No answer needed, I think I know why it was deleted. Ohjesabee (talk) 05:40, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Promotionalism is not simply a question of particular words or phrases – the content of the draft was, as far as I recall, entirely promotional. It looks like you are trying to be subtly derisive about the source I linked to; nobody could accuse that text of not wanting to promote a particular point of view, but that is the function of a review. The author was hired to voice his or her opinion about a book, while Wikipedia editors are not hired and should always avoid letting their opinions shine through in article text. Academic sources are preferred for Wikipedia articles, but as you can see here, other sources are also acceptable, for instance reviews written by people independent of the subject, and published in a source that meets Wikipedia's criteria.

Obviously I have not been in contact with the subject of the draft, that would never have occurred to me, and I said "I suspect", which indicates a guess. I had never heard of him before seeing the sandbox draft, and I had actually forgotten his name when you asked the question – I have a terrible memory for names, and edit rather many different articles, like most editors do. Please understand that Wikipedia articles are not in any way controlled by the subject of the article; Wikipedia does not care about what the subject of the article wants, nor what they say about themselves. You asked on my user talk page whether it matters that you know the subject personally. Again, please read WP:COI. (And who is "we" in "we want him"?) Thank you. --bonadea contributions talk 08:37, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

OK, I did go through some of the approved wikis you proofread and I think I understand why the one I made is tagged as promotional. Thank you and happy holidays you all! Ohjesabee (talk) 06:14, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

@Ohjesabee: Just for future reference, "wiki(s)" generally refers to an entire wiki project, like this English Wikipedia, Wikimedia Commons, Spanish Wikipedia, OpenStreetMapWiki etc.. Individual pages in Wikipedia's main article namespace are generally called "articles". Cheers! —[AlanM1(talk)]— 01:42, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Royal Albert Hall article/Events

The Rollingstones performed notable concert at Royal Albert Hall on 23. 09. 1966. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.37.26.161 (talk) 16:53, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

See The Rolling Stones British Tour 1966#Tour dates. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 09:01, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Being allowed to edit your Wikipedia article, "Global Warming", because of my pecular experience and knowledge (I have actually studied the IPCC's Assessment Report 5)

Thank you all!

Although it might be a big bite for a newbie, I am very hungry to start a major editing of this article. Its author has made an excellent effort, and is unbiassed in that his main source is the actual AR of the IPCC. Unfortunately, after over a century of increasingly intensive study, every reputable scientific organization has declared that the existence of this phenomenon is a certainty-unprecedented for scientists-the majority of Americans refuse to accept the reality of Global Warming. This is in my opinion due to two factors:

(i) One side of this issue seems to have free access to the media to press their position (the nonexistence of Global Warming). Believe me I have spent a lot of time trying to find a valid, reliable source for their position. I have yet to find such a source.

(ii) On the side supporting the existence of Global Warming (I am neutral), the inability of the scientific community the present their conclusions about such a huge and complex phenomenon in a language readily understandable to the general public has inadvertently much of all this bias.

I feel that, as the reputation of Wikipedia as an acceptable source continues to grow, you would perform a great service for our country and planet if you were to post an article on Global Warming which is both scientifically accurate and in a non-technical language that is crystal clear to the average reader.

I just feel that, although excellently researched and written, this article does not sufficiently meet these criteria.

Last thing: there is a possibility that this article will be viciously attacked for its supposed bias and/falsehoods.

Thank you for your attention in this matter.

James Standerfer.Sanctandriensis (talk) 18:50, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi Sanctandriensis and welcome to the Teahouse. You will see if you click on the history of the article that it is the result of many disagreements and modifications by many editors. Further rewriting is indeed possible, but should be discussed first on the talk page of the article to reach consensus before major changes are made. Dbfirs 19:03, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

@Sanctandriensis: While the talk page of the article (whichever article we're talking about) is the right place to discuss it, I don't want you to go off with the unreasonable expectation that you will be able to make any kind of major changes to such a hot button topic. Such articles are the result of much research and many pages of discussion over the minutest of details and careful balance of facts, such as editors here can find them anyway. Some of the wording in your post above leads me to think you are here to push a point-of-view and to do battle to right great wrongs; please read those links for more information about what Wikipedia is and what it is not, and why your post might have raised those concerns. I hope this helps. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 09:21, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

AfC Submission Question

An AfC reviewer recommended that I contact the Teahouse for the opinions of other editors on whether Draft:Janette Nesheiwat meets notability guidelines for WP:JOURNALIST section 1. The subject has made multiple television appearances as a medical news correspondent on Fox Business Network, Fox News, CBS News, and MSNBC. Any feedback you can offer would be appreciated. My paid contribution disclosure is noted on the draft's talk page. Thank you. E-Stylus (talk) 19:24, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Content like "Nesheiwat was selected by Arkansas Business for the publication's annual "40 under 40" tends to suggest that you are scraping the barrel for evidence of notability. It would be better if the article could tell us something about the facts she has presented, or views she has expressed, while appearing on television. Maproom (talk) 19:48, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Expert on some "White House opioid summit" could be notable, apparently she convinced Trump, or he saw her on Fox News. I trimmed the "40 under 40" to once, HuffPost to never, and wikilinked one source in a reference. Please put references after the punctuation (comma, period, etc.) –84.46.52.63 (talk) 12:19, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Venezuelan cinema task force

Last year, the Venezuelan cinema task force, but I cannot include the task force when I'm assessing the articles in their talk page. Is there a way to solve this? --Jamez42 (talk) 19:55, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

​Support for the |Venezuelan-cinema-task-force=yes parameter hasn't been added yet. Kingsif has created support for them in the sandbox of the templates, but the requests to have them implemented were denied (1) (2) as they hadn't been discussed. I personally would have thought these edits were uncontroversial, but you can reopen the request on {{WikiProject Venezuela}} pointing to a discussion about the creation of this task force. If this hasn't been discussed, just start a discussion on WT:VENEZUELA so this may be implemented. – Thjarkur (talk) 02:03, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

I've tested your (= the project) instruction on Talk:Secuestro_Express, the |Venezuelan-cinema-task-force=yes for WikiProect Film did not work for me. Not tested: |Venezuelan=yes. Not tested: WikiProject Venezuela. If the task force is basically down to you, close it please, the default = dead state for almost all projects, portals, and task forces is not helpful (and certainly not your fault.) –84.46.52.63 (talk) 02:13, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

@IP84 ...well, yes, the parameter hasn’t been added to either Film or Venezuela WP talk templates yet, so it wouldn’t work. The task force is doing well, thanks, but since I can’t find the discussion with Jamez about starting it, the parameters have not been added. Kingsif (talk) 03:58, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Not doing too well, if the co-founder of the task force can't follow their published instructions. Just kidding: 84.46.52.63 (talk) 09:06, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Fake articles?

