Wikipedia:Teahouse

David notMD, 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.)

Tommy Roberts (sports broadcaster)

I need any help with making this a more neutral article and need to know what flowery words need to be taken out. thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Monmouth1946 (talk • contribs) 11:57, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Monmouth1946, looks like you've already gotten plenty assistance from multiple editors at the article itself since you posted here. Recommend MOS:WORDS as further reading on the subject. Cheers! Usedtobecool ☎️ 17:14, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Tommy Roberts (sports broadcaster)

I have made numerous changes to give article encyclopedic look. Can someone let me know if they have have given the article a better Format Thank You Monmouth1946 (talk) 20:44, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Courtesy link Tommy Roberts (sports broadcaster). TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)}

Tommy Roberts (sports broadcaster)promote the subjectP in making this better for submission

I have streamlined article and taken everything that I could think of to not not promote the subject. I don’t know where to go from here. If someone can help make this a betterarticle for submission I would gladly accept the advice. thank youMonmouth1946 (talk) 16:26, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Will also like to delete maintenance issues at top of article. I am afraid to do it myself because I do not understand the directions.Monmouth1946 (talk) 16:39, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

• Looking through the text, there is nothing left to justify either of the previously-placed templates ({{peacock}} and {{tone}}), so I removed them. I do think some stuff is unnecessary trivia but have not looked in-depth so will refrain from further edits.

Notice that the article Tommy Roberts (sports broadcaster) has been in mainspace since its creation in November, unless I am missing some page move somewhere, so it is already "submitted" and visible to the public at large. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 17:14, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Tigraan, it has not been reviewed/accepted by WP:NPP so it doesn't yet show in the search engine results outside of Wikipedia. Most sources are offline so it should take some time unless someone bold or familiar comes across it. Usedtobecool ☎️ 18:03, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Tommy Roberts (sports broadcaster)

I would like to submit article for publication. It has been vetted for any mistakes on talk and Teahouse. Would someone show me how t odd it orvsubmit it for me. I have done everything I can possibly do to make it read correctly. Also many of you have helped immensely inv preparing it foe submission. Thank YouMonmouth1946 (talk) 17:53, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

• @Monmouth1946: As I wrote above (though you might have missed it), that article is already "live", so it is visible to our readers. (The article can still be improved, of course, as is the case for 99.9% of Wikipedia text.) Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 18:02, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Monmouth1946, WP:NPP has a backlog of 6000+ articles and most of the sources in your article do not have online links; therefore the article is not easy to review for everyone. If after 90 days of creation, it is still left unreviewed, it will automatically be released for indexing by search engines. So, there's nothing to do but wait a couple months. Although, if you could find and add online links to sources, it might help speed things up. Usedtobecool ☎️ 18:09, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

I am confused as to what “live” means. Does it mean that I don’t have to submit it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Monmouth1946 (talk • contribs) 01:44, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

"Live" means that Tommy Roberts (sports broadcaster) is already a Wikipedia article, not just a draft. The purpose of submitting it has been achieved. Maproom (talk) 07:14, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

It means "visible to Googlebot" and other crawlers per WP:NPP (new page patrol). The article is published, all wikilinks to the former draft are redirected to the article, check out Special:WhatLinksHere/Tommy Roberts (sports broadcaster). –84.46.52.190 (talk) 08:12, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Tommy Roberts (sports broadcaster) followup

I have tried to make language clarified con the two sentences that were tagged. Would someone take a look to see if it reads more coherently. Thank You. Monmouth1946 (talk) 20:07, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Please provide a courtesy link to articles that you reference here. Like this: Tommy Roberts (sports broadcaster). —[AlanM1(talk)]— 23:20, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Monmouth1946, I've removed the tags, as the prose is now clear.--Quisqualis (talk) 02:07, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi Monmouth1946, please don't start new sections for your followups on Tommy Roberts, just add further questions here by clicking the edit link to the right of the title for this last sub-section with the same topic. The archive bot uses the freshest timestamp, everything about Roberts should be archived together after your last question was answered. –84.46.53.207 (talk) 11:08, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Sri Lankan film and actor articles

There is a prolific Sri Lankan Wikipedian who is seemingly creating an article for every single Sri Lankan film, TV show and actor (Special:Contributions/Gihan_Jayaweera). Is every Sri Lankan film, etc. notable enough to be included on Wikipedia? Should they just be limited to the more noteworthy ones? Should the user be encouraged to add more than a cast list and the release date? Obviously we don't want to discourage this user from contributing to Wikipedia, but perhaps their efforts could be refined into higher value work? --Danielklein (talk) 23:06, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Danielklein, I have not reviewed their contributions but only briefly scrolled through their talk page. Another Sri Lankan seems to have granted the user "Sri Lankan Wikipedian of the year" for 2019. So, I am guessing that at least from the Sri Lankan perspective, they are already doing a high value work. You are correct that not all such things are notable, but from my own experience, only a small fraction of such things that are notable in my country and offline can be shown to be notable using online sources alone. (And of course, there is no way to know if they are creating articles indiscriminately. Perhaps they are already picking the more notable ones of the bunch. After all, South Asia can churn out movies like no other region.) So, third world topics get a bit of a leeway when interpreting notability on the basis of available sources. There is nothing wrong with creating stubs per se. The article needs to make clear why the subject is notable either by showing that the subject meets one of the special notability guidelines or the general notability guideline. Other than that, creating short articles is fine. In fact, that is how Wikipedia began: with thousands and thousands of stubs. There are users who value article quality over article quantity, but for the developing world, I would say stubs on notable topics are just as valuable as in-depth coverage of high priority topics. If nothing else, this allows unregistered editors from those countries who are just getting acquainted with the internet or the Wikipedia to get into editing. Finally, since the editor in question is a trusted WP:AUTOPATROLLED user, they are expected to meet minimum quality and notability standards in their creations. After considering the above points, if you are still concerned that many of their articles might not, you could politely raise it with the user at their talk page. Note that I am not pinging the user in question here and therefore kept my response as general as possible, but if we continue to further discuss them, we should ping them to this discussion, or it would be talking behind their backs. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 09:09, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Gihan_Jayaweera I believe many of your articles are in violation of WP:PLOT. I think overall you are doing fine work on Wikipedia. I would just like to see articles that establish their notability. A list of every Sri Lankan film, TV show, and actor belongs on IMDB, e.g. https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1172522/?ref_=nv_sr_srsg_0, but not every film is automatically notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia. --Danielklein (talk) 00:45, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Danielklein, Thank you all for comments. I need to remind you that, I made those articles on the behalf of Cinema of Sri Lanka, but nothing else. Because, when compare with highly fan based Bollywood, Kollywood and Tollywood movies in my neighbor country, Sri Lanka is starting to develop as one of the critically acclaimed movies in past decade or so. Many Sri Lankan films won international awards and some of them were even included in Top 100 Asian Films. Eg. Gaadi. I also should note you everyone that, I cannot included every bit of sections for an article such as plot, production, reception, awards, etc. I just started it and other Sri Lankan Wikipedians should contribute that article with their efforts by adding a plot or production sections. So I leave this in here. Without criticizing a work, I think it is better to fill those gaps in my articles. That will be a great help for my lovable small island in South Asia. Cheers!!! Gihan Jayaweera talk 06:35, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Let's continue this conversation at your talk page. --Danielklein (talk) 06:26, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

How can I get this person to stop editing me out?

There is a person who is editing me out from the Amber Heard page, because I put that she is bisexual, with a HuffPost cite as evidence. And this person is saying that there will be an edit war if I try to undo it. Even though my edit is accurate and based on facts.MannyPC (talk) 02:14, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Hello, MannyPC, and welcome to the Teahouse. With biographies of living people it's important that good sources are used that support any statement you add. To be frank, I think you are right in your edit attempt, and I would have added this source and this one too, and I note there are multiple other sources that seem to indicate her bisexuality. I haven't read the AH article to assess whether her sexuality is relevant to it, though I note there is a source to confirm her religious views there. When you seem to be in some sort of disagreement of editing, you should either have gone to Flyer22 Reborn's talk page and discussed your different perspectives on sources and relevance, or raised your good faith wish to change the article on its talk page. As I've now pinged FlyerReborn, they may wish to comment here, or on your talk page. Nick Moyes (talk) 02:38, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

I don't know how to reach this person to have a constructive discussion. And I am afraid of getting blocked. I am new here.MannyPC (talk) 03:05, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Hello, MannyPC. Our friend Nick Moyes lives in the United Kingdom so he might be asleep by now since it is in the middle of the night there. I live in California so I am still staring at the chicken bones on my dinner plate. If you tell the other editor that Nick advised you here, then I think that the risk of you being blocked is negligible, unless you consciously break some policy. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:45, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

I'd rather not discuss this in two different places. I already took this matter to the talk page: Talk:Amber Heard#Bisexual categorization redux. Permalink here. And I pointed MannyPC to that talk page. And I pinged Asarelah there because Asarelah started a discussion about this matter first years ago. The matter was taken to the WP:BLP noticeboard and resolved. Like I recently stated, "I just reverted these edits by MannyPC per the #Bisexual label discussion from years ago and how that was resolved. If, in the source that MannyPC added, it had Heard identifying as bisexual, MannyPC's edit would be fine. But once again, it is instead the source calling Heard bisexual. In cases like these, we follow WP:BLPCAT; we go by self-identity. In a similar case, with regard to Jodie Foster, per WP:BLPCAT, we also don't call Foster a lesbian or categorize her that way. This was decided after much discussion. But we do note that many media outlets described Foster as lesbian or gay after her 2013 speech at the 70th Golden Globe Awards." Yes, sources (including ones listed by Nick Moyes above) have called Heard bisexual. Sources have also called her a lesbian. In The Independent source that Nick Moyes cited, it even states, "The Aquaman star went on to describe herself as an 'outspoken, militant feminist, lesbian, atheist, vegetarian'." But where has she called herself bisexual? She has explicitly stated that she rejects sexual orientation labels. Sources have also called Foster a lesbian or gay. And in the case of Foster, the following is just one example of editors noting the importance of self-identity: Talk:Jodie Foster/Archive 4#RfC 2 - Should "lesbian" be used to describe Foster in categories?. The importance of self-identity is not different for Heard. Cullen328, MannyPC absolutely should not revert. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:49, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

MannyPC, the experienced editor above has given you some excellent advice. Read those links and think carefully before editing against consensus. I remember those debates about Jodie Foster. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:22, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Ok, but if she comes out explicitly as bisexual when she said "I'm Bisexual" or something around that, then it should be referrence in Amber's article. And I don't want no edit wars, I want edit in peace, if you know what I mean.MannyPC (talk) 04:31, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

MannyPC, instead of saying "when" you should say "if". Please remember that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:46, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Alright, thank you for giving me advice on how to be an excellent Wikipedia editor. Now I feel welcome in the Wikipedia community. I will try my best to be as accurate as possible, and this experience will help me. And I also want to thank Flyer22 Reborn for having the patience of explaining me why this is not accurate.MannyPC (talk) 04:53, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Cullen328 and MannyPC, thanks. We can see in this HuffPost source and this Us Weekly source that she was reported as having come out as a lesbian in 2010. This was because she revealed her romantic relationship with Tasya van Ree. Media sources labeled her lesbian even though she didn't state "I'm a lesbian." In the AfterEllen interview the sources are referring to, she doesn't state that she's a lesbian. And in a 2011 interview, she clearly states, "I don't label myself one way or another—I have had successful relationships with men and now a woman. I love who I love; it's the person that matters." In this 2017 People magazine source that reports her as having come out as bisexual, she's quoted as stating, "I saw I was attached to a label ... I never have myself defined by the person I'm with. I never saw myself defined as one particular thing or not. So, I watched as I quickly became not actress Amber Heard, but out lesbian Amber Heard." The "never have myself defined by the person I'm with" aspect is also noted in the aforementioned The Independent source, which also says she came out as bisexual. Any time Heard says she's dated men and women or has implied that she's open to dating men and women, a source labels her bisexual, just like sources initially labeled her lesbian because of her relationship with Tasya van Ree. So regarding MannyPC stating, "And why Amber Heard hasn't sue each and every publication last year calling her bisexual or ask the publication to edit this out? She dated both men and women.", I'm sure Heard understands that bisexual is the term people are going to use for her. But this obviously doesn't mean that she has to use the term for herself. I think it's best to be on the safe side and not state in Wikipedia's voice that she's bisexual or categorize her that way. Maybe we should state in her article the following: "Heard publicly came out at GLAAD's 25th anniversary event in 2010. Although media outlets have labeled her lesbian or bisexual, she has stated, "I don't label myself one way or another—I have had successful relationships with men and now a woman. I love who I love; it's the person that matters." This would replace the beginning of the second paragraph in the "Personal life" section. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:47, 10 January 2020 (UTC) Updated post. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:08, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Flyer22 Reborn, I forgot to remind you that the Amber Heard's page names her as agnostic in the "Personal Life" section on her page. But on the "Categories" section below, she appears in the "American atheists" Category. Atheism and agnosticism have differences. Can you also take a look at that?MannyPC (talk) 02:29, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

FWIW, there is a reference for "atheist" in Amber Heard#Early life. There's a red entry for Huffpost on WP:RS/P. Good luck with your good WP:BLPCAT fight, it took me about a year to get that right on Talk:Sasha Grey#Adult and atheist categories and obscure "blpo" lists. If you need expert input try WP:BLP/N. –84.46.52.190 (talk) 06:45, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Well, thanks, but I think Flyer22 Reborn is right on this argument. There was no specific case of her saying her sexuality. I was kind of stubborn at first, but I now agree with Flyer22 Reborn, you must have 100% specific evidence. The only thing that needs to be solved about Amber's page is to write her religious beliefs. There is no doubt that she is irreligious, but of what kind? Once again thanks for your support. MannyPC (talk) 07:58, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Just a quick "thank you" to Flyer22 Reborn for your helpful reply, explaining the subtleties of this issue, and to MannyPC and others for their consideration and input. Clearly, with this person, certain things were not as cut and dried as I and MannyPC had assumed.Nick Moyes (talk) 13:42, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

