Wikipedia:Teahouse

Stormy clouds, 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.)

How do I edit an article I started but is no longer open on my screen?

How do I edit an article I started but is no longer open on my screen? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thomastwinnings (talk • contribs) 06:23, 4 January 2020 (UTC) Thomastwinnings (talk) 06:41, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

@Thomastwinnings, please see User:Thomastwinnings/sandbox--Quisqualis (talk) 08:19, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi Thomastwinnings. Pretty much every recorded (i.e. saved) edit you make on Wikipedia can be found in your user contribution history. You can find this particular page by scrolling up to the top of your screen and looking for "Contributions" and clicking on it: it's to the left of "Log out". There's no record, however, of you making any edits with this particular account other than your above post here at the Teahouse.

Were you trying to create a new article or edit an existing article using this account? If you were, then perhaps you logged off or got disconnected before you saved your edits (i.e. before you clicked the "Publish changes" button). If that's the case, then I don't think there's anyway to retrieve the content you were trying to create because Wikipedia doesn't have an auto-save function like some word processing programs may have. In general, when your doing stuff online you can sometimes click the "back button" on your browser to return to a page you were previously viewing, but its sound like you closed browser window (or it was closed for some reason) so you may no longer be able to that.

Now, if you were using another account (e.g. an IP address account) when you created this content and can remember what that account was, then it might be possible to retrieve things if you saved the relevant content. Otherwise, I afraid it's probably gone forever. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:52, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Help, please, with authors who have NO pages in Wikipedia !

Can anyone give me any information about the authors Ric K. Hill, Tony Rosa and/or James Ross. I can find NO information, anywhere, on any of them (with the exception of that which is said about them on the back of their book jackets on the few books I have located in Albuquerque, New Mexico). All three are the authors of recently self-published golf novels (my own particular & peculiar bug-a-boo). These books are: Hill's "Slice of Heaven", "Panic at Augusta", "Stroke of Genius", "Heart of a Caddie", "Rub of the Green", "Bunkered", "Last Mulligan" and "Bogey Train"; Rosa's "The Schoolboy" and "Birdie" and Ross's "Lifetime Loser", "Finish Line", "Tuey's Course", "Opur's Blade", "Pabby's Score" and "Shari's Shot". Any information about these authors or their works will be greatly appreciated. Thanks for reading this. Steve Prekker, Albuquerque, N.M. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pdssteve (talk • contribs) 18:44, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Pdssteve Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. This sort of general question might be better asked at the Reference Desk. 331dot (talk) 18:55, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

@Pdssteve: Note responses at Wikipedia:Help desk#Hill, Ric K. as well. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 20:47, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Pdssteve, It was recently explained to you that self-published authors almost never achieve what Wikipedia calls WP:Notability. That would explain why those authors you list haven't had articles written about them published in Wikipedia.--Quisqualis (talk) 08:08, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

That said, this time he just want info about them, not a WP-article, so asking at the refdesk is not a bad idea. Or google. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:46, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Should the section "Indian Government response" of Citizenship Amendment Act 2019 have content for the official Government Response of FAQs on CAA ?

1. - There is a section named "Indian Government Response" in this article Citizenship_(Amendment)_Act,_2019#Indian_government_response. But surprisingly, it gives references for response of Modi from his personal platform (personal twitter handle) rather than any official Indian Government response.

Just as there are individual opinions of Wiki editors and consensus opinion of Wikipedia, individual ministers may have individual opinions on an issue and there is consensus opinion of Indian Government. Based on consensus, Indian Government released FAQs on Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) on 16 December 2019 and later. This was widely reported by Indian media. Written statements are more reliable compared to speeches.
(Some examples -
1. https://www.livemint.com/news/india/citizenship-amendment-act-govt-busts-myths-11576477654256.html
2. https://www.sentinelassam.com/top-headlines/government-clarifies-as-citizenship-amendment-act-stir-intensifies-across-the-country/
3. https://www.outlookindia.com/newsscroll/government-clarifies-as-caa-stir-intensifies-across-india/1689279)

2. - I tried to edit the article to remove this issue. But those edits were reverted and vague notices accusing me of "Original Research" were put up on my talk page. Other than referencing links of Wikipedia policies, they did not specify what were the Original Research links put by me. I was told to discuss on Article talk page which I did. But the editors were unable to tell which were the "Original Research" links put by me as per their claims. The editors would not discuss details of why the links or content for 'Official Indian Government Response' were rejected by them even though I showed examples of some links which were secondary and reliable. I was then told to go to the Reliable Source Notice Board Forum.

3. - At the Reliable Source notice Board Forum, there has been support for adding the reliable links and content covering official statements of Indian Government for this issue. Until now, there has been no opposition for adding the Official version of Indian Government on that Forum. Please see - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Are_references_of_Modi_response_on_his_personal_platform_violating_ContextMatters_for_section_%22Indian_Government_response%22_of_Citizenship_Amendment_Act_2019_

4. - I then went to Dispute Resolution Notice Board Forum as it is mentioned to part of Consensus building. But at that forum, there has been no constructive response. The involved editors did not show interest in discussion on the issue and the volunteer told me to go to Tea House Forum or back to Article Talk Page. Seriously, are people really interested in making this article non-biased ? It seems that the RS Noticeboard editors could understand the issue but the edit reverting users did not understand my edits and reverted them without understanding them !

I had specifically mentioned examples of 3-4 links which could be put in the article along with relevant content from those links. But the Article Talk page editor did not show interest in discussing in detail even though they reverted my edit within minutes. It is highly doubtful that they went through my edit properly before reverting my edit. Still, I posted on the Article Talk page. They are just asking me to go to several forums and not interested in discussing the issue.

5. - So, my question in short is that should there not be references and accompanying relevant text of media coverage on issue of FAQs on CAA released by Government of India in order to make the section less non-biased ? Request to please give detailed reasons along with opinion.

Kmoksha (talk) 21:33, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Kmoksha, Howdy hello! I'm afraid that the Teahouse does not mediate content disputes. You need to continue discussing this at the talk page. You have not fully explained your positions and discussed the issue. Dispute resolution is to be used only when discussion has been exhausted. I would caution you to listen to other editors, be civil, and to not be tenditious. Editing controversial issues, such as the CAA, have landed many editors in much hot water. If you cannot edit neutrally, you may wish to stay away from the subject.

Specific replies to the points you've raised:

2. Every claim in an article requires a citation. Where you reverted, the edit I saw had sections that were not supported by reliable citations. That is original research.

4. Making more, smaller edits, where you explain each step, will help with editors not reverting you. Making a 6k change at once is pretty drastic for most articles. If there is one thing wrong with it, all of the good stuff will also get reverted. Not all of your edits were bad. But editors took issue with part of it, and undid all of it.

5. Your question is worded so convolutedly I do not understand it. It is also not a neutral wording of the question. If you could refine it into something neutral and understandable, you could theoretically start a request for comment using it, which might be another avenue to solve the issues you're having.

If you wish me to followup further, please ping me or leave a note on my talk page. Smooth sailing, Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 06:36, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

CaptainEek Thanks for your response. This is the diff of my edit - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Citizenship_(Amendment)_Act,_2019&diff=prev&oldid=932489305

Can you please point out one source link which was not appropriate and one edit which was appropriate in your opinion so that the things are more clear ? I will ensure that future edits are smaller in size. Unfortunately, the Talk Page editors just reverted my edit. But even on request, they did not specifically point what was wrong with my edit. They have directed me to several forums including this one. It would help me greatly if you could give your opinion on specific parts of the edit.