Hello. I'm curious if anyone knows anything about The Deadweights and its related articles--they all seem fake? Thanks. Caro7200 (talk) 21:04, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Caro7200 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I see that very little of the article content is cited- is that why you think it is a hoax article? 331dot (talk) 21:09, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello, thanks. It seems like a hoax. I did some general google searches, and nothing adds up, for that article and the articles about the band's albums... Caro7200 (talk) 21:11, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

If you feel strongly that it is a hoax, you can tag it for speedy deletion as a hoax article(WP:G3). If you aren't quite that certain, you can start an Articles for Deletion discussion. In either event, you could attempt to contact the creator of the article(s) and ask about their sources. It is possible(if unlikely) that there are print-only sources. 331dot (talk) 21:42, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Ok, thank you. I'm pretty sure that the article is a hoax, as are all its related album articles. I've never attempted anything as "complicated" as starting an articles for deletion discussion, but may attempt to fumble through it later tonight. Thanks. Caro7200 (talk) 22:02, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Caro7200 pleases be careful. It would nto be at all unlikely for a punk rock band from the 1980s not to have much in the way of online sources, and when you add that "deadweight" is a commom term, online searches become hard to do usefully. The article Crisis (The Deadweights album) says that this album charted in Sept 1985. Billboard back issues are paywalled and I do not have a subscription. But I found, adn added to the article, a page that gives a track listing and says that this charted. See here Now this may be a hoax also, but if it is it is a quite elaborate one, with several Wikipedia articles, and at least one outside site. The article about the group has been here since 2007, and has been edited by many users. The article about teh album "Crisis" linked above has also been here since 2007, adn was started by a different editor, albeit one who also edited the main article. I suspect an under documented, possibly non-notable, but real band. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 22:28, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

There is also https://www.letssingit.com/the-deadweights-zskq9 which may not be a reliable source (or it may be), but is consistent with the info in the various articles. There are also several sites which seem to have copied from W@ikipedia. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 22:43, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I'll be careful. It does look like a hoax. For example, Crisis (The Deadweights album) is mentioned as appearing at #94 on a SPIN magazine list. Not true: https://www.spin.com/2005/06/100-greatest-albums-1985-2005/. Thank you. Caro7200 (talk) 22:45, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Carrite (Tim Davenport) is an editor with expertise in punk rock. Tim, can you add anything to this conversation? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:53, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

I think it's significant that hardly any articles link back to The Deadweights. Slash Records and Reprise Records are significant record labels, yet there aren't any legit sources connecting them to this band. And Raymond Pettibon is an artist, notable for his SST Records work, not known as a musician etc. Caro7200 (talk) 01:18, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm not an expert on punk rock, but I agree that this looks fishy. All of the sources used in these articles appear to be user generated content sites that allow anyone to add entries with no fact checking, e.g. Rate Your Music and Let's Sing It. The articles claim that dozens of their songs and albums charted, so you'd expect to see some online coverage of them somewhere, even if only on some punk fan's blog, but this band seems to only exist on Wikipedia and in user generated databases. (Note, the Revolvy link posted above by DESiegel is a Wikipedia mirror.)
Also, one of the articles claims that the band released an album in 2008 which hit #29 on the Billboard charts, so there should be some coverage of that online, but there's nothing besides UGC sites and Wikipedia mirrors. Not even an Ebay listing or a passing mention on a forum somewhere... And does this album cover look like it was made in 1981 to you? It looks like it was done in MS Paint. Seriously - a punk band that topped the charts for 30 years and there's nothing about them online? Sounds bogus. There are bands a thousand times more obscure with dedicated online fanbases. I don't think this should be tagged for speedy deletion because it's not an immediately obvious hoax, but it should go to articles for deletion. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 01:53, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

I have taken all the articles to WP:AFD they are all clearly blatant hoaxes. Theroadislong (talk) 09:25, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Meanwhile all G3'ed (following Paul Hedgersman in 2009). The 12 years could be a new record, maybe report it on The Signpost. –84.46.52.63 (talk) 11:06, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Theroadislong Thanks for nominating and removing. I was hesitant since I'd never attempted it before, but wanted to report it somehow. Kudos (of a kind) to those little punks who constructed all those articles, ha... Caro7200 (talk) 14:47, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

• Slow on the draw with my pings... It's a fair cop. Carrite (talk) 17:07, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Nice find, Caro7200. @331dot: is someone looking at other contribs by the hoaxer (I can't see the history). —[AlanM1(talk)]— 02:07, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

What are some articles that need to be edited?

I wanna get more experience for writing wikipedia articles, and i wanna edit some. What are some articles without some citations or with some spelling mistakes? YeeeeeeeEemumomoawaWimoweh (talk) 23:55, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

YeeeeeeeEemumomoawaWimoweh, you should check out the Help out section of the Wikipedia:Community portal. It automatically updates with articles that need various kinds of help, and the page also has useful links to other related pages. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 00:12, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Four examples of "article wish lists":

1. Wikipedia:Requested articles/music/Performers, bands and songwriters ^[1]
2. Wikipedia:WikiProject_Women_in_Red/Journalists ^[2]
3. Wikipedia:Requested articles/music/Albums ^[3]
4. Wikipedia:WikiProject_Women_in_Red/Computer_science ^[4]

That's also a fair warning, these wishes work best when followed up by a DIY aka WP:FIXIT. –84.46.52.63 (talk) 03:08, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

@YeeeeeeeEemumomoawaWimoweh: I'd also like to suggest, before you do too much more, that you consider changing your username – it's too long to type accurately, copy/paste on a mobile creates more work for other editors to address you (something that may happen a lot as a newbie), and it clutters talk pages more signature and less actual content. Something that people will find memorable and easy to type would be a good choice, like LionSleeps . Requests can be made at WP:CHU. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 09:44, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

@YeeeeeeeEemumomoawaWimoweh: Yep, I'd agree that your username is not conducive to easy communication, and a name change would be appreciated. But that account has, thus far, made only six edits. I advise simply abandoning this account, never using it again (i.e. forget the password) and create a brand new account. You can link the two together, if you wish, so long as you never use the older one. This makes far less work for the account name-changing volunteers. For live spell-checking and correcting, you could install WP:LUPIN. But be aware that this tool also reports spelling mistakes in urls and filenames - these must never be corrected, so you do need to be on your toes when using it. But that's half the fun, isn't it? Adding the {{notatypo}} template to apparent errors (such as archaic spellings within quoted text) is really helpful to alert subsequent spell-checkers. Season's greetings. Nick Moyes (talk) 11:02, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

apostrophe, how to ?

i have found words " friends' ", " parents' " in an article. my first impression is they are wrong. for spellings i refer to wiktionary and article language. before changing punctuation marks, where should i look ? do we have manual or guide ?

Leela52452 (talk) 06:41, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Leela52452, welcome to the Teahouse. Please take a look at the Manual of Style which will give you answers to your questions about punctuation, capitalization and other types of usage issues. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:58, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Quick guide for possessives:

• Friend's work means the work of one friend
• Friends' work means the work of multiple friends

I.e.:

1. Add the plural 's' if necessary;
2. Add the apostrophe to indicate possessive;
3. Add an 's' if you didn't add one in step 1.

Note it's actually more complicated and there are exceptions, like its, at Apostrophe#Possessive apostrophe. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 10:01, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Pinging Leela52452 —[AlanM1(talk)]— 10:03, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

How can I make bullet points show on a {{Collapsible list}} template?

Thanks, Thatoneweirdwikier Say hi 10:31, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Thatoneweirdwikier. The {{Collapsible list}} page that you linked to actually contains the instructions I think you need. If you read down, it says you need to include a bullet parameter in the heading.

bullets: Include as |bullets=on, |bullets=true, etc to place a bullet point before each list item.

Have you tried this, and did it not work for you? Please explain the problem in more detail if you can't resolve it, and link to any experimental page you've created, as I can't see anything obvious in your contribution history.

My favourite holiday destinations (click 'show' on right of page to display)

• Iceland
• France
• Mexico
• Switzerland

Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 11:29, 28 December 2019 (UTC).