MannyPC, as noted in the Atheism article, atheism can be defined broadly. But we do have both Category:American atheists and Category:American agnostics. In the source in the Personal life section, she states, "No, I'm not a practicing atheist. I'm a practicing human and I know how that sounds but I'm learning everything I can about being human. I was raised in a strict Catholic environment but the only thing I feel comfortable saying that I know is that I can't know. I will never prescribe to an organization that claims to tell me how to do anything. I'm not anti 'higher power' so you could call me agnostic. Whatever, call me anything but I will never be a 'religious' person." Given all of this and the aforementioned "Early life" mention by the IP above, I don't know what is the best route to take in this case. Maybe she is okay with being called an atheist or agnostic. Not sure that she should be in both categories. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:56, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Think you're both wrong, if someone says they date and have loved men and women, they are bisexual, if people wish to define themselves alternatively that is their wont, perhaps pansexual for example, but not literally calling yourself bisexual isn't the point, and this seems absolutely bizarre both as a bi person and someone who rather appreciates clarity. As it stands it simply has a paragraph on an already long section about how she doesn't define herself after also saying she's come out. Either keep it to just coming out, or call her as she is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheTominater95 (talk • contribs) 14:26, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

TheTominater95 makes a valid point. This is only being scrutinized because sexuality is such a sensitive subject for so many people. If I publicly stated that even though I've been accurately measured as being six feet tall, I don't like being labeled as "six feet tall", I doubt that there would be any discussion about whether or not my biography should list my height as six feet. However, this discussion does show a healthy respect for people's sensitivities, and that's beneficial for social harmony and WikiPeace.Quickfix333 (talk) 00:07, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

s' vs. s's

Is James' correct, or James's? Just to check. Thanks, Thatoneweirdwikier Say hi 06:12, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

@Thatoneweirdwikier: See MOS:POSS. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 07:29, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

And to pull out the relevant bit. Nouns and names should be made possessive with the addition of 's even if they end in S already. So, James's is correct. If that makes them difficult to pronounce (which I don't think James's is) you can try to reorder the phrase. James' is never right except in the unlikely scenario that you are taking about several people called Jame... Hug^syrup 09:43, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Hugsyrup, both are correct. See https://english.stackexchange.com/a/130960/73636 --Danielklein (talk) 05:30, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

I am referring to Wikipedia’s guidance. See MOS:POSS as mentioned above. Hug^syrup 07:08, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

It's not as clear cut as "Wikipedia says". Does Wikipedia use British English or American English? It depends. Is James's or James' correct? It depends. See Apostrophe#Singular nouns ending with an "s" or "z" sound. If an article already used one spelling predominantly I wouldn't edit it to use the other, but I would edit it for internal consistency, making them all the same as the majority. Which should you use on Wikipedia? Lacking any other clear direction, James's is preferred for new articles. That doesn't make James' wrong as you asserted. It's not Wikipedia's place to dictate what correct English is. --Danielklein (talk) 06:20, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Deletion of a page... My contributions just caused someone else's page to be deleted

I just fixed some broken links on the page Padmakara Translation Group, a page that had old links, and added one paragraph, and now a whole page of an award winning institution has been deleted. If the changes were not good, please revert them. But now, I'm to blame for a whole page to be deleted, that had been there for years. I feel terrible. Not only that, the deleted Wikipedia content has been stolen by this website: https://pt.qwe.wiki/wiki/Padmakara_Translation_Group displaying in other languages via automatic translation. I would like to have help on this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amaral Rodrigues (talk • contribs) 19:24, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

@Amaral Rodrigues: Padmakara_Translation_Group was deleted as copyright violation of another website. Someone watching the Recent Changes list probably saw your edit and then noticed the page was a copyvio. You can ask the deleting admin about it on their talk page: User Talk:Deb. RudolfRed (talk) 20:15, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

To make it more clear, Amaral Rodrigues: you did nothing wrong, and you did not cause the article to be deleted, in any way. What your edit did was to bring to somebody's notice an article that was in contravention of Wikipedia's policies, and that should have been deleted long ago. It may be possible to write an acceptable article about the Group, if it meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability; but articles must not contain significant amounts of copyright material copied from elsewhere. --ColinFine (talk) 23:38, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your explanations, in any case, what can be done about this website https://pt.qwe.wiki/wiki/Padmakara_Translation_Group stealing wikipedia material in order to display advertising? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amaral Rodrigues (talk • contribs) 08:40, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Amaral Rodrigues, per Wikipedia:Reusing Wikipedia content, as long as they say where they got it, and they seem to, that's ok. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:17, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Wrong name highlighted by robot

I entered a name in my page and it was automatically highlighted in blue to another wiki person of the same name. How do I block this? Kenpj (talk) 21:38, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

@Kenpj: Which page did this happen on? RudolfRed (talk) 21:45, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks RudolfRed. Outwood Academy Adwick, section Percy Jackson Grammar School, notable former pupils, David Dunn. Kenpj (talk) 22:16, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

@Kenpj: Please provide courtesy links to articles that you mention here, like this: Outwood Academy Adwick. Thanks. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 23:34, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Kenpj, Please find the David Dunn you are looking for at David Dunn (disambiguation) and use the corresponding title when you try to mention them on other articles. Usedtobecool ☎️ 23:42, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Kenpj, and welcome to the Teahouse. Thank you for wanting to help you improve Wikipedia. But there is a lot to learn, and a few things that I think you don't understand yet. The link to the wrong David Dunn was not "highlighted by a robot": you put the name in double square brackets so [[David Dunn]], and that is an explicit instruction to the Wikipedia software that you want it to put in a link to the article called "David Dunn". As it happens, that article (David Dunn) is about the cricketer, so you told Wikipedia to link to the article about the cricketer. If there was already an article about your David Dunn, (suppose it was called David Dunn (industrialist) - which doesn't currently exist) then you could have linked to it using a WP:piped link thus: [[David Dunn (industrialist)|David Dunn]].

But secondly, since there isn't currently an article about that David Dunn, he shouldn't appear in the list of alumni: see Write the article first. That is why Theroadislong removed him.

Thirdly, please remember that it is not "your page": it is one of Wikipedia's articles that you had a large part in creating (and your role in creating it is visible to anybody that looks at the "View History" tab); but it does not belong to you in any sense. --ColinFine (talk) 23:58, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

@ColinFine: The article is about a footballer, rather than a cricketer... Moaz786 (talk to me or see what I've been doing) 00:02, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. I am just an amateur, but colleagues wanted to publish an entry for the old school. I fully accept it is not 'my page'. That was just shorthand. One of our teachers was awarded the Military Cross in WW2. Is it not sufficient to ref the London Gazette entry? Does he need more notability? Are individuals only notable if they already have a separate Wiki entry? Would appreciate advice. Kenpj (talk) 00:50, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

YES, individuals are only notable if they already have a separate Wikipedia article. Further, you should be aware that if your editing Wikipedia has anything to do with your employment, then you have a conflict of interest, and need to read about and declare your WP:COI on your Talk page.--Quisqualis (talk) 01:54, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

To answer a question that you didn't ask, this page WP:NSOLDIER will help to determine this persons notability.--Darth Mike^(talk) 15:23, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Research Lab

Hi All,

I am a grad student working in a lab and our PI has requested that I make a wikipedia page for an upcoming conference we will be hosting and I was wondering if anyone had some guidance on how to go about creating an article about the project without referencing the project's main page too often. Unfortunately, the research lab has not had an expose about their staff and methods, but do in depth describe these on their internal website. I am a relatively new editor, so any guidance anyone has or suggestions, would be much appreciated. Thanks all and hope you all have a good day!

-Joe — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jspajka (talk • contribs) 22:42, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Jspajka. Unfortunately, if the conference hasn't been written about in some depth in independent sources such as newspapers or journals, it won't meet Wikipedia's notability criteria and therefore isn't eligible for an article. I know of very few articles about individual academic conferences - probably for this reason. Please also have a read of WP:COI if you are editing Wikipedia as part of your job or about your employer. There is a declaration you need to make to comply with the site's terms of use (see WP:PAID). Cordless Larry (talk) 22:48, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Apologies, Jspajka - I now see that you've already made the required declaration on your user page. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:43, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Jspajka: I have a guide on how to write articles that won't be deleted here.

In short, you need to find three or more professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources that are specifically and primarily about the conference but not affiliated with, dependent upon, nor connected with the conference, the research lab, or your school. As you admit there has not been an expose, that's a problem. Without three such sources, the article is not supposed to exist, period.

But, if you can find three such sources, you just need to summarize them and then paraphrase the summaries. Once that's done and the article is approved, you can expand the article using affiliated sources. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:49, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

@Jspajka: Process aside, there may be a misunderstanding of Wikipedia's purpose. It's not a place you should be looking to get the word out about the conference to encourage attendance or attention to your lab and research. Please see WP:NOTPROMO and the rest of that page. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 23:47, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Clarification of "Mainstream Sources" and applicability of content of cited sources

I would like to ask these questions -

1. What exactly is a "Mainstream Source" ? Is it strictly according to what the wiki policy WP:Wikipedia is a mainstream encyclopedia says or is it flexible as per what is agreed by means of Consensus in a particular context ?

2. If a source is cited for an article for a particular line or particular words, does the other content written in that source also apply to the article ? Can that content be inserted into the article ?

Kmoksha (talk) 01:57, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Kmoksha. Please be aware that WP:Wikipedia is a mainstream encyclopedia is only an essay expressing the opinions of one or more Wikipedia editors. It is not a policy or a guideline. What matters is whether a source is reliable. That means in brief that the source has professional editorial control, and a reputation for accuracy, fact checking and correcting errors. Many of those sources might be called "mainstream" but others might be dissident in one way or another. To answer your second question, a single good quality source can be used multiple times in an article. See WP:NAMEDREFS for an explanation of the coding. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:06, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

@ Cullen328 Thanks for your response. But the "mainstream source" is not clear. It is quite often used by the editors who say "This is a mainstream source" or "This is not a mainstream source and so not acceptable even though I agree with the content of the source article". You can often see Wiki editors rejecting proposals solely on the basis that the referenced source is not mainstream.

So, my first question was that if this link is just an essay and let us say the source suits the given definition of reliability. then can it be rejected saying that "it is not a mainstream source ?"

Also, let me rephrase my second question - Say there is an wiki article A containing a line 1 from a reliable source RS which has the line 1, but the source RS also has a line 2. So, my second question is that since the source RS is referenced in the wiki article and let us say that line 2 also is relevant for wiki article A, then does it mean line 2 also applies to the wiki article ? What if the line 2 contradicts some part of the wiki article ? -- Kmoksha (talk) 02:34, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

As I said previously, Kmoksha, what matters most is whether or not a given source is reliable. The article should summarize what the full range of reliable sources say about the matter, paying less attention to sources that present a distinct minority viewpoint. To the extent that "mainstream" in this context indicates the type of source that represents the most broadly held views by most scholars, then that is a good tool for evaluating the usefulness of a source.

If a reliable, independent source is used properly in the article for one factual assertion, then it is probably a good source for other assertions. If one good source contradicts another good source, then all readily available sources on the matter should be consulted, and the article should reflect the preponderance of the sources.Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:56, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

@Cullen328 In the light of what you said before, can you tell me if these are "mainstream sources" or not - http://www.radicalsocialist.in/ and https://www.sabrangindia.in/ -- Kmoksha (talk) 04:50, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Kmoksha, I am not an expert on left wing publications in India so I cannot give a definitive answer. The first seems to be a Trostkyist advocacy publication and at first glance, I do not see an editorial team. The second seems to be a site opposed to aggressive Hindu nationalism and at least two co-editors are named. Do other publications frequently cite these publications and praise their journalistic accomplishments? Have they won journalistic awards? Do they correct errors and carefully fact check their assertions? You can ask for a more detailed analysis at the Reliable sources noticeboard. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:17, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

@Cullen328 Now that you have listed all these parameters, it seems to me that what the editors mean when they say "this is not a mainstream source" is that the source is not widely acclaimed. But the same editors quote the wiki essay link of WP:Wikipedia is a mainstream encyclopedia . That creates confusion since that essay says very different and almost opposite things. In my opinion, the wikipedia community should edit this article and make it more in conformity with the actual practices of Wikipedia editors. Thanks for your responses -- Kmoksha (talk) 07:04, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

At the risk of being repetitive, Kmoksha, let me say again that WP:Wikipedia is a mainstream encyclopedia is not an article, not a guideline and not a policy. It is an essay written over eleven years ago. Any editor can write an essay, good or bad. It is rarely cited and very few pages link to it. Discussion on its talk page ended in 2016. I see no evidence that is is highly regarded by large numbers of editors. I suggest that you forget about it. As for your other point, there is no need that a source is "highly acclaimed". An academic journal published by a respected university will probably be a very reliable source but unknown outside that particular academic discipline. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:21, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Danexit

Hello, is it possible to start an short Article a little faster? (There are 3,733 pending submissions waiting for review currently) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wname1 (talk • contribs) 08:52, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Hello Wname1! This draft is unlikely to pass review, none of the sources mention the word. Guidance at WP:NOTNEO. As to your question, see WP:AUTO and WP:MOVE. But as I said, if you move this article as-is to mainspace, I think it will be moved back or deleted. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:04, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps you should consider a title more like "Greek withdrawal from the eurozone"? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:09, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

If none of the sources mention the title word, which is quite a specific word, then it really cannot become an article (e.g. unlike Megxit, which is drowning in global WP:RS/P that have the word " Megxit" in the title, but is still a deletion candidate). I am not aware of any Danish withdrawal from the eurozone, but I think that GGS is right that this would need to be the title; and you would need to have high quality sources talking about the subject in detail (e.g. WP:SIGCOV). thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 11:42, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

It would be difficult for Denmark to withdraw from the Eurozone, Britishfinance, because it's not a member! Danish withdrawal from the European Union would be a suitable title, although there are sources available that use Danexit. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:55, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Good point Cordless Larry, (as per the UK, they keep their own currency). There at portmanteaus for almost every member of the EU now (even Frexit), however, I could not find much credible RS for Danexit (in the article, or otherwise); however I was not searching in dan-lang sources (it is not a topic that interests me). thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 14:08, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Details! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:53, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

What to do against fake data?