My question in point 5 of the thread opener, which I requested your opinion, is "Should the section 'Indian Government Response' of this article have content regarding official Government response on CAA like 'FAQs on CAA' ?"

Kmoksha (talk) 10:53, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Kmoksha, For sources: linking to a government's wordpress blog in the lead is not appropriate. We don't take governments at their word, because they don't have an incentive to give it to us straight. We instead trust news sources, who have an incentive to give us context, and investigate. As always, when talking about claims by a government, we attribute them clearly to the government, and do not give them too much weight. Also, a phrase like "Resorting to violence during protest is violation of a key fundamental duty of citizens" is very much original research and not neutral. Sources like the BBC or CNN are reliable however, and claims attributed to them are generally good.

Again, the Teahouse is not a place for mediation of content. But I will go over to the page in question and drop my opinion. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 21:14, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Infobox or succession boxes?

Hi, I do a fair bit of work on political office-holders. I'm a bit confused about the difference between the infoboxes at the upper right-hand beginning of the page, and the succession boxes at the bottom. Some articles use infoboxes, some use succession boxes, and some use both.

Is there a policy or guideline on which to use? And when?

I personally prefer the infobox because it provides more information, and is a good thumbnail sketch that the reader sees immediately.

Thanks,

Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 22:36, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Mr Serjeant Buzfuz, When possible, both ought be used. Infoboxes are preferred in all articles where they make sense, and enough info exists on the subject to fill an infobox. Succession boxes are not mandatory, but are useful. They make for more complete articles, and would be expected out of a top tier article. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 06:18, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

That gives you the usual effects of redundancy, it's more robust, but also requires more maintenance, and if the infobox says A, the article says B, and the bottom boxes say C it's a mess. It's also harder to get some "nice" result at the bottom. –84.46.52.205 (talk) 06:30, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

My personal rule is to be consistent, if almost all persons in your case have the succession info in the infobox stick to it. At the bottom can also make sense, and if you disagree "discuss" (=suggest) it on a talk page, link to this "discussion" on another talk age, wait some weeks, and if nobody objected or if there is some rough consensus implement it consistently. –84.46.52.205 (talk) 06:23, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the responses. Is there a definite policy or guideline anywhere on this issue? Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 08:54, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Check out Wikipedia:Navigation template, disclaimer: I haven't read it. –84.46.52.205 (talk) 10:13, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Help

I need editing help. Possibly adoption. Skoudco101 (talk) 23:09, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Sure, you can check out Wikipedia:Adoption --Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 23:11, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

@Skoudco101: for a basic guide on how to edit, see Help:Editing. Cheers, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 23:35, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

@Thegooduser: Adoption really isn't the solution for brand new editors seeking assistance. It's a much longer term commitment by both parties. The Teahouse is a far better way to give immediate support. @Skoudco101: what help do you seek, please? You might find Help:Getting started of some use. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 02:17, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

I just want to edit but have no idea what about? Skoudco101 (talk) 00:39, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

I would like to publish an article on wikipedia

Hi can you help me with the publishing of an article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eviathema (talk • contribs) 10:52, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Hello Eviathema. If you mean Draft:Sotiris Barsakis, you need much better sources. The only citation does not seem to mention the subject. See WP:GNG, WP:BASIC and HELP:YFA. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:22, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps you hadn't realised that in the feedaback messages (on the draft and on your user talk page) the words "not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia" are in blue, meaning that they are a wikilink, in this case to Wikipedia:Notability? --David Biddulph (talk) 11:44, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Draft: Shiva Makinian

Dear Teahouse contributors and editors. Hello. I am working on an article about a Iranian artist and actress : Draft:Shiva Makinian . 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? Please help me if possible. Keyhan narimannia (talk) 12:14, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

@Keyhan narimannia: We normally don't bold headings in article titles. I would advise not bolding them. Others are welcome to comment on ways how to improve this article. Interstellarity (talk) 13:41, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

@Interstellarity: Thank you for respond. I changed they. Keyhan narimannia (talk) 14:21, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

In the first Declined, Bkissin wrote that the draft appears to be a copyright violation, as copied near-verbatim from the artist's website. This was remedied by a copyright release action. The article still has problems. I recommend deleting the entire section "Public performance and international festivals", as articles about actors do not list their performances. As noted in the second Declined, much of the content is not referenced. David notMD (talk) 14:27, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

@David notMD: The copyright issue has been resolved. I solved this problem with DESiegel's help The page used as the source is copyrighted. You can see at the bottom of the page : http://www.negahtheatre.com/shiva-makinian/

:The text of this page is available for modification and reuse under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License and the GNU Free Documentation License (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts)

But I have a question: Shiva Makinian has many reference for searching the Persian language. But in English she has fewer references. I've used English references in this draft. Now; Can I use valid Persian references for this page? if yes, In this case, the resource problem will be resolved.

Thank you, Keyhan narimannia (talk) 15:09, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Hello Keyhan narimannia! Yes, WP:RS in other languages can be used, see WP:NOENG. This generally excludes selfpublished sources, social media etc, but for example a good newspaper in any language can be used. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:34, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

My recommendations on deleting a section were not about the copyright issue, but rather that in my opinion, listing performances does not belong in any actor article. David notMD (talk) 18:19, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

My question on looking at a few small examples to do online citations seems to have disappeared. Fortunately I had saved it as a small rtf file on my desktop

At any rate I went and tried using the visual editor as Captain Eek suggested. Unfortunately I got the error message "This reference list is generated by a template, and for now can only be edited in source mode." When I tried to add my reference to the list. Now I have the impression I busted something in there. 500 Place D'Armes. Can I fix this with the visual editor? --AlainV (talk) 14:48, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

@AlainV: Yes, you can. But it's best if you delete the reference completely, and try again from scratch, (especially as you did add accessdate information outside of the reference.) And, yes, you can do that in Visual Editor. That said, VE is horrible to use for anything other than the simplest of references, and Source Editor is actually simpler. I have written some guidance notes which you can find at User:Nick Moyes/Easier Referencing for Beginners. I'd welcome feedback if you found them helpful or unhelpful. Hope this helps. Nick Moyes (talk) 17:59, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

OK, I'll try your notes for the source editor. Thanks. --AlainV (talk) 18:50, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

I used them and the whole thing went very fast since a reflist already existed. The notes were very helpful. --AlainV (talk) 19:28, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

@AlainV: Glad it worked for you, and thank you for letting me know. Nick Moyes (talk) 21:33, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Why Wikipedia not approving my article "Arthur Choo".

Arthur Choo is a Singaporean musician. He is famous for his instrument the cajon. he is doing social works and helping poor and handicapped people in Singapore. I Artdotc want's to publish an article for his great efforts and social work. His contributions should be notable to the people and about him their should be an article on Wikipedia. I'm trying a lot to publish an article on his life but every time after publishing article (Arthur Choo) i'm getting notice that this article should be deleted under section G11. they are saying that i'm advertising in this article but i'm seriously not. I'm a confirmed user on Wikipedia, i know how to write an article and how to edit articles. Even if i upload an image of eminent personality Arthur Choo, i gotta notice that this image should be deleted. I click that image with my own camera, still they don't approve that image.