I didn't know this was possible. Thanks very much! Thanks, Thatoneweirdwikier Say hi 11:48, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

You're welcome Thatoneweirdwikier. The list and template documentation pages are quite detailed, and there are many clever things you can do with them. When you have some spare time, it's worth gently browsing through the documentation and help pages listed in See also and you'll be surprised what you might find. From the user perspective, I would suggest not starting off with a page showing a hidden table or list, but have it fully visible with the option for that user to collapse it later. Otherwise you risk a person failing to see some important bit of content. Best, Nick Moyes (talk) 12:03, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

@Thatoneweirdwikier and Nick Moyes: Also, if you use your browser's "Find in this page" tool, it doesn't find text inside collapsed areas, which has bitten me more than once. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 01:17, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Interesting point! Thank you. Nick Moyes (talk) 01:47, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Follow-up to Request to guide me how can I approve my article

How can I approve my article, please guide me ASAP.(Aureliojohn (talk) 11:44, 28 December 2019 (UTC))

@Aureliojohn: Did you really mean "approve", or do you actually mean "improve"? I suspect the latter. If so, sometimes no amount of editing can make an article meet our notability criteria for companies, other than inserting the right type of independent non-marketing references. Have you now done that? If so, perhaps you could link to the three best sources that you feel genuinely support Wikipedia's definition of 'Notability', and we can look through them for you. Personally, I think it looks like it fits with our description we call "WP:TOOSOON". Wikipedia cannot be used to promote or market new companies - there are millions of them in the world. You simply have to wait until there is evidence that third parties have actually taken note of and have written about that company or product in depth. No amount of LinkedIn links or short business notes are going to achieve that. Sorry if this isn't what you wanted to hear. Nick Moyes (talk) 11:54, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

User:Nick Moyes - You are being optimistic in thinking that the OP means "improve". They want their draft approved to list it in article space. Other than that, you have tried to answer. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:09, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes:I have created one article to my sandbox behave of phemex they are working on bitcoin, and crptocurrency on worldwide. the company based in Singapore and I have worked on this platform last six months and now I'm still research and working on this platform. Please check my sandbox and let me know how to improve my article once I will improve my article after my article is also approve for the Wikipedia.(Aureliojohn (talk) 12:13, 28 December 2019 (UTC))

Your draft was already discussed four days ago here, and the TOOSOON consensus won't change ASAP, cf. NORUSH. –84.46.52.63 (talk) 12:37, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Aureliojohn: That was the page I looked at (i.e. User:Aureliojohn/sandbox - it now redirects to Draft:Phemex, and that was the page I was referring to in my answer above. So, please fully re-read all the way through our notability criteria for companies and tell us which three sources you think best support Wikipedia's definition of 'Notability'. I will then try to re-assess the significance of each of those sources and tell you why I don't feel it is sufficient to meet our critieria. As far as I can tell, you have added nothing significant since Robert McClenon declined it as failing notability. So without hearing more from you, or seeing better sources added, I am at a loss to help you further. A failure to meet Notability Criteria means that, no matter how hard you try, you will never get an article about that subject on Wikipedia at this moment in time. How we might view it in the future, is another matter entirely. So, if a major national newspaper writes about this company, we start to get what we need. Your main sources are all insider financial reports simply regurgitating and repeating the identical text of a press release, which is what insider news outlets do. This is not sufficient. Nick Moyes (talk) 12:39, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes:. Thank you for your time, I really appreciated for your guideline.(Aureliojohn (talk) 20:16, 28 December 2019 (UTC))

You wrote "I have worked on this platform last six months and now I'm still research and working on this platform." That clearly indicates a paid relationship. You must declare that on your User page. David notMD (talk) 13:10, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

User:Aureliojohn - See general sanctions for cryptocurrencies. Many editors want to use Wikipedia to advertise cryptocurrencies, and other uses of blockchains, and exchanges for trading cryptocurrency. We have had so many editors trying to use Wikipedia to advertise cryptocurrencies that we have had to implement special rules to deal with editors who are promoting cryptocurrencies, especially editors who have a conflict of interest. Some editors are topic-banned from cryptocurrencies, or even blocked. We have had a problem with editors who try to advertise cryptocurrencies. If you cannot establish notability, your draft will not be accepted. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:09, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

@David NotMD:. I mean, I'm working on this platform for the last six months, I'm not employed for this company.(Aureliojohn (talk) 20:16, 28 December 2019 (UTC))

@Robert McClenon:. I totally agree with you. Wikipedia is not an advertisement platform, But how can I improve my draft and sources for Wikipedia guidelines.(Aureliojohn (talk) 20:21, 28 December 2019 (UTC))

User:Aureliojohn - We have tried to explain to you in English. It appears that you want to use Wikipedia to provide information about Phemex. That is advertising. You are asking us how to improve your draft to be a better advertisement. Do you need to have that explained to you in another language, since you don't seem to understand the explanation in English? Editors who are tendentious about trying to use Wikipedia to advertise cryptocurrencies can be topic-banned. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:32, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon:. Sorry for that Robert. I agree with your point forget this topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aureliojohn (talk • contribs) 20:37, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

@Aureliojohn: Practical general suggestion, figure out how {{cite web|url=… |title=… |author=… |date=… |work=… |publisher=[[…]] |accessdate=…}} works in references depending on a consistent date format per article. Raw HTML references, missing authors, or no wikilink for allegedly reliable sources are red flags, and about as bad as missing edit summaries tagged as mobile IP contributions. –84.46.52.55 (talk) 05:41, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

@Aureliojohn: You said I'm working on this platform for the last six months, I'm not employed for this company. Please explain what you mean by working on this platform? Does it mean that you write programming code, or develop some other material, that is used by the exchange? Or do you mean that you are just a user, trading on it?

Please stop putting parentheses around your signature – the timestamp should be at the very end of your post. See the last two paragraphs of WP:SIGPROB and everyone else's signatures here and elsewhere. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 00:34, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Creating a biography on Wikipedia

I need help to create a biography for Professor (Chief) Kolawole Waziri Olagboyega, an educator. Please help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Professor (Chief) Kolawole Waziri Olagboyega (talk • contribs) 12:49, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Hey Professor (Chief) Kolawole Waziri Olagboyega, assuming you are the subject about which you wish to write, you should note that writing autobiographies on Wikipedia is strongly discouraged, as it is exceedingly difficult to write about yourself in a way that complies with Wikipedia's standards for neutrality. If you feel you must do so, you should first determine whether you meet Wikipedia's standards for notability, which requires sustained in-depth coverage in reliable published sources, usually things like books, magazines and newspapers, and excluding things like social media and official websites. If you do, then you can create a draft using the Article Wizard, and it can be submitted for review by and experienced volunteer who can offer feedback prior to publishing. GMG^talk 12:54, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

For academics, we do have special notability criteria, which need to be read in full. Please see: Wikipedia:Notability (academics). Nick Moyes (talk) 13:21, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Black Holes

Unable to edit Wikipedia Black Holes

The subject of Black Holes has been completed for some time However the subject is not complete, and my editing skills are not great

What I would like to see some of this added (after editing)

Black Holes are an object of very condensed matter. Possibly containing atoms that have had the space removed. The mass of a Black Holes acts very much like the mass of stars, the closer you get, the greater the effects of gravity. However, because they are very condensed, objects can get much closer before colliding.

https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › S0–102

Is one of the closest stars that we know of near Sagittarius A and has an orbiting period of 11.5 years

Closer objects would orbit in a shorter period of time and the orbit speed would be faster Somewhere near what is described at the event horizon, objects including light would orbit at the speed of light.

There is no indication that the event horizon is at the surface of a black hole Thus, any object orbiting closer to the surface, would be travelling faster than the speed of light. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Victoria7j (talk • contribs) 13:16, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Victoria7j. The article Black Hole is 'semi-protected' meaning that new editors or those with less than ten edits may not alter it. You meet the age criteria, but only have made nine edits. So you aren't far off being able to edit such an article. That said, your suggested text is too simplistic and unsourced, and seems more like your own conjecture. None of this type of content would be accepted. On highly complex, scientific articles full links to high-quality academic sources would be needed. If you wish to make an {{edit request}} on an article, you should go to that page's talk page.