I've just read the wiki page on FIEDLER Ferenc in English. He was a Hungarian painter who lived in KASSA and BUDAPEST before going to PARIS. He was an ethnic Hungarian born in KASSA in 1921. In that year KASSA was on the territory of Czechoslovakia (Czechoslovakia). So, it's not true/correct to indicated that Mr Friedler was born in "Kosice, Slovakia". Slovakia did not exist in 1921 (Slovakia). We can speak about a truly independent Slovakia as of 1993 only. Unfortunately, Slovaks always try to "change history" for whatever reason. In my opinion the text in English is not correct, therefore it should be corrected as soon as possible. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tassilo5331 (talk • contribs) 12:54, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

There is no Fiedler Ferenc on en-WP, did you type that right? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:59, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Tassilo5331 Please don't accuse other ethnic or national groups as a whole for the actions of any individual. This is a collaborative environment where we all work together building this encyclopedia. I'm not sure what Wikipedia policy is in this general area, but you should discuss any concerns you have with an article on its article talk page. As Slovakia succeeded Czechoslovakia, it doesn't sound incorrect to me, but as I indicated, I don't know what general policy is in this area. We state that Lenin "was born in Streletskaya Ulitsa, Simbirsk (now Ulyanovsk)". Perhaps the article you speak of should say something similar, I don't know- but please discuss the issue with respect for others and collaborate to achieve a consensus as to what the article should say, typically based in Wikipedia policy. 331dot (talk) 13:05, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

I looked around for guidance on that at one point, what I came up with was Template:Infobox person: "Use the name of the birthplace at the time of birth" and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Capital letters: "If a different name is appropriate in a given historical or other context, then that may be used instead, although it is normal to follow the first occurrence of such a name with the standard modern name in parentheses.". Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:13, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

The article in question appears to be François Fiedler – he probably went by the French as well as the Hungarian form of his first name. (In Hungarian, names are often written Surname Firstname, unlike the English convention.) --bonadea contributions talk 13:23, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

@Tassilo5331: I think you are raising a valid point – the town had been in Austria-Hungary until a couple of years before Fiedler's birth, when it was annexed into Czechoslovakia. The place to discuss this is Talk:François Fiedler, and as 331dot says, please present this as a simple matter of getting the facts right, without any reference to the ethnicity of other editors. --bonadea contributions talk 13:33, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

 Fixed I corrected the article and added a note about the discrepancy. The article could really use some work by someone familiar with how we write artist BLPs. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 15:06, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

How can I get my weekly community newspaper, the Northwest Observer, added to the list of newspapers in North Carolina?

Hi, Since November 1996 I've been publishing a community newspaper which started as a monthly newsletter for the Town of Oak Ridge and evolved over the years into a weekly newspaper covering three municipalities in northwest Guilford County: Oak Ridge, Summerfield and Stokesdale. How can I get my newspaper added to the list of newspapers published in our state? BTW, our website is: www.nwobserver.com and our weekly print circulation is 13,800. Thanks, Patti Stokes, president/CEO of PS Communications and publisher/editor of Northwest Observer— Preceding unsigned comment added by PS Communications, Northwest Observer (talk • contribs)

PS Communications, Northwest Observer Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. First, please review the conflict of interest and paid editing policies as you have some required formal disclosures to make. Regarding what you want to do, list articles like the one you mention are not intended to list every possible member of the list in existence. They are meant to list those with Wikipedia articles- so in order to be listed there, there must be a Wikipedia article about your newspaper. In order for that to happen, your newspaper needs to be shown with significant coverage in independent reliable sources to meet Wikipedia's special definition of a notable organization. In plain English, that means other sources unaffiliated with your newspaper must give significant coverage of of it in order for it to merit a Wikipedia article. For example, The New York Times merits an article because many independent sources have written about The New York Times, not simply because it has a large circulation or readership. If your newspaper does merit an article, you shouldn't be the one to write it, due to your conflict of interest. You can request that others do so at Requested Articles, but there are literally tens of thousands of requests there, so it won't be done quickly. 331dot (talk) 14:42, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Kalos Circle

I write history books about Weiser Idaho. Recently I came across information about a group called the Kalos Circle. They were the women's auxiliary of the Woodmen of the World. I've checked Wikipedia and sites for the Woodmen with no joy. I have six paragraphs from newspapers in 1898 and 1899 discussing activities of the Kalos Circle in Weiser, Idaho. I'll use this information in my book but I feel it is good information and deserves wider distribution than I can provide. How do we make that happen? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Walstonken (talk • contribs) 15:51, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Hello Walstonken and welcome to Wikipedia. WP:EXPERT may be a good starting point for you. Are your books WP:SELFPUBLISHED? We have something of a reluctance to use selfpublished sources, though context matters. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:17, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Walstonken (edit conflict) Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Please understand that Wikipedia is not just for distributing information; this is an encyclopedia, where articles summarize what independent reliable sources state about subjects that meet Wikipedia's special definition of notability. Sources do not need to be online, just publicly accessible(so old newspapers are fine as long as copies are in public hands, like in a library) Wikipedia is not for posting original research, so unlike in writing a book, you could not post your own conclusions or research findings in a Wikipedia article, it could only summarize what the sources say. If you wish to attempt to write an article, you may use Articles for Creation to do so, though you should first read Your First Article and perhaps use the new user tutorial. 331dot (talk) 16:21, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article WoodmenLife states that the organization was originally "Woodmen of the World" and the women's auxiliary was Woodmen Circles. David notMD (talk) 01:22, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Question re. brackets

Could someone tell me what the difference between [] and {} is?

I've tried working it out in the sandbox, but they both seem to do the same thing. Grateful for clarification, thanks! Maryanne Cunningham (talk) 17:03, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi Maryanne Cunningham and welcome to the Teahouse. Square brackets are used for internal links to another Wikipedia article. See WP:Internal links. Braces are used for templates like the one I use to notify you at the beginning of my reply. Dbfirs 18:49, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Dbfirs Maryanne Cunningham (talk) 21:15, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

@Maryanne Cunningham: Single square brackets (e.g., [https://foo.bar.com]) produce external links (see WP:EL for policy), while double square brackets (e.g. [[blah]]) produce internal links to Wikipedia (and other wiki projects). Double braces (e.g., {{Cite web}}) are used to transclude templates and other pages. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 21:38, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks AlanM1 Maryanne Cunningham (talk) 21:15, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi again, Maryanne. A pair of square brackets [[ ]] around a word will give you an internal link to another Wikipedia page. It'll be blue if the page exists with that spelling, or red if no page exists here.

• Eg: [[Mont Blanc massif]] gives Mont Blanc massif
• [[Mont Blank massif]] doesn't exist, so gives this red-coloured link: Mont Blank massif

A single square bracket [] is used to link to an external website OR to a full external link to one of our own pages. You put the url first, then ONE SPACE, then the word or phrase to display. Like this link.

Double curly brackets invoke a named template, usually inserting set text. This could be a complex welcome message left on a users talk page, a warning, an infobox in an article, or a simple line of text you don't want to keep repeatedly typing. Thus {{please}} produces this request to sign every post: " (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.)

Finally, you can include certain parameters by means of a vertical pipe character to make a template do certain things, though this is a little tricky to explain. Although I told you when you started how to notify a user, another way to do it is my means of the {{u}} template. Thus, {{u|Maryanne Cunningham}} produces Maryanne Cunningham which ensures you are notified about my reply. Hope this makes some sense. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 23:00, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Er, um, getting thereNick Moyes. Thanks! Maryanne Cunningham (talk) 21:15, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Becoming an admin

Hi everyone. I am hoping to become a Wikipedia administrator since I like to think of myself as a judge of sorts, and I believe it would look good on my CV as a volunteer activity. I’m just wondering how long it usually takes and how many edits I will have to make. Also, are there certain areas I should focus on? Sorry if I’m asking too many questions - I’m just new here and curious to find out what I need to do. Thanks! - Matt (Moresiva) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moresiva (talk • contribs) 18:51, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

@Moresiva: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Administrators are selected through a process known as an RFA (click the link to learn more). There is no set time or number of edits one needs to make in order to become an administrator. It all depends on the quality of the contributions, not the quantity. One way to become an administrator is to focus on what you can do (not what you can't do) as a normal editor and not focus on gaining permissions just to show off. Administrators use their tools to help make Wikipedia a better place. Keep in mind there is more you can do as a normal editor than what you can't do as a normal editor. Some things you can do as a normal editor include fighting vandalism, fixing typos, and much more. Check out the community portal for more tasks you can do. I also suggest reading WP:Contributing to Wikipedia to learn more how to improve this wonderful encyclopedia without administrator rights. I hope this helps and please come back here or drop a note on my talk page if you have any more questions. Interstellarity (talk) 19:06, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

@Moresiva: Being an administrator just means that one has some extra buttons that would be irresponsible to give to the whole community. I'm not entirely sure it would merit inclusion on a CV. It mostly involves routine tasks and evaluating community consensus; it doesn't actually involve the administrator making judgments or decisions in most cases. As noted, going out from the start to obtain administrator rights looks like you are just showing off-(and you state your primary reason for wanting to be one is to put on your CV/resume) just concentrate on being a good editor and if in the course of your editing you find that having admin powers would be beneficial, then you can look at being nominated. I didn't seek out admin powers until other editors thought that I would make good use of them. 331dot (talk) 19:13, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

(ec) Something far above 10,000 edits and about four years of editing could be good enough, your first step will be to get "patrol" User rights, IIRC that's automatical unless you successfully request an earlier "promotion". These rights mostly mean "spam fighting as a hobby", no special bragging rights. Also see Special:ListGroupRights. –84.46.53.221 (talk) 19:17, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Theroad posted on your Talk page a guide to advice on being an editor (everything that is blue is a link). Welcome to Wikipedia. David notMD (talk) 01:28, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Something I would like to know

Is it okay if I add categories to articles without using HotCat?

-Prana1111 (talk) 20:19, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Prana1111, Yes, you may. HotCat makes it easier, but it can be done manually without. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:28, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

My draft was declined :(

I'm fairly new to making new Wikipedia articles. Anyone help me out with it? meowmeow \S-) (talk) 20:31, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Please always wikilink what you are talking about, e.g., [[Draft:Young Scientist Programme]] is rendered as Draft:Young Scientist Programme. Some ideas, "ambitious" is a WP:PEACOCK term, drop it unless you have reliable sources using it, then you can quote it. The layout of the draft with images is nice, I haven't read the text or checked your sources, but India Today is a "thing" (enwiki page exists, blue link), wikilink it in all references. –84.46.53.221 (talk) 20:50, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Aadarshashutosh, Phrases like "programme was aimed to inculcate and nurture space research fervour in young minds" are definitely promotional and should be made more neutral in tone. The aims and activities section should is in the future tense, which doesn't quite make sense. Another issue, I think the draft probably needs higher quality sources. Careers 360 doesn't strike me as reliable. The Organization's own website is not independent. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 01:18, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Clothing retailers of Canada

Hello. I googled and read this article because of so many recent retailers closing. I am wondering how someone could add Strong Canadian retailers who are absent from the list? Comark,is the parent company to all three Bootlegger, Rickis and Cleo who are All Canadian and have been around for a significant time, 80 years for Rickis last year. Any advise how I can get these retailers added to the list is appreciated? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.65.86.11 (talk • contribs) 21:09, 12 Januay 2020 (UTC)

Hi, 50.65.86.11, and welcome to the Teahouse. Every Wikipedia article has a talk page, which you can reach though a tab at the top of the article page, and that is usually the best place to suggest changes to a specific article. If the article you mean is List of Canadian clothing store chains, the talk page is at Talk:List of Canadian clothing store chains. Many list articles list only things that have existing Wikipedia articles about them, so you might check whether there are articles about the retailers you'd like to include, first. Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 21:21, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

NEED HELP!

How can put tables, pictures and different sections in my article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Têêłînj ßœ ß-Sôul (talk • contribs) 22:20, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

@Têêłînj ßœ ß-Sôul: Maybe your article should have textual content before you worry about adding that stuff? In other words, maybe you should write an article before you make it a fancy article? Ian.thomson (talk) 22:25, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

WikiProject History needs people

Hi everyone. I am the new coordinator for WikiProject History. we need people there!! right now the project seems to be semi-inactive. I am going to various WikiProjects whose topics overlap with ours, to request volunteers.

• If you have any experience at all with standard WikiProject processes such as quality assessment, article help, asking questions, feel free to come by and get involved.

• and if you have NO Experience, but just want to come by and get involved, feel free to do so!!!

• For anyone who wants to get involved, please come by and add your name at our talk page, at our talk page section: WikiProject History needs you!!!!