Wikipedia made me a confirmed user, that's great!, with this now i can create an article, move an article and upload media, this is only a joke with me. Still i'm unable to create articles and upload images. overall their is no use of my confirmed user. why Wikipedia isn't so smart and technical that it is unable to identify the point of view of my written article. There is no single medium of advertising and productivity in my article Arthur Choo. so please, it is a humble request to you, that let my article to be live on Wikipedia without any objections. and please contact me if you seriously found any mistake in my article(Arthur Choo), except deleting my article. Thanks Wikipedia confirmed User Artdotc — Preceding unsigned comment added by Artdotc (talk • contribs) 14:49, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Hello Artdotc. The article contains multiple peacock terms, such as "most prominent personality" or "eminent". The sections "Appearances" and "Media" are directly copy-pasted from their own website. Please see our guidelines about neutral point of view and reliable sources. Best regards, Majavah ^(t/c) 15:02, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

• Note: Also asked and answered at the help desk. Page has been nominated for speedy deletion as promotional and copy-vio. Eagleash (talk) 15:12, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

What are reliabl;e sources for a translated article?

I work as a volunteer translator for a museum. I was asked to translate the Wikipedia page for the museum in English. My translated article was marked as a translation using both method specified in the instructions. However my article was declined due to lack of references so I referenced the original article This was declined again as you are not allowed to reference another Wikipedia page So what to do? Copy the "dutch" references from one page to the other? Or is my editor just being difficult and ignoring that this is a tranbslation — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boulderados (talk • contribs) 15:03, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

You'll find advice at WP:Translation. --David Biddulph (talk) 15:07, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

@Boulderados: Hello. You may use non-English sources, however English sources are preferred (if possible). For more information, see WP:NOENG. Please remember that the community discourages editing articles about subjects that you have an external relationship. Best regards, Majavah ^(t/c) 15:09, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

PediaPress

Hi

I am creating a book on PediaPress (https://pediapress.com/) on the Battle of Gettysburg. PediaPress takes Wikipedia pages and prints them in book form. Unfortunately pages are printed with editing remarks. How can I remove these remarks? Mieczkowski (talk) 15:29, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Hello Mieczkowski! It seems to me that this is a question for PediaPress, perhaps you can try the email here [1]? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:28, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Power Towers Wikipedia Entry

I would like to add this new company entry from my sandbox to wikipedia main page. How do I do this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rfpuglia (talk • contribs) 19:02, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Please don't, it will certainly be speedily deleted. Wikipedia only has articles about notable topics that have been reported on in depth by multiple, independent reliable sources. Theroadislong (talk) 19:07, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Follow-up to submit an article request for Mutu Certification International

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Mutu_Certification_International — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karyaanakbangsa (talk • contribs) 19:30, 5 January 2020 (UTC) Please check, if there are problems, please fix and discuss them first. thank you regards Dani Karyaanakbangsa (talk) 19:27, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Your draft has been submitted for review, and will be coonsidered on its merits. More importantly, you were told in the response to your previous question, about the mandatory requirements for declaration of paid editing. By continuing to edit without having made such a declaration you are violating Wikmedia's term & conditions. --David Biddulph (talk) 20:03, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Can you correct a link on our village's page?

Howdy - I'm not a member of Wikipedia, so I am asking for an edit. This is our village's page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_Pine,_Idaho Down at the bottom where it says "External Links" there is an out of date link. The link: http://www.ruralnetwork.net/~yptimes/ goes to an older website (not updated since 2004) I am the owner/author of that page. The new link should be: https://yellowpinetimes.wordpress.com/ I am the owner/author of that page and publisher of our local newspaper since Jan of 2000. I don't want to mess anything up by trying to make an edit myself. And I'm not sure if I am authorized to even make edits. Thank you - rrSue Yellow Pine Idaho — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.170.177.47 (talk) 19:50, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

The page is currently not protected so you are authorized to edit the article. You can also discuss your proposed changes on the talk page of the article. It is accessed by clicking the link Talk next to Article. Interstellarity (talk) 20:45, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

I see that the requested change has been made. Maproom (talk) 22:41, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you - rrSue

Check and correct my sandbox

Hello. I want to translate an article ("fr:Manoir des Croft" in French), but my English is not great. Can you check and correct my sandbox, please ? Thanks in advance,--Paul Morère (talk) 20:22, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

One point is that you need to provide attribution to the article from which you made the translation, see WP:HOWTRANS. --David Biddulph (talk) 20:40, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

David Pimentel

How do I start a page for this recently deceased scientist? I have a stub to start with in my sandbox. Help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by WDrit2 (talk • contribs) 21:07, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

You'll find advice at WP:Your first article, and at Help:Referencing for beginners. --David Biddulph (talk) 21:56, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

adding images that I have a copyright on

I am working on a draft page of Quaker abolitionist Yardley Taylor, but am having trouble uploading images. I own two daguerreotypes, of Yardley and Hannah Taylor, and have file images of the daguerreotypes, but the Wikipedia Image softwared doesn't let me upload the image files. A window opens up that says something about me perhaps not having copyright of the images, etc. What can I do to upload the images? Lee1101 (talk) 21:46, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Lee1101 Hello; you got an answer to this question at the Help Desk; please only use one method of seeking assistance. Thanks 331dot (talk) 21:52, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Porygon2 and Porygon-Z article publication

Hi! I found somewhat of an article of both Porygon2 and Porygon-Z. I was wondering if someone could help me publish their articles, please. Thanks. UB Blacephalon (talk) 22:20, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Porygon Pokemon has been submitted for AFC review, and presumably will be considered within a few months. Porygon2 and Porygon-Z currently exist as redirects to other articles. --David Biddulph (talk) 22:34, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Also, there was a previous discussion here, at WP:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1039#Porygon2 and Porygon-Z articles. --David Biddulph (talk) 22:39, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, but I would like to publish the Porygon2 and Porygon-Z articles, the evolution of the article of which is currently under review. Could anyone help me with that? UB Blacephalon (talk) 03:35, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Citing a presentation

Currently I am working on the Akaflieg Stuttgart fs33 and while digging through the Akaflieg Stuttgart's archive, I stumbled upon a summary from a presentation. This raises a question: when citing information from a presentation, which format should I use in the 'References' section? The available options don't seem to fit quite well to the source material (the closest may possibly be conference, though admittedly I'm not sure). If I should take the format for a conference, does the location imply where the conference took place or where said conference proceeding can be found? Thanks in advance for the help! --Hardtofindausername (talk) 22:46, 05 January 2020 (UTC)

You wouldn't be citing the presentation, you'd be citing the summary. However, we cannot use your original research here. That's not what an encyclopedia is. Our sources must be accessible for others to access. An item in a company archive cannot be used here. John from Idegon (talk) 23:04, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Two articles for the same individual

Hello, There are two articles for the same person and the pages are Khlaifa al-Khulaifi and Sultan al-Khalaifi, What do you suggest in this case. Thanks! Tarboun's (talk) 00:57, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi Tarboun's. Since multiple articles about the same subject aren't really needed, the first thing to do would be to make sure they are about the same subject and not just two similar but different subjects. These articles have different titles; so, this probably explains why nobody seemed to notice that there might be a problem up until now. If you're sure they are about the same person, the next thing to do would be to try and figure out which title should be used per WP:COMMONNAME. Sometimes a person may use one name for personal reasons, but then another for professional reasons; in other cases, they may have changed their name at some point to something other than there birth name. The details about a person's name can be included in an article, but there's no need to make separate articles for each name.

Of the two articles, Sultan al-Khalaifi seems to be the one created first, which means that's probably the article to try and use as the target article. If that name is OK per COMMONNAME, then any content in the other article which is different can most likely be WP:MERGED into the target article. You can probably be WP:BOLD in doing this, but you can also propose such a merge on the relevant article talk pages per WP:MERGEPROP. Since a merge either way may require a WP:HISTMERGE to preserve attribution, you might want to post something at WP:RFHM to see if this is necessary. The Khlaifa al-Khulaifi can then most likely just be blanked and redirected to "Sultan al-Khalaifi" since this will preserve attribution for that page and it shouldn't necessarily need to be deleted.