As for the second part of your post, I fear I don't fully understand what you are asking of us. However, no edit request would be enacted upon unless it clearly improved an article and was based upon Reliable Sources. Sorry about that. (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.) Nick Moyes (talk) 13:32, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

How do I remove a broken link?

On the Wikipedia page for David Baldwin (historian) there is a link out to his official Facebook page. This page no longer exists. I would like to remove it. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.9.54.147 (talk) 13:52, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse. That is indeed a dead link, and now that you bring it up, external links to Facebook or other social media are generally not even supposed to be present unless there is nothing else to add (for more information on this guideline and external linking, see WP:FACEBOOK). That doesn't seem to be the case; there are plenty of online, reputable sources, so feel free to remove it. In other cases, though, I would recommend using the Wayback Machine ([5]) to find an archived link and use that instead. Happy editing! ComplexRational (talk) 14:07, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Wrestler information

Plz write the in wrestling section comprising of the wrestler information regarding his/her moves, theme songs, managers etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2401:4900:C07:42B9:E906:620C:4228:1C20 (talk) 14:09, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello, anonymous user. Wikipedia is created by volunteers who work on what they choose to. If you want to see a particular thing in some articles, you either need to get somebody interested in creating it, or do it yourself. If you want something added to a particular article, you may have some success in asking on the talk page of that article (you will at least be addressing your request to people who have some interest in that article.) Another possibility is to find a relevant WikiProject (such as WP:WikiProject Professional wrestling) and ask there. But in general, simply asking on a general page such as this for somebody willing to put in the work to provide what you want, is not usually very productive. --ColinFine (talk) 10:33, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

In particular, the OP may want to see WP:INWRESTLING and the Village Pump discussion referred to in the note at the end of the first sentence therein. It was decided by consensus in 2018 to deprecate the use of "In wrestling" sections in wrestler articles. Deor (talk) 15:36, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Added an entry, but I need assistance for English Wikipedia

Hello everybody, Hello to the community,

I'm coming from Germany and I try to include my knowledge into German Wikipedia for years. But with the English one I have some difficulties in understanding the procedure maybe... Since 24th of October 2019 there is a draft of the entry "Sayonara Player", which is also available in two other languages: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sayonara_Player

Can anybody give me some assistance on what I need to do, that the entry gets reviewed and published? My target is to include it here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_audio_player_software where only players with an own entry are accepted.

The reason is, that I was searching for a good Linux audio player since eight years. Finally I found one this summer, but it's not well-known and I think Wikipedia could be a solution to change this situation.

Thanks to everybody for attention and have a good start in 2020, Dominic2105 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dominic2105 (talk • contribs) 14:44, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi Dominic2105 and welcome to the Teahouse! I took a look at your draft and it appears that the draft was declined. It's not the best feeling in the world, so I'll try to explain why it happened. So far, you've cited four sources, which is good. However, these sources are not independant and reliable. For example, the first source and second sources is the player's own website, and although it would be appropriate to provide a link in an external links section, it isn't suitable to demonstrate notability because it is not an independant source. I can try to explain this further if you're still confused. As for the differences between the English and the German Wikipedia, I'm not too familiar with that, so maybe another editor's input would be helpful here. Clovermoss (talk) 17:28, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

The enwiki notability is simpler than the dewiki Relevanz. On dewiki you can get away with no (or only primary) sources, here almost all claims need reliable and independent references. –84.46.52.55 (talk) 06:12, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Referred

How to make a reference pages

And other head titles — Preceding unsigned comment added by JantjiesAthule (talk • contribs) 12:06, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi JantjiesAthule and welcome to the Teahouse! A bit more context would help me answer your question so I understand what exactly you're asking. Are you refering to Reference sections in articles or something else? Clovermoss (talk) 17:12, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Follow-up to Understood and thank you for your time, but I have just created a brand new page on Radmila and attempted to publish. Did I do something incorrectly or do I need to revisit the first attempt?

Hi Captain Eek,

The discussion was archived regarding Radmila Lolly, so I am following up here. I am not clear how Radmila does not qualify as notable with the amount of coverage I included in my article draft. As far as possibly requiring some years before becoming notable, Radmila has been publicly active since 2012. I have also left out things that Wikipedia doesn't approve of (e.g. "dating a celebrity"), but said things also prove that public celebrities/influencers attend Radmila's events and that she has other known affiliates with Wikipedia pages of their own. Please, please help me as I have remained within Wikipedia's guidelines for citing/giving sources.

Carlden10, Howdy hello and welcome to the Teahouse! The main issue here is that at the moment, the community has determined (based on this discussion) that Lolly is not currently notable, i.e. they are not sufficiently written about and cannot be covered on Wikipedia. Realistically, some years may need to pass before this person does enough to make them notable to be on Wikipedia. At this time, I do not recommend you work on Lolly further. Creating a new article from scratch is one of the hardest thing to do on Wikipedia. You are likely best served by working on editing existing articles to get a feel for how Wikipedia works. Please feel free to ask any other questions you have about Lolly, or Wikipedia in general. Smooth sailing, Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 23:14, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Carlden10 (talk • contribs)

Hello, Carlden10, and welcome back to the Teahouse. In Draft:Radmila Lolly, the first 10 sources cited are either press releases or interviews, which do not help to establish notability at all. The article in The Spectator looks useful, but at the end says PR Agency: SGG Public Relations indicating that it is directly based on a press release, and so is not independent coverage and does not count toward notability. The Women Fitness article is again an interview. So is the article from VOCE SPETTACOLO. The article from NSCMagazine again ends with PR Agency: SGG Public Relations and so is of no value for establishing notability. I cannot asses the article from Óyeme Magazine as it is not in English, but even if it is a high-class source, one independent reliable source is not enough. At least three are needed, and high-quality sources are particularly needed to overcome the determination made at the AfD discussion. If you want to proceed (which I advise against) drop all the interviews and Press releases and look for Independent and reliable sources that each discuss her in detail. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 19:10, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Carlden10. To add to what DES has said, it might be helpful to explain that Wikipedia is basically not interested in anything that the subject has said about themselves, or their associates have said about them, whether in their own publications, or in interviews or press releases. An article must be almost completely based on what people who have no connection with the subject have chosed to publish about the subject, in reliable places. If you can few or no such sources, then it is impossible to write an acceptable article about the subject, so the notability criterion tries to stop you spending your time, and others' time, in doing something which is impossible. --ColinFine (talk) 10:40, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Editing an edit

If my edit is the most recent, is there a way to make changes to it without reverting it and recreating it, or creating a separate additional edit? Also, if I accidentally forget to create an Edit Summary, is there a way to add one after the fact? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joelkfla (talk • contribs) 18:24, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Joelkfla, and welcome to the Teahouse. You can always simply start from the current state, who ever made the most recent edit, including yourself, and make further changes to bring the article or page to the desired state. Many editors work in a series of small changes. Also, it is very common for an edit to be followed by an additional edit to correct typos or other errors in the first edit.

You cna always make a dummy edit, for example by adding a single space to teh end of a line, whoich will make no change in the display, and use the edit summary there to explain the previous edit. For example "Previous edit was to add a source citation".

In your preferences, in the editing section, there is an option (see Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-editing) "Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary (or the default undo summary)" which will warn you if you try to save without entering an edit summary. I strongly recommend it. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 18:37, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Joelkfla (talk) 18:48, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Follow-up to Undo while editing?