• Alternately, if you have any interest at all, feel free to reply right here, on this talk page. please ping me when you do so, by typing {{ping|sm8900}} in your reply.

we welcome your input. thanks!! --Sm8900 (talk) 20:46, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

@Sm8900: What topic are you most in need of for your project? Eclipsefc (talk) 23:09, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

hi. Good question. However I’m just a facilitator. I found this wikiproject and saw it was basically inactive. It seems like something people might need, given its basic topicality. I’m leaving it up to the community to let me know what people might feel is most needed, if anything. Thanks!!! —Sm8900 (talk) 23:29, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Aside from the semi-active label in that Project, how were you able to determine that it is inactive? I myself have been expanding articles listed in the History stubs. Having a facilitator for this project is a good thing so I am supporting you all the way :). If you can, you can update the page with changes made and even feature interesting articles. If you want to know people who can help you with this or those who are doing actual work, you can start communicating with the users listed in the Members list. Darwin Naz (talk) 12:50, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

On copyright issues in a page

Hi there -

I've been putting together a biography page of someone - Draft:Ivan_Gaal

Current status is I have copyright issues, taking info from another page.

I have put a copyright exemption notice on the offending page http://www.innersense.com.au/mif/gaal.html and noted this on this Talk page - Draft_talk:Ivan_Gaal

I did this 2 months ago.

My basic question is - do I need to do anything else ? Is this a normal wait period for this small adjustment ?

Thanks, Bill Bmous63 (talk) 01:17, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Hello there, Bill and welcome to the Teahouse. If a page that you use as a Reliable Source contains a CC-BY-SA licence declaration, then you are free to use that content on Wikipedia. The problem is that the source (your own website) doesn't seem at first glance to meet the criteria of a reliable source, as it looks to me to be a personally maintained website, written and owned by yourself, without any editorial board of control. I'm afraid we don't accept personal blogs, websites and social media as reliable sources, I'm afraid, especially if they are being used to establish notability. I don't know whether you might have a Conflict of Interest in possibly knowing this person, but if you do, you really should declare it on your user page. Even now that you've put a CC licence on that page, it might be best simply to rewrite the text in a new way just for Wikipedia. But I see that you have now met the conditions of the third bullet point in the copyright notice issued on your talk page last November - so that's great.

If you want to get the article accepted, try to remember that this is an encyclopaedia of notable subjects. Cut out the petty contents about winning his local bowls club competition - put frankly: nobody cares. Never say in the lead that he's an 'award-winning' this or that (that's just vague waffle)- tell us what notable award(s) he has actually won. This will (hopefully) show reviewers that he is notable, and mention of his Olympic participation sounds a likely candidate for that - but the link is a 404 dead link, so who knows what he did? The style of writing you have used is a bit too chatty, and not encyclopaedic enough. When you say '...to this day' how do you think that will read in 20 years time? Sorry I can't give a more detailed review, but I hope this reply is of some use. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 02:19, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia presents articles on the 8th, 11th, 19th, and 20th centuries in science. I propose that Wikipedia present comparable summaries of science in the 12th through the 18th centuries. Thanks for giving the opportunity to propose this idea! RW

Wikipedia presents articles on the 8th, 11th, 19th, and 20th centuries in science. I propose that Wikipedia present comparable summaries of science in the 12th through the 18th centuries. Thanks for giving the opportunity to propose this idea! RW — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dachluft (talk • contribs) 01:59, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

@Dachluft: You can find a simple set of instructions on how to write an article that won't be rejected or deleted in this link. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:05, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Sources

Hi. I created a page, Jean-Sim Ashman, and it was not accepted. I’m having a hard time creating the page so that it meets Wikipedia’s guidelines. Can someone help me? I was told that the sources were not independent but I believe they are. These are sources about the author and I didn’t get the information from the author’s personal website. These sources are publications.

Any help would be great! Thanks!

Here is the page

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jl1121 (talk • contribs) 02:07, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Jl1121. Reading the rationale for why your short article was declined, it's not so much about the quality of the sources, it's about a failure of any of those sources to demonstrate how that person meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability. None of the sources you have used show that the world at large (i.e. independent sources) has written about her in depth. They are mostly personal interviews, book cover notes and IMDB entries, which are not sufficient, and not independent. If they were, I would have a page here about myself as I, too, am a published author. You will need to find much better sources if you stand any hope of putting such a page on Wikipedia. See also this Wikipedia criteria for notability of creative people. I recommend you read this essay (shortcut: WP:TOOSOON) as it's something that gives people like me a glimmer of hope that one day, maybe one day we might be notable enough at some point in the future. But I'm not counting my chickens!) Sorry this isn't what you want to hear. (Please remember to sign your posts on talk pages by typing four keyboard tildes like this: ~~~~.) Nick Moyes (talk) 02:32, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi, Jl1121. You also need to note that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia with articles, and not a directory or social media with "pages".--Quisqualis (talk) 06:40, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Confused about reliable sources

Hello,

I recently checked a submission and found it was rejected because I didn't adequately provide reliable sources but I'm confused as why there were not reliable. I'm a bit confused if the sources aren't "reliable" or if I didn't reference correctly. I would like to resubmit but would like to get some help to do so so I don't waste my or anybody else's time.

The article in question: Draft:Blue Sky Architecture

Thank you for your help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quettal (talk • contribs) 04:10, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

One of the review comments, which you did not address, said "Please help our volunteer reviewers by identifying, on the draft's talk page, the WP:THREE best sources that establish notability of the subject." --David Biddulph (talk) 04:26, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

QR codes as image for links

I saw on Saint Francis of Assisi College that a QR code is used for a link to some website. Isn't this why there is [link_to_website]? Is this form of including a link a desired form of doing it. I question if this integration is reasonable. On PC and Laptops you would need a QR code scanner like your smartphone to get to the website. On your smartphone you may even need a second device to open the link. Either way, on both devices a link is more than enough. A potential problem I see here is that you can not view the link before scanning it. So you could hide a spam or virus infected website behind the code. Or use a redirect service like bitly.com or cutt.ly and guide people to malicious websites. Is there any consense or guideline on Wikipedia about that that? --193.171.152.104 (talk) 07:44, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing this, IP editor. I have removed the inappropriate QR code. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:56, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

@Cullen328: OK, I was actually hoping for a yes/no answer here. Are QR in general allowed on Wikipedia or not? --193.171.152.104 (talk) 07:59, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

I have been editing Wikipedia for almost 11 years and I am an administrator. I have never before seen QR codes used in this manner in a Wikipedia article and would remove them on sight for the reasons you stated originally. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:03, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the help and your quick answer! --193.171.152.103 (talk) 08:09, 13 January 2020 (UTC) (BTW. x.103 and x.104 are the same. They switch for weired ISP rules)

Suggestion a slight change to a Wiki diagram:

Is it possible to contact Wiki moderator "Gaeanautes" about a useful diagram that was added to the Article about "Limits To Growth"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.140.101.140 (talk) 09:26, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

User:Gaeanautes is not an administrator (we don't call them moderators). To contact any Wikipedia editor, you can start a new section on the editor's user talk page. --David Biddulph (talk) 09:37, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hello, IP editor, and welcome to the Teahouse. you could contact Gaeanautes at User talk:Gaeanautes, but I note that Gaeanautes has not saved any edits since last October.

The better place to make comments on how that article might be improved would be at Talk:The Limits to Growth, which is the page for discussing how to improve that article, open to all interested editors.

By the way, Gaeanautes is not an admin, which is the closest Wikipedia has to a "moderator" although it is not really the same thing. For most editing, all editors are equal and an admin has no special authority. Admins delete pages when there is community consensus to do so, block users who are violating policy in a way that has harmed and is likely to continue to harm the project, and try to clean up messes. That is why the official nickname for an admin is a "Janitor", and the symbol of an admin is a mop. See WP:ADMIN for more info. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 09:41, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Border posts between Northern Namibia and Southern Angola

There are 7 border posts as per subject above.

Katwiti can be added +- 17 deg 39 min south (latitude)  

I was instrumental as a Geomatic Engineer & Professional Project Manager of the road C45, hence we past the border patrol turnoff frequently. > Rundu to Eenhana.

Please request more info if needed.

Peter f Spronk. BSc > Geomatics (University of Cape Town) > Cape Peninsula University of Technology Geomatics[survey] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.119.33.10 (talk) 10:20, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Are you inquiring about a certain article? 331dot (talk) 10:23, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

submitting article about a person

Hi,

Many thanks for having this opportunity to ask questions here guys! I would like to write a biography about my grandfather, without him, Leni Riefenstahl's film Tiefland (Tiefland (film)) would have not happened. I know little about my grandfather Josef Plesner, and I am in touch with the Austrian film institution to find out more. My article draft has been rejected as I could not prove the significance of the person. He has done outstanding and groundbreaking work in nature documentaries as well as producing and filming the 2 important pieces of German/Austrian post-war (filmed during war partly) films Tiefland and Bergkristall (mountain crystal). At a time where it was nearly impossible to pay for film rolls and production, he spent all his money on making movies.

Thanks for your help, Alexandra — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlexandraSarcletti (talk • contribs) 10:38, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

• You need to find reliable sources that reported on him as a person. Although I would recommend against trying to create an article on him without help from another editor, as is not usually a good idea to write an article about someone you know, since you may not be able to remain neutral. ^{[Username Needed]} 10:47, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

• @AlexandraSarcletti: Please also note that words like "outstanding", "groundbreaking", and even "important", are indicative of the NPOV problem that often appears when writing about a subject with whom you have a relationship (see WP:COI). Unless multiple sources characterize the work in this way, the article shouldn't use such terms. Even if multiple sources do use such flowery language, it should only be used sparingly here, and attributed to those sources. This is part of maintaining a neutral, encyclopedic tone. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 12:51, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
• @AlanM1: that is very helpful thank you. I am a story teller so writing in neutral language will be quite a challenge. Personal relationship or not. I will learn as I go along. I am currently trying to piece together the biography. The contribution to the film industry and culture are undeniable. But I do lack references as post war has made it difficult to find reliable sources in digital. What if I find written or printed evidence? For example, I do have a handwritten note by Leni Riefenstahl, where she thanks my grandfather. But how would that work to digitalise it - upload on Wikimedia Commons? --AlexandraSarcletti (talk) 16:29, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
• You can find some sources on the German wikipedia articles w:de:Tiefland (Film) and w:de:Josef Plesner. You can ask English questions on the relevant talk pages, w:de:Talk:Tiefland (Film) + w:de:Talk:Josef Plesner, it's "Diskussion" instead of "Talk" on dewiki, but otherwise the same idea. @Others, I'm not up to date with the current procedures for a "transwiki" or Special:Import of w:de:Josef Plesner, but the German article is short enough to try a translation. –84.46.53.221 (talk) 14:01, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

  Just my 2 cents here: one needs to keep in mind here that different Wikipedias have different ways of doing things and judging if an article can be written and kept or not. The fact that an article exists in one Wikipedia does not guarantee there can be an article in different Wikipedia. Looking at the sources in the de:Josef Plesner article: citing imdb, e.g., is covered here. And passing mentions alone will not confer notability. Lectonar (talk) 14:18, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

(ec) I'm afraid it's not enough information in the dewiki article to reach the WP:N threshold and make even a stub at enwiki. Here's a Google's translation:

Josef Plesner (born January 13, 1911 in Ernstbrunn, Lower Austria, † October 30, 1993 in Kufstein, Tyrol) was an Austrian film producer and cameraman.

He has made a name for himself in the genres: cultural film and nature film, local film and mountain film. He was also the founder and head of the Plesner Film production company.

plus a filmography. Just dates and places of birth and death, his profession and names of movie art streams do not warrant an article, IMVHO. --CiaPan (talk) 14:21, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

(ec) Yes, I'm always excited if I see a possible technical adventure, here Help:Transwiki ending up on m:Help:Transwiki, but Plesner and w:de:Bergkristall (1949) aren't very helpful. OTOH w:de:Tiefland (Film) has some references and could be notable here, and that would allow AlexandraSarcletti to create a redirect for her grandfather to the film. –84.46.53.221 (talk) 14:39, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

See Tiefland (film). Lectonar (talk) 14:47, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

And Mountain Crystal. Lectonar (talk) 14:48, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Problem solved, next TEAHOUSE adventure stop for the OP is WP:AFC/Redirects to request a redirect. –84.46.53.221 (talk) 14:58, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

• Google translate for once is surprisingly correct :). Lectonar (talk) 14:31, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

@Lectonar: Google translate these days is pretty good. Thank you I did not know that articles on one Wiki page are not autmatically ok to go out on all languages. I know his work is notable - especially Tiefland, but how can I reference that correctly, given that there are hardly any digital sources but the IMDB entry: https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0687205/bio --AlexandraSarcletti (talk) 16:29, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

@AlexandraSarcletti: WP:FILMMAKER isn't obvious for your grandfather, but you are of course free to start a draft anyway. IMDb would go to an "external links" section of the biography and doesn't count towards WP:THREE (not a policy, only a rule of thumb.) –84.46.53.221 (talk) 17:48, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

AlexandraSarcletti There is no requirement that sources be digital or findable online. However (at least on this Wikipedia) there is a requirement that they be published. A printed book, magazine or newspaper article is fine. Give the title of the book or article, and the name of any publication in which it is included (for an article). Give the publication date. Give the page number or numbers. Give the author if known. Possibly include a short quote (use |quote= if using a citation template such as {{cite book}}, {{cite news}} or {{cite magazine}}). Such a quote can include the key sentence(s) from the source on which the Wikipedia entry is relying.A handwritten note would not be acceptable, unless it had previously been published elsewhere. Cite only reliable sources. I hope that is helpful. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 17:54, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion

Hi Team ,

Why was my Wikipedia page deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Auisytech (talk • contribs) 12:58, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

@Auisytech: I am unable to view deleted pages so I can't give you a detailed explanation of what the issues were. However, it was tagged as being 'unambiguous advertising' and 'containing writings not closely aligned to Wikipedia's goals'. Based on those, I would suspect that you created a page which came across as solely promotional and not a sincere attempt to draft an encyclopedia article.