Things get more complicated if the COMMONNAME is actually "Khlaifa al-Khulaifi" since you're basically going to be merging content the other way which might not be ideal. In this case, you may have to still merge from "Khlaifa al-Khulaifi" to "Sultan al-Khalaifi", have a history merge done by an admin, have "Khlaifa al-Khulaifi" deleted per WP:MAD to free up the name, and then WP:MOVE "Sultan al-Khalaifi" to "Khlaifa al-Khulaifi". You cannot MOVE "Sultan al-Khalaifi" to the other name as long as that page exists, and I'm not sure if it's OK to just merge "Sultan al-Khalaifi" to "Khlaifa al-Khulaifi" because there may be issues with the respective page histories in trying to do that. If you want to do it this way, you probably shouldn't be BOLD and instead ask about it at WP:AN or WP:RFHM just to make sure it's OK to do. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:35, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

@Tarboun's and Marchjuly: It looks like "Khlaifa" is mis-spelled, too (it should be "Khalifa"). Is "Sultan" his given name or an WP:HONORIFIC/title? —[AlanM1(talk)]— 03:48, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

@AlanM1 and Marchjuly: Thanks for your fast reply, The merge was already done by MSGJ and I want to thank him for that. the spelling is correct there are two names Khalifa and Khlaifa and Sultan is his given name so, I would suggest to move the article with the name: Sultan Khlaifa al-Khulaifi. Thanks Tarboun's (talk) 20:55, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

@Tarboun's: I asked about this at WP:AN#Discussion at WP:THQ#Two articles for the same individual and Martin merged the articles. You should be able to be WP:BOLD and move the page to the correct title since Sultan Khlaifa al-Khulaifi doesn't seem to exist. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:52, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: It's clear for me now why did he merge the two articles. Article move to Sultan Khlaifa al-Khulaifi and thanks for your support. Best Tarboun's (talk) 22:21, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Etienne Henri Deffarges life

Hello !

Can someone please tell me why my article about Deffarges (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Etienne_Henri_Deffarges) has been declined and how can i make it follow wikipedia rules ?

Kind regards ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by AugustoPelle (talk • contribs) 01:13, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, AugustoPelle. At the top of the draft, the reviewer wrote the folllowing: "This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject can be established. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies." You will need to address this, and to do so means removing all statements that cannot be supported by independent Reliable Sources. Nobody wants an encyclopaedia to look like a LinkedIn CV, as this one does. Instead, we want our articles to be based only upon verifiable sources that others have written about him. e.g. biographies in national media outlets. If there aren't any, he simply won't meet Wikipedia's  Notability criteria. I also note there are over 20 references, not one of which contains an online link, so I suspect you didn't know about the easy to use "Cite" templates available for adding references? I've written some guidance to help new editors add better inline citations - see WP:EASYREFBEGIN - but you only really need sources that other people have written. It is fine to add their own work to a 'Selected publications' section, but the absolute key focus for you is demonstrating that this person actually meets our Notability criteria, or there simply will never be an article about him here. Hoping this helps a bit. Nick Moyes (talk) 09:20, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Audette Exel

Hi Teahouse contributors and editors. I'm writing am article about businesswoman and philanthropist: Draft:Audette Exel. It was initially rejected because it didn't meet the formal tone expected of an encyclopedic article. Could you please help me see if there is any way I could improve the article? I have made NPOV changes, but looking for additional suggestions before resubmitting for review. Many thanks, Mk19Bu — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mk19Bu (talk • contribs) 01:22, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

@Mk19Bu: I would recommend starting over, following these instructions I've written for how to create articles that won't be rejected. It will save you a lot of rounds of asking what the problem is this time.

In short, all you need to do is find three or more independent professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources that are primarily and specifically about Exel but not connected with, affiliated with, nor dependent upon her. So no sources like this one. You take those sources, summarize them, then paraphrase that summary. Don't add anything else. This will ensure that the article starts off with a base that is neutral and shows only their notability. You can expand it with other (still reliable) sources after it is approved. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:40, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Draft: Hermetic (album)

Hello, I created the article Hermetic as part of Magne Furuholmen's discography. The article got moved to the drafts section since there are very few references. Unfortunately the release is very old and most of the info I saved back then on my hard drive is no longer available online. How can I improve it? Are all of the official releases suitable for Wiki? How can I make an article better or suitable in this case? Thanks for your help Cat italia (talk) 07:19, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Hello Cat italia! Unfortunately, not all albums (or any work for that matter) are notable. That said, sources do not need to be online, nor do they need to be in English. All they need to be, is reliable. If you think you can find independent, reliable sources with significant coverage on the album, you can continue to work on the draft. Otherwise, it may be better to just move on from it, while keeping an eye out for sources that you might come across in the future. In the meantime, you can create a Redirect to the artist's article from the album's title. If you feel like the album might deserve an article of its own even though one can not be created at this time, you can add the template {{Redirect with possibilities}} to the redirect page to mark it as such. Hope this is helpful. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 14:14, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Usedtobecool! I've added to the draft links to the album on both Spotify and Google Play. I noticed that for some artists there are links to such sites for specific songs (I saw a couple of iTunes links on Lady Gaga's discography). Do you think those could be ok? Cat italia (talk) 14:39, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Cat italia, they are mostly not acceptable, as far as I know. In limited circumstances, they could be though. In any case, they do not add to notability and therefore won't help the draft get published in article space. I am out of my depths on this, I'm afraid. You could wait for someone knowledgeable to hopefully see this; or you might have a better luck asking questions like these at WT:ALBUMS. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 15:25, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

For a meanwhile published draft—record review time 45 minutes—I checked the WP:WikiProject Albums/Album article style advice, and this project apparently allows Spotify links in WP:MUSICSTREAM, but does not mention that again in WP:ALBUMSEL. Wild guess, if there's no template for external Spotify links, stay away from it. –84.46.52.210 (talk) 10:54, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Can't edit article

Hi, every-time I try and improve the article for the city in which I live it gets jumped on by a few users that far, far away and they just change my edits back? They give all sorts of vexatious reasons as to why the edits need to be reverted like "advertising" just because I listed the names of some developments that are going on in the city (as if that hasn't been done before) and I added updated population data which then got entirely deleted and they said it "was not useful" well I am very frustrated because that is just their opinion and I think they are abusing their admin position. I do not see how stating some of the developments underway in the city and the fact it has been named one of the countries fastest growing cities as advertising? I just say "it has been named one of Australia's fastest growing cities" and provided legitimate sources but that still got deleted because I think the admin has a personal vendetta against my city. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Townsville

I pretty much almost have no desire to use wikipedia again after this experience and I used to enjoy it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karver91 (talk • contribs) 07:46, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi Karver91. There's no record of you ever having edited Townsville. Did you perhaps try and use another account to edit the article? Anyway, from the article's history it does look as if there's a disagreement over certain content involving multiple editors. While I cannot say for sure, it seems unlikely that this disagreement is due to any personal grudge being held by some editor against either you or the town, but rather something which has to do with relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines and how they apply to the content being disputed. It also appears that there might even be some inappropriate use of multiple accounts in an attempt to try and force someone's preferred version into the article, which is not a good thing at all. Generally, the best way to try and resolve a content dispute like this is to follow Wikipedia:Dispute resolution and engage in discussion on the article's talk page. While Wikipedia encourages us to be WP:BOLD and try to improve articles, relevant policy and guidelines also emphasis that the best way to try and resolve any disputes over content is through article talk page discussion. Moreover, just because something has been done before doesn't mean it should've been done. I don't see any attempts being made to try and discuss this matter at Talk:Townsville, so perhaps that's what you should try doing. There's no guarantee that will lead to the outcome you desire since the consensus may turn out to not be in favor of the changes you like to make, but ultimately these discussions are intended to be about figuring out what's best for Wikipedia in terms of relevant policies and guidelines and not what's best for an individual editor. As long as you assume good faith and avoid trying to turn the discussion into a battleground that pits one side against the other, you'll at least be doing your part to try and resolve things smoothly and amicably. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:20, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

What?