Please diseregard. Joelkfla (talk) 18:50, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Kirazuri and Kirazuri

While we have Kirazuri in page namespace, someone has created/translated a draft page with the same subject. Kirazuri &oldid=927741474 was created at 13:36, 24 November 2019, while Draft:Kirazuri &oldid=927006724 at 19:47, 19 November 2019. I don't think the Draft has been reviewed/approved, nor Kirazuri the page span out from that. What is the best way to avoid confusion? Do we file AfD? --Omotecho (talk) 19:13, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Omotecho, and Welcome to the Teahouse. Thank you for drawing attention to this. I have redirected Draft:Kirazuri to Kirazuri. There is no need for deletion. If a draft does need to be deleted WP:MFD is used, not AfD.

You might want to look over the cited sources in the history of the draft (which remains available at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Kirazuri&action=history) and if any of them are useful and reliable sources, add them to the article. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 19:28, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello, DESiegel, thank you for crisp reply, and appreciate your pointing me to MFD. Yes, I have supported and worked on refs/citations on Kirazuri a while ago; FYI, was told it's part of a classroom project, and the original editor also translated it into jawp as well. Cheers, --Omotecho (talk) 20:07, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Omotecho Who said this was a classroom project, and where? The creator hasn't edited any class pages or made any link to any. I ask because if this was a classroom project, I want to reach out to the instructor or any associated Wikipedia volunteers to try to avoid such collisions in future. Or di you mean the article, rather than the draft? DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 20:55, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Sorry for confusing you, but I was talking about Kirazuri article, DESiegel. Maybe more confusing to inform you the background, but anyway, the person who wrote Kirazuri article ended up posting it to jawp in English, then somebody moved it to a page under Japanese pagename kirazuri (雲母摺); I encouraged the first writer to put it into Japanese in jawp as well, even if not their original intention, and supported filling citation templates. I feel awful if me, a passer-by, hurling them into a problem... Regards, --Omotecho (talk) 21:36, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Advice sought re draft:Jacaranda Books

Dear Teahouse, the current draft article Draft:Jacaranda Books has now been rejected twice as '...Submission is about a company or organization not yet shown to meet notability guidelines (AFCH 0.9.1)'. This despite a growing list of references, at least some of which would appear to be of reasonable quality (independent/ secondary/ reliable etc.). Any advice would be welcome- thanks,Yadsalohcin (talk) 22:49, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

@Yadsalohcin: hi there. As stated by a declining reviewer: "The founder of the publishing house might be notable but it looks like the house itself is not yet.". However, I do see a multitude of sources on the page, and after a light review, have reason to believe it meets the General Notability Guidelines. My suggestion is to put it up once more for review, perhaps explaing why you believe it is notable. Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 23:37, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi there, Yadsalohcin, and welcome to the Teahouse. There are 28 references in this article (plus far too much trivial info on what books they've published, and far too many names of non-notable authors they have published). It seems very promotional. So, forgive me, but I'm not really too keen to wade through such a vast list of sources so as to help you. Instead, please could I ask you to identify the top three key sources that you believe demonstrates that the publisher meets our notability criteria for organisations? Then maybe we can look at those and offer you specific advice. (This sounds far more terse than I had intended -sorry!) Nick Moyes (talk) 23:40, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi both @Willbb234:Willbb234^Talk and Nick Moyes (talk), thanks for your comments and suggestions- I think I see a way forward- time to get more ruthless with the edits (I hadn't the heart to make wholesale deletions before, having found someone else's efforts which from a bumpkin's perspective looked wiki-worthy, and decided to try to help, but I see that it has grown somewhat gangly... and full of red-links...) Yadsalohcin (talk) 00:04, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

That's the sign of a good editor! Less is more. Go for it! Nick Moyes (talk) 00:17, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Moving Draft

So im making a list with all the vocaloid songs by singer and the list is really really long so. is there a way to move the draft so then other people can edit it too? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carri796 (talk • contribs) 23:16, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi Carri796. Any Wikipedia page can technically be edited by anyone at anytime; so, a draft doesn't need to be moved to the article namespace just so others can work on it. If you want others to help you with Draft:List of vocaloid songs, you can try looking for WikiProjects which might be related to this subject and asking for help there or maybe even asking at Wikipedia:WikiProject Lists. One thing about the list articles like the one you're trying to create is that they need to meet the requirements given in Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists and I don't think this draft does. Trying to move to the article namespace in the hope that other will improve it at this point would very possibly lead to it being tagged or nominated for deletion instead. If you disagree with this assessment, you can try to WP:MOVE the page yourself, but I would strongly suggest that you submit the draft for review at WP:AFC to give others a chance to more formally assess it. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:32, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hello, Carri796, and welcome to the Teahouse. Draft:List of vocaloid songs is already where others can edit it, as I just did. But if you mean moving it to the main article space, there is the question of Notability to be settled first. See WP:LISTN, where it says:

One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list. The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been. Because the group or set is notable, the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable, although editors may, at their discretion, choose to limit large lists by only including entries for independently notable items or those with Wikipedia articles.

Before this draft is moved to the main article space, there should be text defining mode clearly what items are eligible for inclusion in the list, and multiple reliable sources that discuss "Vocaloid songs" as a group at some length should be cited.

You could submit this for review under the Articles for Creation project by adding {{subst:submit}} to the top of the draft. But be prepared for a delay -- therye are over 3,700 drafts now in the pool to be reviewed. And with no cited sources, the4 draft is very unlikely to be approved as it stands. See Referencing for Beginners for how to add source citations to a draft. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 23:39, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

@Carri796: DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 23:41, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

So Marchjuly I found an archived wikiproject of vocaloid but it was never officially created and the only person who was intrested has left and it says do not edit. Is there a way I can pick up where they left off? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carri796 (talk • contribs) 18:46, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Edit count code?

I'd like to show my user edit count as a number somewhere in my Infobox. Is there a way to code the edit count so that the number appears and changes dynamically/automatically without me having to manually update the edit count all the time? If yes, can code lines be shared? — CYAce01 (talk) 01:17, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello, CYAce01, and welcome to the Teahouse. There is {{User contrib}} but thsat still requires manual updates. There is {{admin stats}} but that is only authorized for admins and account creators. This is because this requires a bot to make a daily edit for every user who uses this template, and the load would be too great for wider usage, or so I have been told. A template cannot generally auto-update -- ones that seem to generally link to or transclude a page which is itself auto updated by a bot. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 03:07, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the response, DESiegel. I was hoping the counter would be updated by itself so I wouldn't have to edit so much. But, with the templates, it sounds like I'd be getting credit for the edit EVERY time and possibly double dipping for the edit count update. I'm trying for "fair" and worthy edits, so I'll leave the edit counter number updater off my page. — CYAce01 (talk) 03:56, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

CYAce01, For an active editor to update, say, once a month, is hardly "double dipping", which is why the template text says "more than" not an exact number. I use adminstats, but that provides info on admin actions not just edits, which is perhaps more important for users to know in interacting with an admin. You could just keep the service badge on your user page and update after you have crossed a milestone -- that soon becomes not so often as milestones come farther apart (says I at 51k and counting) But it is entirely up to you. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 04:21, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

(ec) @CYAce01: Nothing wrong with wanting some positive feedback on your work here, but may I suggest you have a look at WP:EDITCOUNTITIS? Most people who have edit-count userboxes on their user pages update them occasionally (I do it about once a month as part of a checklist of other monthly work). As you pointed out above, quality is definitely more important than quantity. Some of my single edits take literally hours. You, I, and 99.99_% of editors will never catch up to the guys with 6-7 figure counts. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 04:22, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. It's well appreciated! — CYAce01 (talk) 04:38, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