(Auisytech actually appears to be blocked now, but I thought I'd reply anyway so that at least they have an answer to their question.) Hug^syrup 13:17, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

At the moment the only page you could still edit using your blocked account is your user talk page, you'll find an explanation there. It's also the only good place to ask further questions about this incident, just creating another account without an indication that you understood the problem can get you blocked again, because it could be interpreted as "block evasion". Not logging in (like me, editing as IP) can also backfire for the same reason (block evasion). –84.46.53.221 (talk) 13:39, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

I looked at the deleted sandbox, and it includes such text as We enhance life and communication efficiency through a better-connected world, acting as a responsible corporate citizen, an innovative enabler for the information society, and a collaborative contributor to the industry. The tone of the rest is similar. It is a classic work of corporate promotion as it is often attempted on Wikipedia, and I fully agree with the G11 deletion. It also has a tone not uncommon in paid editing. I make no accusations, but that thought is likely to be in the mind of any admin reviewing an unblock request by Auisytech. It should be addressed, in my view, for an unblock to be successful. Have a look at the section below. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 16:47, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Paid Contributions at Wikipedia

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hi, I am writing content for Wikipedia in exchange for payment. The disclosures are given on my user talk page and the talk pages of the drafts I am submitting. However, each page gets flagged or tagged for content even when they are written in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines for notability, independent and reliable sources, and neutrality. I even refer to other articles published in the same category to ensure that the drafts are up to the mark with what has been accepted by the Wikipedia community.

Is it true that the editors/moderators here are unusually rigid about paid content and would not let anything pass no matter what you do to comply with Wikipedia and its community guidelines and rules? Ashley.Bell (talk) 15:42, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

@AshleyBell208 really? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlexandraSarcletti (talk • contribs) 16:05, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

@AshleyBell208: I am not sure what you mean by 'unusually' rigid since it depends what is usual - are you comparing en.wiki to other language wikipedias? Or to other websites entirely? So, I can't really answer if editors are unusually rigid but I would certainly say that we are pretty rigid about paid content. Many editors and admins, myself among them, see the proliferation of paid content (even when suitably declared) as a substantial threat to the integrity of Wikipedia as a serious, balanced and unbiased encyclopedia, so it will tend to be reviewed very, very closely. To put another spin on it, you are making money out of doing what we do as a hobby, so you can't be too surprised if we hold you to a pretty high standard. As for whether editors will not let anything pass: no, I have not seen that to be the case. Plenty of articles do exist that have been created or edited for payment. As for flagging and tagging, a huge number of articles have some kind of tag on them so I wouldn't take that too personally and, as I say, paid articles are held to a high standard - just because you believe you have complied with all Wikipedia policies does not, I'm afraid, mean that others will agree. Indeed, I hate to say it, but by 'referring to other articles passed in the same category' you are in fact failing to be aware of a very useful Wikipedia essay called Wikipedia:Other stuff exists, so I wouldn't set too much store by that. Hug^syrup 16:08, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hello, AshleyBell208, and welcome to the Teahouse. The answer is mostly yes, and mostly no. Many, but not all experienced editors. and a number of admins do tend to be stricter than usual in assessing contributions from disclosed paid editors. Few would not let anything pass no matter what, and doing that, that is failing to approve (and instead declining or rejecting) a clearly valid draft, or declining valid edit requests properly supported by high-quality sources, would be in my view against policy. However, there is a wide range of judgement, of just how strictly to construe the various content policies, and as long as a reviewer stays inside that line, s/he may choose to be more strict with paid editors. It is a fact that paid editors often do exhibit bias towards there clients, and write overly promotional articles, or ones of dubious notability (although perhaps not more than fans of "up and coming" bands). The rule about a paid editor not editing directly in mainspace, and instead using AfC and paid edit requests is being enforced significantly more strictly now than nit was, say two years ago, and a lot more strictly than it was 10 years ago; back in 2010 it really was a "suggestion". By now I think it should be taken as a requirement. I may propose rewriting for clarity. (The exception is fixing clear vandalism, and correcting non-controversial factual errors, such as the name of a new CEO, or the spelling of the city in which a company has its HQ.)

I have read the msgs on your talk page, but I have not (as yet) reviewed your work, and cannot judge the quality of the article or the accuracy of the comments. I tend to be more sympathetic to disclosed paid editors than many admins, but even I normally advise people (if they ask) not to use such services. See WP:BOGO for an essay describing the views of some on this subject. See also my comments on the talk page at Wikipedia talk:Buy one, get one free#Oppose this concept. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 16:33, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Is this about the article with the title Nicholas Porter Earp. It seems to be more about the family history. Dbfirs 16:40, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

• @AshleyBell208: Although the question was asked generally, I looked at the particular case of Draft:Ibrahim_S._Quraishi_(visual_artist), which I assume to be the one which prompted the question. There were significant tone and copyright issues in former revisions; the current one seems fine on that front.

Unfortunately, that is not quite enough to have a Wikipedia article. First of all, all information needs to be properly verifiable, that is, cited to reliable sources validating what is in the Wikipedia article; I would usually not insist on this but one of the reviews specifically cited a failed verification. Furthermore, you need to demonstrate that the person is "notable", which means not "worthy of being noted" but "has been talked/written about at length by multiple independent and reliable sources". (In the case of artists, that is usually highly correlated with the criteria listed at WP:NARTIST.) Skimming through the sources, I see only the welt.de article that could rise to that threshold.

All in all, maybe the reviewers gave you a harder time because of paid editing status, maybe not; maybe the reason for the decline was incorrect, but declining was clearly the proper course of action. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 16:52, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Verification failed is pretty serious, that requires emergency fixes. Please use {{cite web}} for online references, free style without links doesn't cut it. I've added one URL to your references, you'll find millions of correct {{cite web}} references on enwiki, it's no rocket science. Also wikilink the publisher whenever possible, e.g., I know what Die Welt is, others don't, and without wikilink Die Welt looks like "yet another unreliable source". –84.46.53.221 (talk) 17:12, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

84.46.53.221, that is rather overstated. "Verification failed" is significant, but little more so than "citation needed". Sometimes it means that an online source has changed and no longer says what it once did. Sometimes it means that the would-be verifier made a mistake. More often it means that the editor who provided the source misunderstood just what the source actually supported. Sometimes it means that someone added additional statements that s/he thought correct but were not supported by the cite already in place. Unless the unsupported statement is a negative or controversial one in a biography (or other article about a living person), or a controversial quotation, it is not an emergency matter like a copyright violation. Few things are emergencies in Wikipedia editing, see WP:NORUSH. There is time to get it right, and we should. Also see WP:CITEVAR, templated citations are absolutely not required, and any attempt to require them is in direct violation of policy. A given article should be consistent in citation style, but a new draft can use any sufficient style the author pleases (bare URLs are not sufficient, but manual cites can well be). @AshleyBell208: DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 23:52, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Oh and there is no requirement that sources be online, or linked, or in English, or available free of charge. When this is easy it is generally preferable, but not at the cost of using a poorer source. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 23:55, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

If it's online a link can simplify the verification, for the URL added by me a page with ~50 persons incl. the visual artist. I like to see if a reference has an authorlink (ideal), a date/year, an author, a work/website/publisher/work+publisher (ideally wikilinked, we discussed this recently), an url (for cite web), and a title. It's not hard to get that effect without a template, but with a template it's additionally not easy to get it wrong. –84.46.53.221 (talk) 01:38, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

@AshleyBell208: I'd like to stress the last paragraph in DESiegel's response above: more sympathetic to disclosed paid editors. Those who review new article content are particularly adept at recognizing promotional content because so much of it is submitted, it's not hard to recognize the pattern after about the tenth one (sadly, that might be 10% of the weekly volume)^{[citation needed]}. Regardless of disclosure, such content will in all likelihood be found and rejected. Disclosing paid status, though, will definitely earn some benefit of the doubt in close calls, and it's the "right" thing to do, too, if you care about the goals of Wikipedia (which is expected of you by the community of unpaid volunteer editors). —[AlanM1(talk)]— 22:25, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

First, thank you all for taking the time to respond. A lot of this is very insightful to what is expected of paid contributions and paid editors by the Wikipedia community. Over the past couple of weeks, I have tried to read and understand as much as I could to make sure that I comply with what the community recommends, what Wikipedia states as a rule, and the guidelines of writing a paid article in accordance with what is generally accepted here. Understanding the sentiments and outlook of other editors towards the paid contributions is equally essential, and, as such, I am grateful to all of you for sharing your views. Now, it raises another question for me: the Wikipedia community does not only request paid contribution disclosure and transparency, but demands it. Rightfully so, no arguments there. However, do you not discourage transparency and disclosure by putting up more rules, raising standards above normal, and demanding more of paid contributors when they do provide the disclosure? Ashley.Bell (talk) 14:55, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

WP:IAR "ignore all rules" was one of only three fundamental rules before 2005, and still is one of only five pillars today, but WP:PAID is not only a community guideline or policy, it is a part of the terms of use. Higher standards make sense for me, for volunteers (or at least for me) it is uncomfortable to help paid editors earning their salary. Your visual artist is harmless, but I'd be furious if folks ignoring the ToU edit, e.g., Monsanto or Roundup for a salary.
"Far too many rules" affects all users, logged in, paid, volunteer, or "anonymous" (not, cf. WP:IP), e.g., I consider parts of the WP:MOS manual of style as a sneaky way to keep editors out of the article + draft namespaces while they invent new rules in the project and talk namespaces. OTOH I would let editors follow the MOS on measuring the height of ponies in hands depending on an anglo-saxon geo-location of the pony at birth. –84.46.53.221 (talk) 01:14, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

TriArtisan Capital

Hello!

I am a finance student, and will be writing a few articles about private equity firms. Can you please help me with the draft for TriArtisan Capital?

I will also be writing about a few other middle market firms, too, and hoping you can help me write good articles! — Preceding unsigned comment added by WallStGuy (talk • contribs) 17:14, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

WallStGuy, As common courtesy, we usually provide a wikilink to the target article. I will do so for you: Draft:TriArtisan Capital MoonyTheDwarf (Braden N.) (talk) 17:21, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

When a draft has been Declined, that information is required to stay with the draft until it is accepted. The reviewer provided guidance on why it was declined. I restored your deletion of the Declined decision. The (volunteer) editors here at Teahouse advise on Wikipedia, but are not generally here to improve drafts. Except sometimes to cut stuff. Please use your experiences in trying to create your first article improve your understanding of Wikipedia before essaying other new articles. David notMD (talk) 17:28, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Hello, WallStGuy and welcome to the Teahouse. One thing to remember is that Wikipedia is basically completely uninterested in what the subject of an article say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. This means, for example, that the Nation's Restaurant News item, which begins "Investment firms TriArtisan Capital Advisors LLC and Paulson & Co. Inc. announced" is irrelevant to the draft Draft:TriArtisan Capital: the reference shouldn't be cited, and the information about P F Chang should not appear in the article unless you can find an independent source. (I have overstated the case slightly: in some circumstances, uncontroversial factual data like dates and addresses may be sourced from non-independent sources; but the bulk of the material in an article should be cited to independent sources, and anything which might appear to be promotional in character - including naming products, clients or subsidiaries - certainly should be). --ColinFine (talk) 18:19, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi WallStGuy - I made some changes to better help your article succeed and demonstrate that the firm is notable. If I were you, I'd beef up the history, including putting in coverage of their more notable acquisitions. Look at Toba Capital as an example. There's some good info here in reliable sources [[1]] [[2]] [[3]] [[4]] (last one is paywalled). You'll also want to start a user page with a sentence about your interests, so your name isn't redlinked. (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.) TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:32, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

add external links on Cygwin page

How do I discuss how to better include the reverted references of relevant citations with the editor? 24.64.172.44 (talk) 19:48, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

@24.64.172.44: Use the articles talk page. Include a {{ping | user name}} at the start to show who you're talking to. Brian R Hunter (talk) 20:00, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. The article talk page is the place to discuss any improvements to articles that you are not comfortable doing by yourself. Interstellarity (talk) 20:00, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Ongoing issues

Hi All...

I keep making edits to reflect the necessary changes, yet no progress is made. (Also, somehow, something was deleted before approval, but I added it back.) I am more than a little confused about why something so basic (and so short) is causing such a problem. It woould be great to get some insight into this, and I appreciate those who might be able to help me.

Link: Draft:Lee_Olesky

(Wpearce1983 (talk) 22:59, 13 January 2020 (UTC))

Hello, Wpearce1983, and welcome to the Teahouyse. Actually, it is my impression that things are making progress with Draft:Lee_Olesky, and in fact it is getting close to the approval level. I just made a few edits, one to improve how a wiki-link recently added was used, and a couple to improv how citations are being done. Take a look at what I did, please, and try similar changes mon the other refs. While I wouldn't agree with one reviewer that basic early biographical data must be sourced -- that isn't what our verifiability policy says, it is often easy to source and it is good to do so if possible. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 00:28, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Thoughts on how to/should I add a Section

Hello!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_Consulting_Group

I think this page could be more informative with inclusion of clients, such as the relationship to Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman : <ref>https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/04/world/middleeast/mckinsey-bcg-booz-allen-saudi-khashoggi.html<ref>

and promoting a private college network liquidated for fraud: <ref>https://www.smh.com.au/business/workplace/tafe-paid-more-than-90000-for-flawed-boston-consulting-group-report-20160706-gpzpdm.html<ref>

<ref>https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/hundreds-of-millions-lost-from-vocational-scheme-20191206-p53hqk.html<ref>

or a Controversies section similar to the McKinsey page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McKinsey_%26_Company

Any thoughts on how to add or appropriateness? Thanks so much!