If a song needs more than charting (even peaking at number one), to have a page, what does the song need to be notable? CheatCodes4ever (talk) 08:59, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi CheatCodes4ever. See WP:NSONG. Majavah ^(t/c) 09:07, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

CheatCodes4ever, just to add to the comment above, the key point is that the three criteria in WP:NSONG, in particular #1 which is the one you refer to, do not give guaranteed notability. Rather, they indicate that it is likely that the song has received enough coverage to pass the WP:GNG, but the song (and not just the album) must still have been the subject of substantial coverage in multiple, reliable, independent sources. In addition, please note: Notability aside, a standalone article is appropriate only when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album.. Hope this helps. Hug^syrup 09:11, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

So a song needs to be covered to have its own article? CheatCodes4ever (talk) 09:19, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes. Per WP:NSONG - songs and singles are probably notable if they have been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the artist and label. Hug^syrup 09:21, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Hello, CheatCodes4ever. There is some ambiguity in the meaning of the word "covered" in this context. If by "covered" you mean that reliable independent sources have devoted significant written coverage to the specific song, then that is the classic definition of notability. If, on the other hand, you mean that other performers have recorded cover versions of the song, then that is a possible indicator of notability of the song, as it makes it more likely that reliable sources will also devote significant written coverage to the song. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 10:02, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

But does it need to be covered by other artists? CheatCodes4ever (talk) 20:28, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

No, that is not an absolute criterion for notability.--Quisqualis (talk) 21:36, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

which fraction should i use for 6½ ?

Calliotropis_limbifera contains 6½ whorls. i have never edited wiki page containing fractions. i have read MOS:FRAC, but i am undecided.

{{frac|6|1|2}} OR 6{{frac|1|2}}

which one of the above should i use ? Leela52452 (talk) 09:38, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

@Leela52452: I'd say follow MOS:FRAC to use {{frac|6|1|2}}, rendering as 6+1⁄2, since it produces somewhat different HTML. Another option is 6.5. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 10:27, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

@Leela52452: A couple bullets later, it says "In science and mathematics articles, mixed numbers are rarely used ... The use of {{frac}} is discouraged in favor of one of these styles: ... {{sfrac}}" It's not clear whether this means to only use {{sfrac}} when it's a scientific article and not a mixed number, but it does support mixed numbers. This gives you {{Sfrac|6|1|2}}, rendering ⁠6+1/2⁠ as an option. Maybe search and/or ask at WT:DATE, though either of the two templates or the decimal number is probably fine. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 10:38, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Creating a New Wikipedia Entry

Hello,

I have in my sandbox a new page called Power Towers Ltd (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rfpuglia/sandbox) but I have no idea how to add it to wikipedia. Could you please help me.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rfpuglia (talk • contribs)

@Rfpuglia: You can submit it for review by pasting {{subst:submit}} at the top. However do not do this yet as there is no chance of your article being accepted as it has no sources. An article can only be placed on Wikipedia if it has received substantial coverage by multiple, independent, reliable sources. You will need to find these and add them to the article first. I strongly suspect, from reading the article, that you will struggle to find suitable sources and this business is probably not sufficiently notable for a standalone article. You might be able to create a redirect to JLG Industries instead. Hug^syrup 10:32, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

can i use ² and other similar codes in infoboxes

Caledonia,_New_York contains km² in infobox.

my query: can i use codes, for e.g. ² anywhere in an article ?

Leela52452 (talk) 10:28, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi Leela52452. The infobox code produces km<sup>2</sup> in accordance with Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Superscripts and subscripts. Do not use the special character '²'. {{sup|2}} produces <sup>2</sup>so that's OK. Infoboxes usually expect pure numbers without units. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:49, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

@Leela52452: Generally, yes, per MOS:UNITSYMBOLS. Note that the infobox actually uses km², not the km² that was present (incorrectly; and which you fixed) in the Demographics section. I'll note there are three more of those '²' in the Geography section, if you want to fix them. You might also have a look at {{Convert}}, which can do the conversions and has lots of formatting options. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 10:52, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Problem in uploading Wikipedia Page

Dear Teahouse,

Hope you are well, compliments of the season

I am struggling to upload a Wiki page for our Business, and hope you can assist?

I am the Communications Officer at Finbond Mutual Bank and tasked with uploading the relevant page, which was submitted for consideration as per below

The sources are also quoted below the intended article as indicated below

WIKI FEEDBACK:

File:Wiki Speedy Deletion FMB.pdf

QUESTION:

I have already revamped the Article already from what it was to the following, which still does not seem to fit the Wiki requirements

Please advise whether it would be best to revise the article further, or do you have any other advice I may consider?

File:Wiki - FMB 7Nov2019.pdf

Finbond Wikipedia Page upload Attempt

Thanks & kind regards,

Charles van Onselen — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charlesvanonselen (talk • contribs) 10:35, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

@Charlesvanonselen: Have you read User talk:Charlesvanonselen#Your submission at Articles for creation: sandbox (November 7) and the other blue links within it? The short list is:

• The references provided do not show that your company is notable (see the various links given regarding notability). Have multiple reliable sources, like newspapers or magazines, written articles about your company because they found it notable or interesting (not at your request, or in response to a press release issued by you)? That independent, in-depth, coverage is required to establish notability, which is required for an article to exist here.
• Related to notability, have you read WP:PROMO, which is one of the things Wikipedia is not here to do, which is promote a business? There are also other sections of that page that may sound familiar, like WP:NOTDIRECTORY (a lot of people mistake Wikipedia for another company directory or link farm where they must have an entry or be conspicuous by their absence).
• You are an employee of the company and are the wrong person to write an article about it because it is quite difficult to be neutral. If you insist, you must comply with WP:PAID, and be aware that everything will be scrutinized carefully for any sort of promotional language.
• The formatting and content of the article is not appropriate. See other articles for similar companies, as well as our manual of style, for information on this issue.

Again, there are other links on your User talk:Charlesvanonselen ("talk page"), as well as the article draft in User:Charlesvanonselen/sandbox (your "sandbox") with more info. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 11:15, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Charlesvanonselen (edit conflict) Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm afraid your draft is a long way from being suitable for acceptance into Wikipedia. You seem to have a common misconception about what Wikipedia is. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not social media or other forum for businesses to tell the world about themselves. As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources with significant coverage state about businesses that meet Wikipedia's special definition of a notable business. Wikipedia is not interested in what a business wants to say about itself, only in what third parties say about it.