As you have already done, most editors use the Userbox Service badges as a means of milestoning their editing. David notMD (talk) 12:45, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

RE: Jim Rogers (California politician)

I just revamped the article Jim Rogers (California politician), it apparently had BLP violations so its reliable sources that covered him in depth were removed as was his referenced notability. Nevertheless I found more sources and expanded the article dramatically. Who do I let know we should have a do over on the discussion for deleting the page or merging or whatever comes of it? I added a comment to the AfD but I don't know who's in charge, so my question is that who is in charge of that sort of thing around here?Ndołkah☆ (talk) 04:39, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

There's nobody in charge per se, you just need to wait until an uninvolved admin or uninvolved editor comes along to WP:CLOSE the AfD. If you want to mention in the AfD that you've made changes that you feel have addressed the reason it has been nominated for deletion, you can; but the AfD still needs to run its course. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:04, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

I see and can I contact those that gave their opinions already to inform them of the updates?Ndołkah☆ (talk) 05:19, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

You can WP:PING them in any new post you make at the AfD if you want, but they might already be watching the discussion or the article and will see the changes you’ve made. I guess you can post a polite note about the changes on their user talk page, but nothing demanding like “you need to reassess your AFD comment” or anything like that. Whether they respond or how they respond, however, is up to them. Whomever decides to close the AfD may decide that enough improvement has been made to at least warrant WP:RELISTing it so that further discussion can take place. — Marchjuly (talk) 05:46, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Thankies! and how do you ping someone?Ndołkah☆ (talk) 06:42, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Ndołkah. Please see Help:Notifications. Here is a pro tip for you: When you have such a question, type "WP:keyword" into the search box, using a plausible keyword. In this case, WP:PING leads to to that help page about pinging. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:51, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Ndołkah It is thoroughly appropriate to mention changes made to an article in an open AfD. I have done so several times. It is also perfectly appropriate to ping those who have commented previously, provided that you notify all of them. You should be aware that AfD discussions are not normally closed until they have been open for at least 7 full days (24 x 7 hours), so this one has a couple of days to go, at least, and sometimes they are relisted for an additional week or more. None of the conditions for a faster than usual close seem to apply in this case. You might want to look at WP:HEY as well. Thanks for your edits on this article. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 09:37, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Thankies for all the info!Ndołkah☆ (talk) 21:17, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Ross Kolby

Dear Teahouse contributors and editors. I am working on an article about a Norwegian artist and author: Draft:Ross Kolby. I have worked on it to try to meet the standards and rules of Wikipedia. Could you please help me to see if something is missing or if I may improve this article more while it is waiting for being evaluated? Best, Constituto (talk) 13:09, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Constituto, I took a quick look at your draft. There are a lot of references there, but the first few I looked at weren't ideal - some very brief mentions, a directory listing, his own YouTube channel, and the websites of galleries displaying his work (which would not really be considered, since they are promoting him). The draft was declined previously because the sources did not demonstrate the subject's notability per WP:NARTIST or WP:GNG. When it comes to notability, you only need a handful of sources, but they need to be high-quality - independent, secondary and reliable sources, giving the subject significant coverage. I'd also ask you whether you have a connection with the subject - one of the photographs is of him meeting the king, which you uploaded as your own work - that suggests to me that you know him? If so, you need to read COI carefully, and make the necessary declarations. GirthSummit _(blether) 14:25, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Girth Summit, Thank you so much for looking at my draft. I am not connected to the subject personally, I just find his art interesting. I got inspired by the article about another Norwegian artist i like: Sverre Malling. I looked at it and its references and gave it a shot. If I succeed with my article I'd like to write more articles about contemporary artists, but I see that finding the right references proves to be a challenge. I am new to this, so I might choose the wrong sources? I thought the articles from the National Broadcaster NRK would be good. Would a National Broadcaster be an independent and reliable source? I uploaded the photo of the artist and the King as my own work because I do own it. I was given the photo from the photographer, free to use in any way. He is an amateur photographer, whereas all the other photos I found from that event was from newspapers and were copyrighted. They could naturally not be uploaded to Commons. But perhaps I should have uploaded the photo in another category? I could remove the text about the exhibitons and the gallery references, if you would suggest that? I put the film from YouTube as a reference merely to say the film exists, not as a indipendent source. Should I remove it, perhaps? I am grateful for your good advices in this to me new process. Best, Constituto (talk) 05:22, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Constituto, the NRK source is good in terms of independence and reliability - if just doesn't tell us much about the subject. It tells us quite a bit about what one of his paintings, and mentions a couple of other ones, but gives us almost nothing about the man himself. Having said that though, reading it through again it would appear that you could make a case for his passing WP:NARTIST based on criterion 4(d) - is his painting of the crowns on permanent display with the crown jewels? And are his paintings of the various Norwegian kings on permanent display in a major gallery? If so, that might be a strong case for notability. With regard to the photograph, ideally the person who created it should have uploaded it, using their own account, since they are the copyright holder. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 09:57, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Girth Summit, Thank you for your remarks. I see. The inline citations I hoped would tell us more about the subject are the interviews with the newspapers Budstikka (reference No. 2) and Varden (reference No. 4). Yes, his painting of the crowns is on permanent display in the statal Crown Regalia Museum by the Nidaros Cathedral in Trondheim. https://www.nidarosdomen.no/en/attractions/riksregaliene. I found no statement about this at their website, but it is there as the NRK article states. His portraits of the three WWII kings are on permanent dispaly at the Armed Forces Museum in Oslo, which is one of Norway's oldest and most visited museums. They in fact state that they exhibit the paintings: http://forsvaretsmuseer.no/Hjemmefrontmuseet/Portretter-av-Frigjoeringskongene. This text simply says that you may se the three portraits at the main exhibiton. I could contact the photographer and ask him if he might upload the portrait on Commons himself. Again thank you for your advice. Best, Constituto (talk) 10:22, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Constituto, OK - I'm becoming convinced of his notability. If I may suggest some changes to the article that would help a reviewer:

• The draft doesn't have a lead section, summarising the content. Write one, being sure to include the basic facts that make him notable (work in the permanent collections of significant galleries).
• Cut extraneous information. You don't need a paragraph explaining who Vera Lynn is, for example - the wikilink to her article will provide all the information the reader needs about her.
• Cut any puffery - there's not much, but for example you don't need to describe the Albert Hall as an 'iconic venue'.
• We don't use honorifics. Harald V is just Harald V, not His Majesty Harald V. (We're not singling out Norway for disrespect - take a look at Elizabeth II!)
• Cut any unsourced assertions - for example, the list of people he has painted portraits of is entirely unsourced.
• The sourcing for his writing isn't great. I'm no kind of expert on Norwegian literary sources, but from a quick look I'm seeing his profile on his publisher's website, there's what appears to be a directory listing for his book, a review on what appears to be a fan site (I see it's 'powered by WordPress', which suggests it's more of a blog than an RS). Reviews in reliably published independent sources would really help beef this section up.

If you do all that, the article will appear less promotional, and it will be clear to a reviewer why he is notable - it should then be a much easier review. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 11:46, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Is there a way to remove the arrow and the square that are placed when inserting an external link?