Jennifaohjenny (talk) 04:22, 14 January 2020 (UTC)Jennifer

Hello Jennifaohjenny, it looks like the material you have would be appropriate for a Controversies section. Be bold and add it to the article.--Quisqualis (talk) 06:01, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Olympic freestyle wrestler 'Match Results'

Why doesn't the site provide the 'Match Results' and actual 'Scores' for each olympic and world championship match for each US wrestler similar to what was provided for Dan Gable? Thanks for your help and opportunity to improve the site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WJCRAWFORD12 (talk • contribs) 05:02, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

WJCRAWFORD12, Howdy hello, and welcome to the Teahouse. Ideally we would have match results and scores for every wrestler, but some articles just haven't had someone add them yet. Wikipedia is an all volunteer effort, and unless someone takes it upon themself to make that change, it won't happen. If you'd like to add those missing statistics to wrestler's pages, we can help you figure out how to do that. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 05:54, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

OTOH, Wikipedia is not a collection of unexplained statistics (WP:NOTSTATS). I don't know what the point is of duplicating scores and other statistical information that is available elsewhere. Such information is always stale to some extent, especially when whoever maintains it stops doing so for whatever reason. It's usually uncited and undated (i.e., not easily verified), and so is an easy target for vandals. It seems like an external link to a reliable site, like whatever the governing body is, is a much better solution. Now, if reliable sources provide insightful analysis about the stats that we can write about, and including some raw data relevant to that is useful, fine. Otherwise, all I think it does is reduce the overall quality of the encyclopedia. IMO. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 07:43, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

How to Give Barnstar?

Hi Friends, i know it is a silly question i am asking but i am curious about adding Barnstar on someone's profile. I want to know how to add a barnstar? DMySon (talk) 06:14, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Just find one you like from somewhere else, copy/paste, edit the captions and sentences to your liking and you're done! Happy barnstarring! -- a lad insane (Channel 2) 06:46, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

DMySon, You may find a fairly complete catalogue of available barnstars at WP:BARN. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 07:31, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you User:CaptainEek, Now i understand clearly how to add barnstar. DMySon (talk) 08:17, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Peter’s To Do List

Ok let’s start over. Hi I’m trying to add to the mcu short film section that Peter’s to do list is a short film because it was said so in the dvd release of far from home but no one is adding that it’s a short film when it is. There should be a section for it on the short film page and the main mcu page — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:1107:C401:74D2:7626:A9B8:977F (talk) 06:29, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Can someone else create the article and add it to the main MCU page and short film page

I don’t know how to create an article I was just saying that someone should because it needs to be added there since it’s apart of this franchise — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:1107:c401:74d2:7626:a9b8:977f (talk) 06:35, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

New short

Will there be a new short section it needs to be added — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:1107:C401:74D2:7626:A9B8:977F (talk) 06:39, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Why was I declined it makes no sense

The official director and head of the MCU has said that this short is considered a short so it needs to be added. I don’t understand why no body is adding this when it’s factual information — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:1107:C401:74D2:7626:A9B8:977F (talk) 06:45, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Please stop creating repeated new sections on the same topic. If you want to add to your previous question, just edit the same section. Also, please include a signature (4 tildes) at the end of each message. --David Biddulph (talk) 06:49, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

I’m only making new sections so someone will actually notice that this needs to be done — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:1107:C401:74D2:7626:A9B8:977F (talk) 06:51, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi, IP user. Please remember that Wikipedia is a hobby for all of us and if you ask a question you can't expect somebody to respond within a few minutes – it is not like a company help desk... anyway, have a look at the bottom of the page Talk:Marvel One-Shots where there was a discussion about this film a couple of months ago, and it was determined that it couldn't be added to the article Marvel One-Shots. --bonadea contributions talk 07:14, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

(ec) If it really needs to be added, certainly someone else will notice that, too. Take it easy, there's WP:NORUSH at Wikipedia. --CiaPan (talk) 07:12, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Grandmaster Shifuji Shaurya Bhardwaj

I was reading this Grandmaster Shifuji Shaurya Bhardwaj wiki page. I saw many cited links and masterial were false. He is a controversial person accused of fraud using the name of indian army. Even using Grandmaster and Shifuji in his name seems not necessary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Classical Arun (talk • contribs) 07:08, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi Classical Arun. Every article has its own Talk page. You can discuss your concerns there and provide links to reliable sources which support your concerns.--Quisqualis (talk) 07:25, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Comment. The title of an article on a person should not include an honorific. I tried to move Grandmaster Shifuji Shaurya Bhardwaj to Shifuji Shaurya Bhardwaj, but failed because the latter already exists as a redirect. My understanding is that moving over a redirect requires an admin. Maproom (talk) 10:00, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Strong support for what Quisqualis + Maproom wrote: It's confusing if you try multiple venues for the same issue simultaneously, for my thoughts see BLP/N. –84.46.53.221 (talk) 20:47, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Manual issue on first article

Hello,

First thanks for this page it's awesome :) I'm here because with one of my comrade, we have published our first article Browser fingerprint. The article was issued as "manual". I think I know why and tried to fix it but I'm not sure if it is really fixed. Can someone help me review it or give some advices/hints ?

Thanks in advance,Ergozat (talk) 08:37, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Hello Ergozat welcome to the Teahouse. It's an interesting, if slightly over-complicated article on a topic I wasn't aware of, so well done. There are a number of issues that concern me, not least of which is how, and indeed why, a new user in their very first edit manages to create a template of an icon so that they can unilaterally add it to their reference list before they've even started the article, and then writes the instructions for that template's use. I've never seen this done before, so assume you have edited here before under another username or as an IP? The pen icon and explanation:

( : document used for writing this article.)

is not an acceptable element to add to Wikipedia page, so please remove all occurrences of it and the pen icon from the article. Equally, the instructions you wrote as to its application are not OK as it appears to be recommending something for general use. It does not have community consensus for deployment, and should also go. We have a Manual of Style to ensure uniformity across the encyclopaedia; if we allowed fancy graphics to be deployed by anyone who wanted to (without community agreement), we would pretty soon get into a mess of different pages having a multitude of graphics with various hidden meanings. Each fancy graphic would be loved by their individual creators, but hated by everyone else. (That said, it is a nice idea, but it is really is going to have to go, and the instructions for use delete.). I do try to take a slightly more lenient approach when responding here at the Teahouse when I see unacceptable content, but I cannot guarantee that another editor will not put the template and its documentation up for deletion so that other users don't attempt to deploy it in articles.

I also note you say you created the page with a comrade, yet only this one account has actually edited it. Are you aware that you may not permit another person to log in and edit under your account name? - we have a 'one account - one user' policy here. But perhaps they just assisted you whilst you did all the online work here? If so, that's fine.

The article itself is interesting, and maybe a little too technical, but I think it fails to address the social and privacy concerns (e.g. GDPR in Europe) of this technique, which I quickly found on a web search. You can read WP:NOTMANUAL to understand why we don't encourage instructional-style articles here, but do want to see what independent reliable sources have broadly said about a topic. A user ought to be able to find any such details from the citations of Further reading you include.

Finally, is the topic of the article the Browser fingerprint itself, or the technique and issue surrounding the activity of Browser fingerprinting? I note there is a already a redirect from that to an existing page (Device fingerprint) which uses the term 'browser fingerprint' as a synonym in its lead. So there might be some work to do to ensure there's not any duplication. Or you could even consider a merge if that would keep all related content together. A very minor issue is that there is a little bit of flowery wording and some places where the English could be improved, and gender stereotypes changed (not all browser users are male!), but this is a trivial issue that you or others could fix later. Personally, I would never have use the style of referencing you've chosen, preferring inline citations and a references section which is automatically populated and clearly numbered. I'm not hugely familiar with the formatting method you've chosen, and would recommend or use it myself for a new article. That said, I would certainly have expected the bibliography to be arranged in alphabetic order. Moving from your references into the bibliography section to find a title by author is quite a challenge because the publication list is so randomly jumbled up. I suggest this is fixed soon. But all in all, an interesting article, and one that has improved my awareness and understanding. And that's what this encyclopaedia is all about. Nick Moyes (talk) 09:43, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

For the template, it's the same as a french template. I understand your arguments and will delete it. For curiosity, can we submit a template to the community ? 

My comrade have her own account, we just have worked on a sandbox before publishing.

Even after reading WP:NOTMANUAL, I have difficulties to understand how to describe a technique without being instructive, could you perhaps give me an example ?

I take in account all you remarks and will work on it. Sorry for my english, I'm a french native but I will try to improve my redaction style. Thanks for your review. Ergozat (talk) 16:44, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

I have read the lead several times, and I still have no idea what a "browser fingerprint" is, what "browser fingerprinting" is, or even whether they're the same thing. I suspect that the concepts aren't difficult, but the explanation in the lead does not start at the beginning. Maproom (talk) 10:07, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Oh yes - I'd missed commenting on the all-important lead paragraph. It is very confusing at the moment, and does need to summarise the article much more effectively. Nick Moyes (talk) 10:20, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree that the lead is not very clear, I will work on it. Ergozat (talk) 16:44, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

New Page Patroller

Is my account eligible for New Page Reviewer?DMySon (talk) 09:47, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, DMySon. If you are seeking the 'right' to participate as a New Page Patroller, you would need to make a request at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/New page reviewer. The team there will look at your experience thus far, but I should advise that this is a responsible area of our work that does require a lot of experience and understanding of our policies, and is not granted lightly. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 09:59, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

My Dear friend User:Nick Moyes, Thank you for your suggestion.DMySon (talk) 10:02, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

info block on the right sight of an article

I am a trying to make an wikipage but was wondering how I could make the info block on the right site of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RavianW (talk • contribs) 10:11, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, RavianW. The block is called an Infobox. You can read all about it at WP:INFOBOX. Different Infobox templates can be used to create Infoboxes on differing topics. Thus, the fields (parameters) offered in {{Infobox person}} will be very different from those in {{Infobox mountain}}. One trick is to find a very closely related page, open the article in WP:Source Editor and copy the template at the top of the page into your sandbox and work on changing all the elements before inserting it into your article. Be aware that there might be varying views on whether or not an Infobox is appropriate for a particular page, so a check of its Talk page is often not a bad idea to see if there has been any prior discussion. Hoping this helps, Nick Moyes (talk) 10:29, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Carbon monoxide antidote «Acyzol®»

Good day,

I have created this article Draft:Carbon monoxide antidote «Acyzol®», and as far as I understood I should have sent it for review to administrator/moderators.(maybe I got it in a wrong way). The article was deleted as a Blatant copyright violation as I do realy copy-paste some items from www.acyzol.com with links to it, as I administrate it (site belongs to our company) I did not mention about it in the article. The article is ONLY about Carbon monoxide acute poisoning antidote «Acyzol®». Antidote the only one in the world. We want people to know about it. I want to allow Wikipedia and its users to use the texts or imagse — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason to full extent. After deletion I requested restoration. It was restored but not in full. The question is how to restore it in full? To continue editing...

Best regards, Sergacy — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sergacy (talk • contribs) 10:24, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

@Sergacy: if content is missing from the draft then the best bet is to speak to the deleting and/or restoring administrators. However note that if it was deleted for copyright violation, it is very likely that some of the edits will have been deleted entirely as copyright violations and these will not be restored. That could explain why the restored draft is not complete. Given that you administer the website that the text was taken from, it is fairly clear that you have a WP:COI, and are likely a WP:PAID editor. You also seem to have more of an interest in promoting a product than building an encyclopedia. Could you confirm what your involvement with Acyzol is? Have you read our paid editing and conflict of interest policies? And are you aware of the basic standards for including any topic in Wikipedia? Hug^syrup 10:39, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

As you are editing on behalf of your company you need to read about conflict of interest and you must make the required declaration of paid editing. You say "We want people to know about it", but you misunderstand the purpose of Wikipedia; it is not for promotion but is an encyclopedia based on material which has already been published by independent reliable sources. Material which is a copyright violation cannot be restored for legal reasons. The copyright can be released by the copyright holder by the process of donating copyrighted material, but in general the wording on a company website is liable to be too promotional for use on Wikipedia, so it is better if someone without a conflict of interest writes about it using their own words, including appropriate citations to published sources. --David Biddulph (talk) 10:41, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Welcome to the Teahouse Sergacy. If the article was restored to draft with just the copied text deleted, you cannot have it back. It is irrelevant whether or not you or the drug company wrote the text on the company's website - it's not for cut/pasting anywhere else, and would need to be rewritten so as not to violate copyright ownership rules. I doubt any drug company would add a Creative Commons licence to their webpage to say, go on, do what you like with our information' so, until they do, you cannot use it on Wikipedia. There is nothing stopping you using a word processor to work on copyrighted content, but I'm afraid you cannot do it here - even in draft.