You also have what we call a conflict of interest and are a paid editor. Please review and comply with those policies; the latter is a Wikipedia Terms of Use requirement and mandatory. In order for you to be successful in writing a draft about your business, you essentially need to forget everything you know about it and only write based on the content of independent sources; most people in your position find this very difficult to do. If all you want to do is tell the world about your business, you should use social media, your own website, or other alternative forum where what you want to do is permitted. Feel free to show your superiors this message. 331dot (talk) 11:15, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

On 6 Jan, C added the Paid template to User page. One hopes that with all the guidance provided above, C can attempt to work via Articles for Creation to create a draft in proper Wikipedia format and proper referencing that can then be evaluated by a reviewer. Looking at existing articles about banks may help but is no guarantee, as there are articles that exist, but are flawed and worthy of being nominated for deletion. David notMD (talk) 13:35, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Sarcastic jokes

So i would like to write an article about sarcastic jokes and thus wanted to know if its notable or not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Krupali Parmar (talk • contribs) 14:18, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Krupali Parmar Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I might first review the joke article to see if either what you want to do is already covered there, or could be added to that article, before attempting to write a standalone article about the subject. 331dot (talk) 14:43, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Hello Krupali Parmar! Sarcasm is WP:NOTABLE. Some examples covered in good sources could be a reasonable addition to that article, what WP:RS can you bring? However, on WP you can not write an article based on what jokes you consider sarcastic. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:47, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

So does that means i won't be able to write on that topic? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Krupali Parmar (talk • contribs) 14:52, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Krupali Parmar No, you could not write about what you consider to be sarcastic. If you are a professional comedian and independent reliable sources write about your jokes, you might merit an article (but you shouldn't be the one to write it). If you just want to tell the world about what you consider to be a sarcastic joke, you could do so on social media like Facebook, or a personal blog. 331dot (talk) 15:12, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Krupali Parmar. Wikipedia is not interested in what you, or I, or any random person on the Internet, knows, or thinks, or believes, or has discovered, or worked out. It is interested in what published reliable sources have said. If you have found a published reliable source that has things to say about sarcastic jokes (not just examples, but actually saying something substantive about them), and you feel that what they say is not adequately covered in an existing article, then you are welcome to add a summary of what they say, citing the source. --ColinFine (talk) 17:53, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Need help about how and when to add or remove the tags ona Page

Hello! I recently edited the lead section of political parties of Japan. I wanted to know if it is okay enough? Can I remove the tag from that page now? Or does it need more improvement? Also, when I see articles through Random Article option many of them doesn't seem too good but are not tagged. Should I tag them? If yes, then how? Lightbluerain (talk) 16:07, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Did you mean List of political parties in Japan? - X201 (talk) 16:15, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

@Lightbluerain: I took a look at List of political parties in Japan and I feel you summarized the key points of its contents so I think you are OK to remove the tag. If you come across a random article that has issues, please do not hesitate to tag them. If you have any further questions, please ask. Thank you, Interstellarity (talk) 16:21, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

(ec) Lightbluerain, if you are not reasonably certain that you've addressed the issues, you're probably not the best person to untag it. And, if you are reasonably certain that an article requires a tag or requires tags removed, that's usually enough reason to do it, except in certain circumstances such as WP:CSD tag on the article you've created, WP:COI tags that refer to your contributions to the article, tags that are accompanied with talk page discussion that you've not addressed, etc. To tag an article, you can add templates manually or you can use WP:TWINKLE. To add templates manually, you need to know what those are. You can start at WP:TM or you can look at the code of the pages that have the tags to find out the templates that are used to generate them. Using Twinkle is much easier.

In the particular case in question, I feel like the lead should have more, as list articles should tell about the topic, the scope of the list and criteria for inclusion that prevents it from becoming an indiscriminate list. That said, if the article indeed lists all the Japanese political parties that there are, it is probably enough. If you're unsure, leave it for the others. Note that the article is also tagged for updating. Did you update the rest of the article too? If not, that tag should probably remain even if you remove the other one. The tag that asks for updating is duplicated in one of the sections, so if you can investigate and find out that that is the only section that needs updating, you can remove the tag from the top of the article. If the article needs updating at multiple places, you should remove the tag from that section since the article tag already covers that section as well. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 16:47, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Alright. Thanks Usedtobecool and Interstellarity. Because i'm not certain about whether i did write a good lead section, I'm not removing the tag now. And, also Usedtobecool, i didn't update the article. So, ok. Thanks again. Lightbluerain (talk) 17:38, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Is image streaming a notable topic

Hi,

I am thinking of writing an article on image streaming but I am not sure if it fits the wiki criteria. It is a fairly well-discussed topic, but it doesn't appear on many main news streams, but it isn't just confined to forums and blogs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mackyboy123 (talk • contribs) 17:18, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Mackyboy123. What is required is reliably published sources: please see WP:GNG. --ColinFine (talk) 17:56, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Adoption

Hello! I've been wanting to became adopted by an experienced user and I don't know how. Can anyone help me? UB Blacephalon (talk) 17:55, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Blacephalon, and welcome to the Teahouse. To be honest, I'd quite like to delete those templates which allow people to say they want to be adopted, as they tend to raise false hopes in people who deploy them. In my view, it is far better for someone seeking support, like you, to go in search of a like-minded editor who has already expressed a willingness to adopt someone, than it is to hope they will magically come to you. So, my advice is to look at the list of current people offering to adopt people, which you'll find at WP:AAU, specifically, Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user/Adoptee's Area/Adopters. In my book you appear to have enough edits behind you that you are clearly a committed editor, and aren't here to just to get one article created, only to disappear forever once you get what they want - so that's a real positive. That said, from a quick glance I don't think your editing interests and mine look like they'll coincide that much (and I'm currently unable to offer adoption right now as I'm quite busy in real life). Adoption/mentoring is a two-way process, so think about what sort of help and guidance it is that you need, look for a suitable adopter, check out their own recent edits and talk page activity and drop them a note explaining your interests, and identifying a few of the gaps you'd like to fill (anti-vandalism/article creation etc). Don't be disappointed if you get turned down right now - people differ in their time availability and interests. I hope this might have given you a useful start in the right direction. Best wishes, Nick Moyes (talk) 18:58, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you so much for the insight. Although it seems like a chasing game finding someone to adopt me, I will go out there and see who will adopt me. I just don't want to look like a person who keep nagging people and be an annoyance to people. I honestly agree with you on the fact that those templates won't do anything to those who want to be adopted. I've had that for a while now and no one even comments on my talk page. So thanks again for the advice as I will take it willingly. UB Blacephalon (talk) 19:28, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Blacephalon, Howdy hello! I'm CaptainEek, and I've been around a while and can show you the ropes. I would be down to adopt you! If you would like to be adopted by me, please leave a message on my talk page that explains what you'd like to get out of this adoption, and we can get going! Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:32, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Redirect without leaving a redirect

Hello there!

I would like to understand what the comment "over a redirect without leaving a redirect" means. My understanding is that it would mean a hyperlink directs the user to the wrong site. If that is correct, then I'm not sure why the page I was editing was moved from "Publishing accepted Articles for creation submission" back to draft.

Your help is much appreciate!

Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Philharmagical19 (talk • contribs) 18:28, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi @Philharmagical19: and welcome to the Teahouse! "over a redirect" means that the new page title had a redirect, which was replaced with the content. "without leaving a redirect" means that the old title is not redirecting to the new one; often, a page move results in a redirect from the old title, but when an article is moved to a draft, there shouldn't be a redirect, so this is nothing to be concerned about. Hope that makes sense. --bonadea contributions talk 19:00, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Philharmagical19: you can ignore that particular message: it doesn't tell you anything about why the draft was moved, it was just a technical detail about how Missvain moved it back to draft space after DGG moved it to main space. As to why: I'm not clear. DGG declined the draft (and said why in the comment), but moved it anyway: I don't know why, but it looks as if Missvain though it was a mistake and moved it back. I can't find any reason either of them gave, but I have pinged them both in this para, so perhaps they will come and comment. --ColinFine (talk) 19:08, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

(ec) Philharmagical19, it just means an admin moved the article back to draftspace. Usually moving pages leaves behind a redirect, admins can do that without leaving one. I think it was moved back because the draft was not properly cleaned up after it was moved to article space. Usually, the reviewing script automatically handles that. Perhaps it failed here and DGG didn't notice that, and Missvain didn't check whether the draft was moved by a reviewer or the submitter of the draft, before moving it back. That would be my best guess. You could ask DGG to re-accept it or wait for someone else to review it. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 19:12, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Ah...back in my old stomping grounds! (I helped create the Teahouse!) Hi - I moved it back to the submission space because it was moved to the article space despite being rejected from Articles for Creation repeatedly. Not sure how it ended up in article space. Thanks for your patience. Missvain (talk) 20:30, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

It appears that DGG moved it, since it was cleaned up. I did some more cleanup and think it looks good enough now to be moved back into namespace. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:47, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Speech Community article

The article at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speech_community contains several unclear sentences. See, for example, these sentences in the section "Critique":

Thirdly, Chomsky and Labov's models made it clear that intra-personal variation is common. It also refine the choice of linguistic variant is often a choice madeto a specific speech context.

The force of these critiques with the concept of "speech communities" appeared because of the many contradictory. A part of scholars recommended abandoning the concept altogether, instead conceptualizing it as "the product of the communicative activities engaged in by a given group of people.

I am sure a careful reading would find other problematic sentences.

What does one do in such a situation? I have never edited a page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LxShawn (talk • contribs) 2020-01-06T18:58:03 (UTC)

Hello there! Welcome to the Teahouse.

For unclear sentences, you can either edit them for clarity, grammar and tone yourself - or, if you're unsure, you can place the {{Clarify}} tag next to the unclear text. Be sure to avoid WP:DRIVEBY tagging, and place a short, new section on the article's Talk page about the problems raised by the clarify tags.

You can always ask for help on the Talk page - or failing that, at the Teahouse - if you want a specific edit checking over before you publish it, but as time goes on, it's expected that you'll WP:FIXIT by yourself - be bold in your edits, and gradually you'll gain confidence. --Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) 19:22, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hello, LxShawn, and welcome to the Teahouse. Thank you for pointing this out: it is clear that this has got garbled. It may be that it was introduced by somebody with poor English skills, or directly from an automatic translator; or it might be a bungled edit. There are several things you can do about it, depending on how familiar you are with the material, and how much effort you want to spend.

• If it is obvious what is meant, you can just edit it and correct it.
• If it is not obvious, you can tag it with the tag {{unclear}}; or open a discussion on the article's talk page, or both. Neither of these will necessarily get it fixed, but somebody might notice and do something about it.
• In a case like this, which is probably a bungled edit, you can go through the history ("Show History") to look for when the error was introduced, and see if you can see what happened, and how it is supposed to read. (There is a link to an external tool "find addition/removal" at the top of the History page, if it is not easy to find the right edit). That may let you reconstruct the right version (for example you can "edit" an old version just to copy the text, and paste it into the current version, if appropriate). If the offending edit is the most recent, you may be able to just roll it back (that doesn't appear to be the case here).
• Finally, you could look for an appropriate WikiProject (perhaps WikiProject Linguistics?) and make a suggestion there.

Good luck! --ColinFine (talk) 19:23, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

DISH Network discussion

Hello, my name is Caroline. As an employee of DISH Network, I presented an edit request at Talk:Dish_Network#Dish_México. The reviewing editor (User:Spintendo) recommended that others engaged in the subject area discuss the issue. I have placed a number of requests on the DISH Network Talk page, and Spintendo has been the only person to reply to any of them, so I am asking editors at the Teahouse how I might get others to take a look.

Briefly, here is the issue: The DISH Network infobox says that DISH owns 49% of Dish México and this is not correct. Dish México is a joint venture between EchoStar and MVS Comunicaciones. I have outlined in greater detail at the DISH Network Talk page, but let me know if I can explain more here. The company now called "DISH Network Corporation" was formerly called "EchoStar Communications Corporation"; but in 2007, EchoStar Communications Corporation split into two separate companies: DISH Network Corporation (the topic of the DISH Network article) and EchoStar (which holds a stake in Dish México). Spintendo has questioned whether the split off companies are really separate, and I'm not sure what else I can share to more clearly show that Dish México is a joint venture between EchoStar and MVS Comunicaciones, as I've already offered EchoStar's annual reports and a secondary source.

Can any editors here contribute to the discussion or correct the infobox? Thanks for your advice! CK-DISH (talk) 20:43, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Delete extra account

How do I go about deleting an extra account "Osvaldo Valdes Lopez"? Thank you! ovA_165443 (talk) 01:51, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

@Osvaldo valdes 165443: Accounts can't be deleted. Just stop using it. RudolfRed (talk) 04:06, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

If you can still login to your other account you can replace the content of the user page with #REDIRECT [[USER:Osvaldo valdes 165443]]. Note why you did that in the edit summary, e.g., add a new section on the user talk page explaining your plan first, and link to this section in the edit summary for the redirect.
In theory you can also use your current account to edit the other user talk and user pages, but folks could consider that as suspicious and revert it. –84.46.52.210 (talk) 11:24, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

how to edit "Dr. R(eginald) Denys Hornabrook"

C._A._Hornabrook contains text "Dr. R(eginald) Denys Hornabrook". the only reference i found is at https://www.adelaide.edu.au/records/university-archives/online-resources/news-cuttings/index-to-volume-21-1934-1935-university#h

should i update it as Dr. Reginald Denys Hornabrook ?

Leela52452 (talk) 01:53, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

In my opinion, C. A. Hornabrook as it exists should be deleted and the creator, Doug butler, advised to start over. Articles about a person are supposed to be about that person, not an extended genealogy of every ancestor, relative and descendant. Who his sister married and who drowned and who committed suicide have no part in the article. Even the core content about C.A. warrants deletion or else major work, as most of it is without references. David notMD (talk) 11:00, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Deletion of Page

Hello. I recently came across a celebrity page that false and inaccurate information. I am not the person who wrote it, but would like to have it deleted. Is there a way for it be deleted?

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.63.211.221 (talk) 02:06, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi IP 173.63.211.221. You can find out more about why some articles are deleted at Wikipedia:Deletion policy, but generally articles are only deleted when there's a consensus established that there are too many problems to fix through editing or that the subject doesn't satisfy Wikipedia:Notability. Articles aren't necessarily deleted because they contain false or otherwise incorrect content; in such cases, Wikipedia encourages us to try and fix the problem instead if it is at all possible to do so. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:59, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi IP editor. Welcome to the Teahouse. Just to add one thing: If the information is seriously wrong and harmful - eg unsubstantiated accusations or allegations of criminality, then you may immediately delete that text (clarifying your reasons in an edit summary). We can arrange to get anything seriously inappropriate permanently deleted. But just a vague story that paints someone in a poor light wouldn't fall under this. Let us know the article title and your concerns, and someone will take a look - or you can post concerns on that article's own talk page. Nick Moyes (talk) 11:26, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Alternatives for {{navbox}}

I want to know if there is anything that can serve navigational purposes (just like {{Navbox}}) but can be displayed on mobile view. The Lord of Math (Message; contribs) 02:19, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Categories are supposed to work on any device. They are technically very different, e,g., you cannot "watch" the items added to or removed from a category, but fine for the purposes of navigation, cf. Help:Categories and WP:Categories, lists, and navigation templates. –84.46.52.210 (talk) 11:50, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Updating a page that isn't correct

Hi all,

I've tried editing a page that is currently not up to date and have provided sources for each of them multiple times. Each time I submit it, the page goes back to the backdated version within 24 hours. Can you help me to make these edits in a way that sticks? I hate seeing a page so off from what it is now (and has been for the last 2-3 years.)