Apologies if this is obvious. Thanks, Thatoneweirdwikier Say hi 13:18, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Thatoneweirdwikier The symbol is there for a reason - it helps to differentiate between wikilinks and external links, to make it clear to the reader that by following the link, they will be leaving Wikipedia. Why do you want to circumvent that? GirthSummit _(blether) 14:08, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Girth Summit I felt that the logo looks out-of-place in articles. Thanks, Thatoneweirdwikier Say hi 14:30, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Thatoneweirdwikier, generally speaking, it shouldn't be seen in articles except in the External Links and References sections, since we shouldn't usually be using external links within the body of the text (see WP:EL for more on this). Is there a particular article you have in mind? GirthSummit _(blether) 14:43, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Girth Summit, mainly Ram Dass. Thanks, Thatoneweirdwikier Say hi 14:51, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Thatoneweirdwikier, Ah, OK. As I said there, I'd suggest putting those into the externa links section as a clearer way to present them, rather than linking to them from the lead of the article. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 14:53, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Girth Summit, thanks for your time! Thanks, Thatoneweirdwikier Say hi 14:54, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Are derogatory nicknames acceptable on Wikipedia

I was reading the Wikipedia page of Rahul Gandhi (major Indian politician), and noticed a small sentence added right before the “Early Life” section, stating that he is sometimes referred to as “pappu” (a term used for immature people in Hindi). It has been reverted already (twice, since someone added it twice), but since it is used only by his political opponents (and anyone who dislikes him), I want to know if this information is suitable for Wikipedia (considering that no one does the same to Narendra Modi who is sometimes (though not as often) called a “feku” for not fulfilling promises made in elections)... RedBulbBlueBlood9911 (talk) 15:02, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello, RedBulbBlueBlood9911, and welcome to the Teahouse. In general, no, derogatory nicknames are not used on Wikipedia. If it can be demonstrated through independent reliable sources that a person is very often known by such a nickname, it might be mentioned, but only with a direct citation to a source, and I would think only in quotes. This would be rather unusual. I don't think we do that even on the pages of such widely abhorred figures as Hitler or Stalin. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 15:34, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

It has been removed several times from the article, so it seems like several other editors agree with you. There are cases of derogatory nicknames being included for historical figures, where the nicknames are considered to be important and very well-sourced (in Reginald Dyer for instance) but I can't think of any instance where an article about a living person has anything like that. I'm sure there are exceptions, but it would need to be discussed on the article talk page first. --bonadea contributions talk 15:48, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

I had to go and find List of nicknames of presidents of the United States. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:56, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

See Talk:Rahul Gandhi#"Pappu" edits for further discussion of this, please and please let us avoid any further edit-warring on this. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 17:09, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Even in the list of nicknames that GGS mentioned, the bar for inclusion is set very high, requiring "common usage". As an example, U.S. President Trump is called variations of "the orange one", usually (but not always) by comedians, and fairly often, but it is not in that list. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 01:58, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Date format-ish

Just a quick question that I am not sure where to ask. Sometimes an article have the use dmy/mdy tag on top of it which will automatically makes dates in citation to be dmy/mdy per Help:Citation Style 1#Auto-formatting citation template dates. I recently edited a mdy article, but since I usually use dmy, I just use dmy in citation because I know the script will change them for me. Is that an acceptable practice or should I change my approach? Lulusword (talk) 16:42, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Lulusword, and welcome to the Teahosue. As long as the displayed forms are consistent, the wiki-text doesn't matter that much, but using an inconsistent form in the citations may tempt you or a later editor to copy or imitate a date in non-citation prose, where the template will have no effect. It is probably better practice to use the form specified for the article, but if you forget, no huge issue. If you wanted to change what is used, start a discussion on the article talk page, but that is rarely a good idea. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 17:19, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the quick reply. I guess I will practice using the default format in citing references later since it will be benefecial for future editors. :) Lulusword (talk) 17:46, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

@DESiegel: Good point, David. Now if only we could get the editor's cite tool to use the appropriate format in the access-date and on the rare occasion it correctly finds the publication date. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 01:30, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

AlanM1 I'd settle for getting it not to stick tje site name into the title, and to use the actual site name, not the site domain, for website=. Lots of luck with that. Still the MOS does permit the archive-date to be in a format different from everything else ("Wherefore is this date different from all other dates...?") DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 01:55, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

@DESiegel: Note, though, that the change to the cite templates to respect the {{Use ??? dates}} also formats the access-date values, which seems at odds with the MoS' allowing them to be YMD. Of course, there have been changes in the MoS, too, and I'm having trouble remembering what to do any more. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 02:05, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Tool to remove duplicate links in an article?

I am looking for a tool that could help in removing duplicate links in an article. Often I come across an article where well meaning editors have linked the same word multiple times. I can imagine that in a very long article it might be nice to have a word linked more than once.

Has anyone seen such a tool?

--Akrasia25 (talk) 19:33, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Akrasia25, welcome to the Teahouse. We certainly have a tool to identify and highlight duplicate links, though you would have to manually remove them. Would that suffice? If so, I'll go and dig out a link for you. Nick Moyes (talk) 22:18, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Here we are. Try installing the script by following the instructions at this page: User:Evad37/duplinks-alt. Season's greetings, Nick Moyes (talk) 22:28, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! That sure was a fast response Nick. I appreciate it and I will try out the script. I can imagine that there has to be some manual removal to avoid mistakes--Akrasia25 (talk) 23:11, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Adding Information

How do I add my brother and I to the Notable Alumni tab on Archbishop Ryan High School page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.80.184.16 (talk) 20:46, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello, IP user. If either of you is notable in the way Wikipedia uses that word (see the page linked for more detail), then Wikipedia could have an article about the one who is notable (or articles about both if you both are). In that case, an article could be written about you (but not by you - see autobiography for why not - and once the article exists, your name could be added to the list. Most people are not notable in Wikipedia's sense, and do not belong on such a list. --ColinFine (talk) 20:51, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

In short, notice that the Archbishop Ryan High School#Notable alumni list are all blue links to Wikipedia articles. Unless there is a Wikipedia article about you (or one is likely to soon be created based on what Colin said), I'm afraid it would not be appropriate to include you in that list. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 01:36, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

How to be recognized for donating?

Hi everyone, I have just donated $20,000 to the wikimedia foundation, and I was disappointed at the lack of recognition for my generosity. Was there a mistake? Just wondering how we can get this resolved. Thanks! - Chris — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrissods (talk • contribs) 00:51, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

@Chrissods: Hi, welcome to the Teahouse. Thanks for your generosity. The Teahouse volunteers don't work with donations and don't have access to donor information. Donors are anonymous by default for privacy reasons but can give permission to be named per foundation:Donor privacy policy/en#Sharing Donor Information. https://wikimediafoundation.org/support/benefactors/ has an email address. You should qualify as a patron donor. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:08, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Chrissods, as this forum is to answer editor's questions about how to edit Wikipedia, let me add this: Your status as a donor has no bearing whatsoever on your editing. Some editors donate, some don't. Either way, it's totally irrelevant to your or my editing activity. John from Idegon (talk) 01:34, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Gosh, John, was that comment really necessary? Nick Moyes (talk) 02:02, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi John from Idegon, thank you for your remark. I’d hoped to come here and be welcomed and thanked for my donation, but I’m glad that you seem to enjoy finding an unsubtle way to denigrate me and my contribution to the project. Take care now, and rest assured that your snide attitude is not lost on me. - Chris Chrissods (talk) 01:48, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hello, Chrissods, and welcome to the Teahouse. Wow! That's an amazing donation, and far more than I earn in a whole year. So, thank you so, so much. I'm afraid none of us here can speak for the Wikimedia Foundation, as English Wikipedia is run wholly by volunteers, and none of us receive any income whatsoever for our efforts. As you no doubt know, the WMF uses your generous donations, not only to fund the immense costs of hosting this amazing Encyclopaedia, but also in a huge program of education and outreach across the globe, as weĺl as the development of the software behind all our wikis, and research into its effectiveness. I would assume that any delay in acknowledging such a donation as you have made would be due to office closures over the Christmas/New Year period. I have genuinely no idea how the WMF office operates, but I would hope you might be willing to give them another week to respond to you. If you get no reply by then, and are concerned that your donation might not have reached its destination, please email: donate@wikimedia.org. You can check you've donated to the correct address by checking the details here Once again, thank you for supporting Wikimedia, and all its projects. Regards from the UK. Nick Moyes (talk) 01:50, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Chrissods. I will take you at your word, and therefore I thank you for your generous donation to the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF). Please realize that the WMF operates hundreds of sites in hundreds of languages with a variety of different objectives. English Wikipedia is the largest of many WMF sites, but English Wikipedia editors and administrators, who are volunteers, have nothing at all to do with the fundraising and have no way at all to verify who is a financial donor and who isn't. Frankly, we do not care at all about financial donations when interacting with other editors. Here on English Wikipedia, we value your volunteer editorial contributions to this encyclopedia, because our goal 24 hours a day and seven days a week is to improve this encyclopedia, and we can easily verify whether or not you are doing so. It is fairly common that we deal with people who want an article changed in one way or another because they claim that they have donated money to the WMF. We must reject any such requests based on money because the policies and guidelines of this encyclopedia always come first. I am sorry that you were offended by an earlier comment. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:13, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Merging Talk Pages