As you are clearly here to promote your company's product, you have a very clear Conflict of Interest and must declare your connection with the company per this policy, which is not optional. You should do this before attempting to edit the draft again. If you ever hope to have the article accepted, it must be non-promotional, not have the silly ® symbol in its title, and must follow the stringent references requirements of WP:MEDREF. Absolutely no factual content should be added to any medicine-related article without clear and reliable referencing.Ideally, it should be written by someone other than a company representative. I hope this helps a bit. 10:45, 14 January 2020 (UTC)Nick Moyes (talk)

@Nick Moyes: Thank for your reply, but what should I do if dont get a penny for that? what are the proofs should be provided, and yes text on the company's website is mine and - it's for cut/pasting for Wiki, and would need to be rewritten and will NOT violate any copyright. Should I place on the website a link to this that Wiki may copy and paste text and images anywhere?? I'm asking for help.Sergacy (talk) 11:30, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Sergacy, Wikipedia articles should be based on what independent sources say about the product - paraphrase what other people say, don't write your own content to copy onto here. And do review the COI guidance you've been linked to - even if you're not being paid, there are steps you need to take. GirthSummit _(blether) 11:39, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Sergacy: If you are an employee of the drug company, writing text for their website, you are clearly getting paid (presumably quite a lot!) for your work, even if nobody said specifically to go and edit Wikipedia. You still have a clear Conflict of Interest. (I made that mistake when I first edited here ten years ago- though nobody pointed it out to me at the time). It's a simple thing to resolve, and WP:PAID explains how to add the 'paid contributor' template to your userpage and/or to the article.

And, no, the text on your company's website may be written by you, but how do we know that? Show me the link to the website page with the CC-BY-SA release licence and it'll be OK. As far as I can see it says Copyright © 2020. Acyzol. Powered by comtb.ru Otherwise rewrite things again, completely differently in your own - but different words - this time, without close paraphrasing. But, better still, let somebody else unconnected with a drug write about it. Please remember, this encyclopaedia is to tell people about notable things, it's not here for WP:PROMOTION to help you advertise your drugs, and this is especially so for medical-related matters where we have much more stringent referencing requirements, as I pointed out above. Nick Moyes (talk) 11:45, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

@Sergacy: I added some suggestions at Draft talk:Carbon monoxide antidote «Acyzol®»#Suggestions. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 12:10, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

@AlanM1: Thank very much for your helpǃ

@Nick Moyes:, Please have a look at the site again as I have changed the copyright. Will it be ok should it be like this?Sergacy (talk) 13:15, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

@Sergacy: I think it probably would be OK, though I'm no expert on copyright. Were you to change the licencing back, you might find yourself having to go through our WP:OTRS system to prove there was no current copyvio. But in a way this is worrying over something you could resolve by simple different wording. The key thing is that any topic you draft on a medical matter must be both a Notable topic and properly referenced from secondary sources which talk about that product in depth. The product website can be used to provide basic information, but will never itself prove notability. I hope this helps. Nick Moyes (talk) 13:42, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes:, I appologize, I'm sorry, but I cant correctly understand your sentenceː Were you to change the licencing back, you might find yourself having to go through our WP:OTRS system to prove there was no current copyvio. Can you please put it in other words?Sergacy (talk) 14:42, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

@Sergacy: Sorry about that!. In other words: never change the licencing back to what it was. If you did that, someone might well challenge you later on, and require you to go through a complex process (which we call OTRS) of checking and proving that you are who you say you are with genuine ownership rights to release the text. This would purely be so you can demonstrate that a few dozen words you copied directly off your website without bothering to reword then anew for your 6-month old draft were actually written by you. That seems a lot of effort to go to. Please now address the issue raised below by Girth Summit before any further editing. That is the next step you need to take. Thanks Nick Moyes (talk) 15:04, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

@Sergacy: You haven't yet addressed the nature of your conflict of interest and the question of whether you are being paid for writing this draft yet. I'd strongly advise you to read COI and PAID closely, and take the appropriate steps, before making any further edits to your draft. Editing for pay without the appropriate disclosure is a breach of the terms of this site - and 'editing' includes contributions to talk pages, drafts, even your sandbox - and even this conversation. You need to read those links and make the appropriate disclosures, before going further with this. Thanks GirthSummit _(blether) 14:11, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Question about promotion

Dear Sirs, Is this a promotion or not  ? I want to write a article smaller that that.Sergacy (talk) 14:49, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Sergacy, I do not think that Sildenafil is currently a promotional article. It is not a question of size, but of tone, of stating opnions, particularly of stating opnions as facts, of making unsupported positive statements about a thing or person or topic, and generally of being an advocate for someone or something. It is a very general concept hewre on Wikipedia. See our guideline on promotion. And do read WP:COI and WP:PAID as others above have urged. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 15:08, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Oh, and {{U|Sergacy]] Wikipedia article and draft titles should never contain a trademark symbol, and normaly no such symbol should be used in any article or draft. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 15:08, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} Thank you very much for your helpǃ It seems that your statement with assistance of other participants helps, especially regarding trademark sign. And you are kindly requested to have a look at my page regarding WP:PAID.

HELP: I got left out.

I posted a Request for Rollback rights 82 hours ago. Now it seems as if everyone overlooked my request. Is it that my case is so complicated that it's taking admins thirty times as much time to handle? Why? Upset user tLoM (The Lord of Math) (Message; contribs) 11:05, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

@The Lord of Math: 82 hours is not a very long time, and I assume you say 'everyone overlooked my request' simply because Amorymeltzer has actioned two requests after yours? If so, that is really nothing to worry about. It may be that they have already seen the other users at work and was able to very quickly confirm that they are suitable, it may indeed be that your case is more complex and takes more time to look at, it may simply be that they picked a couple of cases and happened to miss yours - admins are volunteers and they are not obliged to work to your timescales or to go through requests in a particular order. There is no rush, the project will not be harmed by you waiting a bit longer for rollback rights, and someone will get round to your request eventually. Hug^syrup 11:14, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping, Hugsyrup. LoM: I'm sorry you had to wait a while. These reviews can take a long while, looking over dozens and dozens of edits and contributions for a month or two isn't always easy and, for my part, life popped up. I've left a brief reply at WP:PERM/R. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 11:57, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

For others, the rollback right is a simplified undo for vandalism and speeds up recent change patrol, any user (including IPs) can emulate the effect.
For tLoM, it was seriously embarrassing when I abused rollback once for something that was no vandalism, fortunately the affected user didn't take it as a personal attack. Obviously (in your contributions) you like recent change patrol, but you also use a tool good enough for most RCP purposes. Your account is (relatively) new, folks can't tell if you will be interested in RCP for years, don't take it personally, some "rights" including autopatrol and rollback can be also a "curse". –84.46.53.221 (talk) 17:01, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Debate cleanup tag - Link directly to a Talk page section?

Is there a way to link directly to a Talk page section when adding the {{Debate}} cleanup tag to an article? I reviewed Template:Debate but I did not see anything on this topic there. ¶ Example: National Association of Scholars. Thanks!   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 11:18, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

I read about the reason parameter (see also Help:Template#Parameters), but I don't know if it can contain a wikilink. (I tried to add a wikilink to a talk page section, but I did not succeed).   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 12:27, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

@Markworthen: Maybe suggest this missing feature on Template talk:Debate, it's perfectly normal that a cleanup for complete sections or articles can be related to a section on the talk page. And that talk page could be a mess, where finding a section about the "debate" issue without a link is hard. Plan B, find a better cleanup tag allowing a reason with a wikilink, e.g., {{cleanup}}, and link to it in Template:Debate/doc#See also. –84.46.53.221 (talk) 18:49, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Visual Editor Question

I don't know what this "...working in mobile view or with our Visual Editor." means. Can someone explain this to me? Gracias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marion Woynar de Guillen Rafael (talk • contribs) 11:20, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

NB this question was originally posted as part of what appeared to be purely promotional content and section header. I am not sure if the question is genuine but, assuming it is, I have let the question stand while removing everything else. Hug^syrup 11:22, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

@Marion Woynar de Guillen Rafael: Please provide a link or url to the page where you saw that phrase. It is easy to explain, but I am not confident yours is a genuine question that I need to answer. Your replying with that link will show me it is. Nick Moyes (talk) 11:54, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

This is from my user page, User:Combo Panda

I am actually active but only if you answer these questions because i'm a beginner wikipedian

You can answer these questions on my talk page or here

How do you add those charts that show peoples information? How do you make the table of contents? How do you not make your wiki a draft? How do you give badges or stars?

P.S If you don't answer these questions I will stop using wikipedia forever. I mean seriously, forever and i know that Wikipedia has all of the true answers my classmates don't think so. How rude.

P.S.S I'm not actually Combo Panda i'm a fan of Combo Panda — Preceding unsigned comment added by Combo Panda (talk • contribs) 12:04, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Oshwah please answer these questions or someone else — Preceding unsigned comment added by Combo Panda (talk • contribs) 12:08, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

• Those questions have been answered on the user's talk page except for the "chart that show people's information". I believe that describes an infobox (information at the link). Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 14:48, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for answering

(edit conflict) Hello, Combo Panda and welcome to the Teahouse. Please use a less demanding tone in the future, and do not make threats. All editoirs her are volunteeers, and no one has to reapond to any question.

1. By those charts that show peoples information I think you mean infoboxes. There are many different varieties, all created by templates. Template:Infobox person is the basic one for an infobox about a person. Visit that page for detailed directions on how to use it, or how to select one of the more specialized variants.
2. A table of contents is automatically generated when a page has at least 4 sections. See WP:TOC for more details, including how to control the placement of the ToC. Usually one should just accept the default automatic ToC.
3. A draft page is one tht is in development to become an article, but is not yet ready. I am a rather experienced editor (and an admin), and I always start a new article as a draft, because I cannot create an article that is ready for public display to readers in a single edit. Once you think the draft is ready, you can submit it for review by an experienced editor, or you can simply move it into mainspace without review. But articles in mainspace are subject to stricter standards and may be deleted if they do not measure up, while this might not happen in draft. Moreover, it is not fair to our readers to present an article that does not meet at leas the basic standards. See Wikipeia's Golder Rule and Your First Article.
4. See Wikipedia:Barnstars for how to award barnstars. See also Wikipedia:WikiLove

I hope this helps. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 14:55, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Question regarding biased editor

What can I do if an editor does not keep the wikipedia rules? First and foremost, this one:

"The goal of a Wikipedia article is to create a comprehensive and neutrally written summary of existing mainstream knowledge about a topic."

For specifics, I address the user on the lack of his neutrality here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Zen#Do_the_moderators_of_this_page_even_study_zen%3F

2A02:A210:2901:C300:AD47:B3D:4079:7B4C (talk) 12:37, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

That someone is not saying what you think they should say does not mean they are biased, it means they have a different viewpoint. Instead of lobbing accusations, please collaborate with others to arrive at a consensus as to what the article should say. 331dot (talk) 12:44, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

It's a zen article that leaves out the six founders of zen and a ton of other zen masters, including their teachings.

The editor in question uses primary sources, when I am not allowed to.

The article also has it's main focus on meditation. Something that the six founders consider to be heretical.

How is this not biased editing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A210:2901:C300:AD47:B3D:4079:7B4C (talk) 12:51, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

You have addressed this -- at rather excessive length, in my view -- on Talk:Zen which is the proper place for this discussion. Note that Wikipedia is not limited to "official" or "authoritative" sources. Any and all reliable sources on a topic may be used, and if they disagree, all relevant points of view should be included, with the mainstream scholarly view getting the most weight, when there is a clear mainstream view. It is not bias not to accept the sources or the interpretation that you favor, provided that statements in the article are properly supported by reliable sources. Note also that Wikipedia works by collaboration, with decisions made by consensus among the editors. Editors need not be experts in a topic, provided that they can read and understand the relevant sources. Please do not engage in Personal Attacks on other editors. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 14:36, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

"It is not bias not to accept the sources or the interpretation that you favor"

It's not about what I favor, it's about facts. There were six patriarchs who all denounced seated meditation as a means of enlightenment. They do so very clearly. To omit what they have to say on the topic does not seem like an objective decision to me. This has nothing to do with personal insults.

I just think that, when anyone writes about a topic and forgets to include the people who not only build the tradition up, but also kept shaping it, he is either not being honest or not learned enough on the topic to write about it. For example, you wouldn't consider someone capable of writing an article about christianity if they leave out all accounts of jesus and the twelve apostles.

I also noticed you did not address the fact that I'm not allowed to use primary sources when there are primary sources being used in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A210:2901:C300:AD47:B3D:4079:7B4C (talk) 15:26, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

• IP editor, I believe you could be of real help to that article, but you need to communicate more effectively. The talk page thread you linked to is a horrible wall of text that requires lots of time and effort to read.

Regarding primary sources: they can only be used for what some person or organization says about themselves and small bits of uncontroversial information (such as a company's postal address), as per WP:PRIMARY. If you think the article makes controversial factual assertions based on primary sources, please list them on the talk page; by that I mean you give the exact quote from the article, what it is sourced to, and why you think the source is primary.

Regarding more general changes to the article: somewhere in the thread someone advised you of the proper procedure, but I will repeat. Saying "sentence X is wrong, someone do something" is unlikely to bring immediate change. It is more productive to say "change X to [your proposed wording]" (see nirvana fallacy: it is easy to say some general improvement could be made, but it is better to evaluate a proposal between two concrete options). And of course, "sentence X was written by an idiot, will you morons not correct it" is even less likely to get you the change that you want, even if you are entirely correct.

If someone disagrees with your proposed changes, IP editor, or your evaluation of sources as primary, see the guide to dispute resolution. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 16:05, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Primary sources can be used in a Wikipedia article, but only for limited purposes, and only with care. In particular they cannot be used for purposes of interpretation. See WP:PRIMARY. Secondary sources, which interpret primary sources, are generally the most favored here. See WP:SECONDARY. For some purposes tertiary sources can also be used. Sometimes there can be debate as to what is or is not a primary source, and what is or is not a reliable source.