Thank you for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yogitraveler (talk • contribs) 04:08, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi Yogitraveler. It's not clear from your post which "page" you're referring to, but your contribution's history only shows you having made two edits: the one for you post above and one to the article Forrest Yoga back on May 23, 2019. Are you referring to this edit you made to "Forest Yoga". That edit was reverted by another editor named Chiswick Chap with this edit with an edit summary stating "Reverted good faith edits by Yogitraveler (talk): Rv, really sorry but promotional tone is not suitable for encyclopedia".

This is something that happens fairly often on Wikipedia in that one editor is bold in making a change to an article, but another editor reverts the change because they feel it's not in accordance with relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines. The thing to do in this case would be to discuss your reasons for wanting to make the change at Talk:Forrest Yoga to see what others may think. If you're able to establish a consensus in favor of the change, then it will be made; if not, it won't. When you discuss things, you should try and address the concerns that led to the edit being reverted, in this case namely a promotional tone.

Try and understand that although Wikipedia wants make sure article content is accurate, content needs to be verifiable and neutrally worded in accordance with WP:5PILLARS. Basically, Wikipedia is more interested in what reliable sources that are independent of the subject are saying about the subject then what the subject might be saying about itself. This doesn't mean that the "Forest Yoga" official website cannot be used as a source, but that it needs to be used carefully, particularly since some of the content seems to be medical related. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:42, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Help with draft

I have created an article "Mahatma Gandhi Central University protest" yesterday. At the beginning it was accepted as the article for creation but after few hours it was declined by mentioning " Article us not written in neutral point if view". In December 2019, the same page was deleted by wikipedia due to copy right issue but I have removed all the copied text and write it in my own words. So please help me out. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Mahatma_Gandhi_Central_University_protest --Rohitmishra01 (talk) 05:45, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

• I have not checked the previous version but the current version contains Vice-Chancellor (Arvind Agarwal) had falsified his academic details and had misreported his marks to become MGCU's first Vice-Chancellor, stating a significantly-damaging accusation as fact, sourced to this article which says complaints were received but does not ascertain the truth of the accusation. This alone is enough to reject the article because of WP:BLP.

I believe there is a notable incident worthy to be written about here, but you really must stick with what the third-party sources say and not inject your own interpretation of the sources. For a good example of writing in such cases, see Hurricane Dorian–Alabama controversy, which does in my opinion a fairly good job at sticking close to the facts despite 99.9% of online content pertaining to the incident involving partisan rhetoric. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 14:54, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Contributing a criique to an existing Wikipedia page

Hello I set up an account based on my e-mail number but when I tried to log in , it wouldn't let me Can you help me to get started as a new editor please ? Many thanks Raymond Marshall — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.69.7.88 (talk) 09:24, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Hello. I assume that by "email number" that you requested an account through WP:ACC? What is the message that comes up when you attempt to log in to your account? Make sure your login information is typed in exactly correct. 331dot (talk) 10:56, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

how to use convert for population density for given values

Calakmul contains text "1000/km² (2564 per square mile)" and "420/km² (1076 per square mile)".

can i use {{convert|XX|PD/sqmi|PD/km2}} for the above. if so, how ?

or simply use 1000/km{{sup|2}}

Leela52452 (talk) 10:44, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

I assume the problem is related to either specifying which unit is abbreviated, in which case Template:Convert#Unit_name_or_symbol_(abbreviation):_1_pound_or_1_lb? answers, or how to choose the conversion precision, in which case you should read Template:Convert#Rounding:_100_ft_is_30_m_or_30.5_m_or_30.48_m?

• {{convert|1000|PD/km2|PD/sqmi|abbr=in}} → 1,000/km² (2,600 inhabitants per square mile)
• {{convert|1000|PD/km2|/sqmi|abbr=in}} → 1,000/km² (2,600 per square mile)
• {{convert|1000|PD/km2|/sqmi|abbr=in|sigfig=4}} → 1,000/km² (2,590 per square mile) (but only use this if you really need the extra precision)

In particular, I note that the conversion you copied is not correct: 1000/km2 is not equal to 2564/mi2 at the precision implied by the latter number's significant digit. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 14:42, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Garner Ted Aukerman

This person above was added to notable alumni lists of four institutions. I removed the entries because there was no reliable source. After removing the person on one of the lists, I made this comment here on the Talkpage about sourcing. The person was readded with a source based on the website of the person from their promoter. Also, there were comments about me having "a close personal bias", edit warring and that the source used for readding the person was reliable. Any recommendations on how I should proceed? Thanks. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 13:11, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

FieldMarine It seems to me that you have correctly interpreted policy, have correctly followed WP:BRD, and have done your best to explain your reasoning to some editors who don't appear to wish to listen to it. The best step forward is to get some additional eyes on the discussion, which you have achieved by posting here but you could also look at posting on a relevant wikiproject, or WP:3O. Hopefully the involvement of additional experienced editors will help settle the debate on one side or another. Ultimately, if users refuse to abide by whatever consensus establishes itself, you can take the matter to WP:ANI for administrator assistance. I have also weighed in on the matter myself. Hug^syrup 13:24, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! I really appreciate the feedback, support and recommendations for the path forward. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 13:27, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Example Talk:List of Ohio State University people#Garner Ted Aukerman, because I needed several minutes to figure out what you are talking about based on your recent contributions. Garner Ted Aukerman does not exist, is apparently a stuntman, and I'd always remove red links and plain text persons from lists first, and consider "notable without article" later, it's too unlikely for most practical purposes. –84.46.52.210 (talk) 13:45, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Requesting an addition to noted professor's bio page

Please help. Professor Theodore Rappaport asked me to add his Wikipedia page that he was recently elected to the Wireless History Foundation's Wireless Hall of Fame. Here is third-party news item on Ted's receiving this honor. I posted the request for this addition to Ted's bio on the Talk tab of his Wikipedia page, and was informed that because neither the Wireless History Foundation nor the Wireless Hall of Fame have Wikipedia pages of their own, such an addition could not be made. But I did discover that the Wikipedia page for Tom Wheeler mentions Wheeler's having been elected to the Hall of Fame (in third paragraph under the "career" sub-head: "In recognition of his work in promoting the wireless industry, Wheeler was inducted into the Wireless Hall of Fame in 2003 and in 2009.") Was the placement of that note on Wheeler's page done in such a way as to allow for the mention? If so, could someone please note this on Ted Rappaport's page as well? Thanks for any assistance on this! Kgberg{{paid}} Kgberg (talk) 15:37, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Kgberg Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. First, since you state you are here at the request of Professor Rappaport, you must review the conflict of interest policy. If you are being compensated in any way, you must declare as a paid editor. The compensation does not need to be in money or any material good; say, being an unpaid intern counts.

You are welcome to make a formal edit request(click for instructions) on the article talk page, detailing what you would like to see done, and another editor will review it. 331dot (talk) 15:43, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

331dot thanks for clarification. So I should use paid editor not just {{paid}}. I will make a formal request as well on the article talk page noting COI. Thanks very much. And I'll review the COI policy page again.Kgberg (talk) 15:59, 7 January 2020 (UTC)