I recently merged Swaminarayan Sampraday to Swaminarayan (spiritual tradition) as outlined in WP:MERGE. While I reconciled the talk page tags from the source page, do I need to also copy the source talk page (here) posts into the destination talk page (here)? Thank you. Moksha88 (talk) 03:06, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Just a little typo I found on the main section of an electronics article. There's no 'edit source' button. How do I fix it? :)

Hi there, Just wondering about a little typo I found on the main section of an electronics article. It's a lovely article. There's no 'edit source' link to fix the typo - though there're 'edit source' links next to subsections. How do I fix a typo in the main article? Thanks heaps :)  :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Researchgatematerials (talk • contribs) 03:28, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

On a computer there is an "edit source" link at the very top above the title. Not sure about on a phone though! --Bduke (talk) 04:27, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Idea..

Ever thought about putting out donation bins? It would be very convenient and I’m sure people would give change at least. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1702:3760:E920:70E2:3B09:D9D4:609E (talk) 04:16, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Donations are handled by the Wikimedia Foundation that operates the computers Wikipedia is on, and not us editors here. You are welcome to communicate any suggestions you have to them, though if you mean physical donation collection, that would likely be a massive operation for a worldwide site to conduct. 331dot (talk) 10:13, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Userspace templates

Not sure where else would be the appropriate place to ask this so I guess here? When leaving a warning on a user talk page, such as {{uw-unsourced}}, I know that piping the article title in will mention the article. I’ve seen on some talk pages, however, that the specific diff is also linked. How do you link to a specific article revision with these templates? TIA, Alex (talk) 04:47, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

@Alexanderlee: AFAIK, this is only possible for messages left by Huggle. All Huggle messages can be found at Template:Huggle and its subpages. Victor Schmidt mobil (talk) 06:54, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Hawaiian Lullaby

Aloha! Need help moving Draft:Hawaiian Lullaby into main space by experienced editors. Once done I can upload image. Thanks! Allanbcool (talk) 05:24, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Welcome back to the Teahouse, Allanbcool. Your draft needs a "critical reception" section, which should summarize reviews of the album published in reliable sources. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:31, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Adding a date of death

I (and it seems, several others) have tried to add death information for Scott Sowers. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Sowers

Multiple online sources have announced his death, e.g. imdb.com, and https://fcnp.com/2018/06/13/our-man-in-arlington-276/

My edits and others have been reverted. Can someone advise what we're doing wrong? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bob baseline (talk • contribs) 05:35, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

His (possible) death has been discussed on his article's Talk page. The theory there is that it was an April Fool's Day hoax. The source you gave is a church newsletter, probably not what we would normally regard as a great source. IMDB is also notoriously unreliable. Is there a genuinely reliable source out there? Anyway, since it's already under discussion there, I suggest you take your thoughts to the Talk page. HiLo48 (talk) 05:50, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

I did some digging, documented at Talk:Scott Sowers. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 08:28, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Chances (Backstreet Boys song) submission rejection assistance

I have recently come across this draft a few months ago when it was declined three times by two different reviewers due to the same editor resubmitting the article without thoroughly following advice. In the following months since I found the draft, I have added several reliable secondary sources establishing the notability of the song, while also adding primary sources to support these statements. The draft was then rejected due to the lack of secondary sources and for the same reasons as the previously declined submissions, despite adding several more reliable secondary sources.

I have since followed the reviewer's advice to discuss the state of the draft over at the main article's talk page two weeks ago. However, no other editor had responded over the two weeks, and I have not been able to gain consensus about whether contents of the draft should be merged as suggested by the reviewer, or if any other editors are willing to assist in the editing process. I am also unsure about the approximate number of reliable secondary sources that would be acceptable for the draft to pass submission, as information in most sources are combined with the announcement of the DNA World Tour or only solely mentioned during a television performance of said song.

Any help will be greatly appreciated. — Angryjoe1111 (talk) 06:48, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Angryjoe1111: in your opinion, which four of the 20 references in the draft do most to establish that the subject is notable, by linking to reliable published independent sources with in-depth discussion of the subject? Maproom (talk) 09:50, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Strange RGraph edits - should these be undone?

Hello, can someone help me understand if the recent edits by users 86.30.29.225 and Richard heyes to RGraph should be undone or how to treat them? Richard heyes stated COI on the user talk page. 86.30.29.225 has only made edits to RGraph so far. Actually, I created the RGraph page and it is not even reviewed yet if I am not mistaken, and in the current state after those multiple edits by these users it looks less neutral than in the state I made it... Please advise what should be done in such cases. Thank you. Avbgok (talk) 09:57, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

In my personal opinion, the edits by Richard heyes are not improvements to the article. They are promotional, and give excessive detail in the form of a code sample. Richard heyes, as the creator of the subject software, has an undeclared conflict of interest. The edits by the IP editor are constructive copyedits to the content added by Richard heyes. Maproom (talk) 10:35, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Appears you created the article (no longer a draft), and editor Richard heyes, who claims to be the creator of RGraph, has added lots of content to the article, doubling the length. Best place to discuss whether those additions are appropriate is at Talk page of article. David notMD (talk) 11:19, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi Avbgok. Any editor can undo another editor's edit(s) if they believe they aren't improvements or otherwise not in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines. If that's the case here, then you can undo the edits. However, if you decide to do that, you should leave a clearly worded edit summary explaining why also probably further clarify on the article's talk page. The other accounts involved might be not as familiar with Wikipedia editing as you are and not really know about things like WP:DR and WP:BRD, etc. so try to avoid WP:BITE. It also might help to mention in your edit summary that they can discuss things on the article's talk page. Even though there does appear to be a COI at play here with at least one of the other accounts, just reverting everything on that basis alone is not really a good thing to do; so, if you can improve on the content in any way without undoing it all, then that might be a better thing to do. If you want to get more editors involved who are experienced in editing articles about software to assess the article, then try asking at the WikiProjects listed on the article's talk page. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:49, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Added an entry, but I need assistance for English Wikipedia (Second draft, enhanced article sources in references)

Hello everybody,

thanks for the assistance regarding the entry "Added an entry, but I need assistance for English Wikipedia". The draft has not been approved due to missing reliable independent sources in the references. I added four new ones and linked to two other Wikipedia languages entries. Could this new draft please be checked?

Have a good start into 2020, Dominic2105