Do note that even if the founder(s) of a religion or a philosophical movement had a very specific set of ideas, later adherents and followers may have quite different ideas, and if current practice is different from the original ideas, Wikipedia should describe that current practice, in accord with current sources, even if those who follow the original versions more closely hold changes to be wrong. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 16:15, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Comments such as:

• Template:Tqqi think it's safe to say that the people moderating the page have not actually studied the topics they have been posting in, which I think should be the first and foremost requirement for adding information to a wiki page.
• Calling you seemingly incapable is not an insult at this point as it is much more of an observation.

are not acceptable on Wikipedia talk pages. Nor is there a subject-matter k nowledge test for editing any article. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 16:29, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Right, but omitting those original accounts is a different thing altogether.

I have provided a lot of quotes to point out why the things on the page are "wrong" though.

I still stand by it. They are in my view objective observations. If someone writes wrong math formula's on the math wiki he is not capable of editing the page and probably hasn't studied the topic he is writing in extensively.

Concerning the "wall of text"; I was asked to provide sources and quotes, so I did.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A210:2901:C300:AD47:B3D:4079:7B4C (talk) 16:33, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

• Again, I think you can help, but you need to communicate properly. Compare the following fictional example:

"The tomato is a fruit". "Tomatoes are green." Which bunch of monkeys have written this article? You must be really braindead. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Fine, here are some sources: Eliza Smith says the tomato is a vegetable, and calls tomatoes a red fruit.

with

"The tomato is a fruit" is incorrect: see The Compleat Housewife, Eliza Smith, 1727, page 157 "among vegetables are the potato, the radish, the tomato (...)". Proposed wording: "the tomato is a vegetable".

"Tomatoes are green" is incorrect too: see The Compleat Housewife, Eliza Smith, 1727, page 159 "take the red vegetable between your thumb and your middle finger...". Proposed wording: "Tomatoes are red".

Which do you think is more likely to be read and attract either a quick change to the article or an argumented objection to the changes (such as, in that example, "The tomato is a fruit according to biological terminology: see (some source)")? Obviously the second, because (1) I grouped current text, refutation, source, proposed change by item and not many lines apart; (2) sources contain full bibliographic information (author, date, title, page), not just an excerpt from somewhere that would have to be hunted back to be put in the article; (3) I cut out irrelevant crap that drowns out useful information; (4) I applied some formatting to make the text easier to read; (5) I refrained from attacking editors (again: even if we are indeed a bunch of incapables, calling us out will make us less receptive to what you propose, so just don't do it).

It would help if you could give a read to WP:SIGN and WP:INDENT, too, because that is part of what makes it harder to read what you write. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 17:00, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm using a phone, so editing is currently a nightmare. I have made a new header on the talk page.

Also, there is a lot wrong with the article, not just one thing. To put it all up on the talk page would not only be very time consuming, but we would end up with the wall of text again.

The quotes under the "Do the mods even study zen?" header convey the points I'm trying to make. 2A02:A210:2901:C300:AD47:B3D:4079:7B4C (talk) 17:42, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Editor consensus regarding Europeana and Wikidata Property 7704

Check out the centralised Europeana discussion on WP:VP/P.

I would like to get a consensus how we work with Europeana on en:Wikipedia Background: Europeana has 50 000 000 objects from European museums and archives. They have taken a decision to move in the same direction as Wikipedia has done with Wikidata and have created Europeana Entity API As a start they have for agents (persons) select 160 000 people from dbpedia everyone that has a same as Wikidata. What I have been doing: see also overview and status report I have matched 160 000 artists in Europeana to Wikidata Property 7704 see T240290 i.e. e.g. Leonardo da Vinci --> Q762 --> Q762#P7704 --> agent/base/146741 I have created Templates or got help adding Property 7704 to Template:Authority_control on more Wikis see status on en:Wikipedia template was created Template:EuropeanaEntity started to populate see Category:Europeana got one complain 4 jan 2020 about the quality of Europeana see link created this question about next step Question Can we get a consensus what to do? The options I see ) add Property 7704 to Template:Authority_control - my suggestion ) continue with Template:EuropeanaEntity ) put it on hold Hope this is the right location for a discussion like this - Salgo60 (talk) 13:00, 14 January 2020 (UTC) Salgo60, This would probably be more fit for one of the Village pumps if not one of Wikidata's discussion forums. MoonyTheDwarf (Braden N.) (talk) 14:03, 14 January 2020 (UTC) Thanks please advice me where and I move it.... - Salgo60 (talk) 14:06, 14 January 2020 (UTC) (edit conflict) Hi, Salgo60, welcome to the Teahouse on English Wikipedia. Yes, I agree with the above. I fear this isn't the right venue for your question, as we are here to assist new users having difficulty editing Wikipedia. I can only think that this might be most applicable to our Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) forum or perhaps Village Pump (Miscellaneous). But might this be something to also take up with WMF at a strategic level? I am really rather at a loss to know what to advise you, sorry. Nick Moyes (talk) 14:07, 14 January 2020 (UTC) Thanks new location - Salgo60 (talk) 14:37, 14 January 2020 (UTC) As I found the article about Europeana by reading this thread, let me just insert a courtesy notice that I nominated it for deletion - discussion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Europeana. (This is not relevant to the question asked.) TigraanClick here to contact me 15:06, 14 January 2020 (UTC) @Tigraan: Good we agree that your action is not at all relevant for question asked... - Salgo60 (talk) 16:28, 14 January 2020 (UTC) UPDATE: The proposal to delete the Europeana article was withdrawn shortly afterwards by the nominator. Nick Moyes (talk) 18:45, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Help

Hi, I'm new to Wikipedia and I've made some edit to football articles by I'm not enjoying it, can you pls suggest me some other things to edit? Antila333 (talk) 14:26, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Antila333, My personal suggestion is to use the Random Article button until you find an article that interests you. MoonyTheDwarf (Braden N.) (talk) 15:09, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Moonythedwarf, I was recently going through the list of Wikiprojects and I saw that there was a wikiproject short description, I went through the link and activated the helper script and have started using it, it's quite interesting. Antila333 (talk) 15:21, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

How can I help Wikipedia, aside from editing?

Editing articles is an obvious way to improve Wikipedia. Are there other (non-financial) ways in which I can help improve the quality of Wikipedia? For the moment I'm very interested in exploring how Wikipedia works. My first stop would probably be to take a look at "WikiProjects", but I'm open to ideas! Roostnerve (talk) 15:54, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Roostnerve, If you're willing to spend a lot of time familiarizing yourself with a lot of the rules, you can assist in trimming down the workload for new page reviewers, by snipping/CSDing out the worst of the bunch (i.e. spam)

It's generally what I do, altho I also spend some time to answer teahouse and helpdesk questions when I can, as you can see. MoonyTheDwarf (Braden N.) (talk) 15:59, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

• @Roostnerve: I spend most of my Wikipedia time fielding questions at the Teahouse and related desks, so my advice might seem a bit hypocritical, but editing articles is really the bulk of the job. The various back alleys of Wikipedia exist only to further that task.

I know of two basic ways to start. The first is if you want to specialize in a certain task. Judging by your contributions, you have improved wikilinks in articles; so you could scroll through Category:All articles with too few wikilinks and improve them. (This category contains all articles where someone put the template {{Underlinked}}, so you might want to remove the template after you have done the wikilinking. Conversely, if you find an article that is lacking in wikilinks, you might place that template yourself.)

The second way is if you want to edit in a certain topic. WikiProjects are basically that, a group of editors focusing on a certain topic. Again judging by your contributions so far, you might want to have a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Sociology; the wikiproject's page has multiple links, show you an overview of article quality/importance under that scope, etc.

The nice thing about Wikipedia is that although writing an encyclopedia is insanely hard, small parts of that task can be surprisingly easy, and you do not need to do them all. If something is too hard, just ask for help. The classical example is one editor who only corrects a particular grammar mistake (the editor in question has been doing other things since then, so the example is a bit out of date). Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 16:28, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you to both! That gives me some pointers. It never occurred to me to look at categories. That's a good idea. Roostnerve (talk) 16:46, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Making a section of a article into a new article

I recently noticed that a user on Wikipedia copied a whole section of a Wikipedia article and created it into a new article with section name. E.g:

Article

Section A

...
...

Section B

...
This is content of section B.
...

Section C

...
...

New article

Section B

...
This is content of section B.
...

Is this allowed? Or it is copyvio? SouravDas1998^{t@lk to me?} 16:18, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Requirements for attribution are at WP:Copying within Wikipedia. Process for splitting is at WP:Splitting. --David Biddulph (talk) 16:34, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Souravdas1998 and welcome to the Teahouse. It is allowed to copy text from one Wikipedia article to another (or indeed to non-wikipedia projects), because Wikipe3dia has been released under the CC=BY-SA and GDFL licenses. However those licenses require proper attribution of re-used content. See Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia for information on how such attribution should be made for splits and merges here, and how to correct the issue if it is not provided at fist. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 16:37, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for quick help. --SouravDas1998^{t@lk to me?} 16:39, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Infobox Location map

I don't understand how the location maps work in the infobox. In particular for Engerdal. It is now in Innlandet county. If I change the county name to Innlandet, it correctly shows Innlandet within Norway but incorrectly still shows Engerdal within Hedmark. When I changed the county name from Hedmark to Innlandet for Eidskog it worked correctly for both Innlandet within Norway and Eidskog within Innlandet. The change should be from map NO 0434 Engerdal.svg to NO 3425 Engerdal.svg, but I can't find where to change it. What can I do to change the location map to Engerdal within Innlandet instead of Innlandet within Hedmark when I change the county name?Redriv (talk) 17:33, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Please wikilink what you are talking about, here a non-existing Template:Infobox Location map maybe related to Template:Infobox settlement or, checking Engerdal, a Template:Infobox kommune. Wild guess, Infobox Settlement mumbles something about Wikidata, maybe you have to do something on d:Q48909. –84.46.53.221 (talk) 17:52, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

It is Template:Infobox kommune but I have the same question for how it works in Template:Infobox settlement. I'll check the link you sent me. ThanksRedriv (talk) 17:56, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

I you figured it out please add the info to Template:Infobox kommune/doc, if "uses Infobox Settlement" involves "and therefore Wikidata" the manual can mention it per WP:POLA. –84.46.53.221 (talk) 18:03, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

I really thought the d:Q48909 link was going to work, but it didn't. I changed the file from NO 0434 Engerdal.svg to NO 3425 Engerdal.svg on that link, but it still shows Hedmark. Thanks for your help and I'll keep searchingRedriv (talk) 22:56, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Were these changes what you wanted? --David Biddulph (talk) 23:19, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Reliable sources

What are the newspapers from Tamilnadu, India, can be accepted as a reliable source? --Azarudeen Syed Bahurudeen 18:27, 14 January 2020 (UTC)Azarudeen S

If this is your lucky day there is a good, bad or ugly entry for your source on WP:RS/P. Otherwise you could ask on the WP:RS/N reliable sources noticeboard. For unclear sources I try an ordinary search, and if an article about the source exists and/or the source is used in references on some other articles I assume good enough. Value of "some" TBD, I'd put the number in the corresponding edit summary if it's "suspicious" (small). –84.46.53.221 (talk) 19:03, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your help --Azarudeen S

Removal of tags

Can I remove the tags with don't remove caution when the article is moved to draft? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Azarudeen S (talk • contribs) 20:37, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

@Azarudeen S: That is going to depend on what the tag is and why it should not be removed. Can you provide a link to the article/draft in question? RudolfRed (talk) 20:42, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

sure i can kalvithanthaiKalvithanthai Haji. S.M.S. Shaik Jalaludeen--Azarudeen S —Preceding undated comment added 20:49, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Do not move the article to a draft while the deletion discussion is going on. You can suggest in the deletion discussion that it should be moved to a draft – in that case, that will happen after the discussion has closed. But until it ends, please do not create a new draft, and it is important that you don't move the article. Thanks! --bonadea contributions talk 20:56, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank You for your help - Azarudeen S —Preceding undated comment added 20:59, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Getting my article published

My article Draft:Fon Gorji Dinka has been redone, can I get help getting it published? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flalf (talk • contribs) 18:43, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Your draft has been resubmitted for re-review. As it says on the draft: "Review waiting, please be patient. This may take 4 months or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 3,785 pending submissions waiting for review." --David Biddulph (talk) 19:07, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Drop-down common edit summaries

The two drop-down boxes of common edit summaries (chosen at Preferences - gadgets - editing) - how do I request two additions to them? Thanks. deisenbe (talk) 19:41, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Hello Deisenbe. I would guess that the best place to ask would be at one of the Village Pumps - probably WP:VPM. But are you aware you can create your own edit summary texts? I wasn't either, until I saw your question. But then I checked of the list of userscripts available to install and found User:Enterprisey/CustomSummaryPresets which might suit you. (I've not tried it, of course yet, but think I might give it a go). Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 20:39, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

formatting question - I've pushed the content in the infobox to the right inadvertently

Hi, please let me know if this is the wrong place to be asking a formatting question. I've pushed the content in the infobox to the right inadvertently:

• before (looking ok): https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Renaissance_Technologies&direction=next&oldid=935532864
• after (I've shifted things in the infobox right): https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Renaissance_Technologies&direction=next&oldid=935533131
• page diff: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Renaissance_Technologies&diff=next&oldid=935533131&diffmode=source

I was wondering whether someone could please share with me what I did that is doing this please? Is it the number of spaces before the '=' or the how I've added bullets or the sequencing of the fields? Thank you WestportWiki (talk) 19:59, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Hello, WestportWiki Welcome to the Teahouse. You deserve a prize for some brilliant links and diffs to show us the problem. How refreshing! You've managed to shift things leftwards with your use of this template: {{plainlist|style=text-indent:-1em; margin-left:1em;|...etc which you can see contains an indent command. Fiddle with that and remove the indenting and you should be sorted. There's documentation to help you at {{plainlist}} - I'm afraid I'm not very familiar with using it myself. Nick Moyes (talk) 20:52, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Nick Moyes Thank you for looking into this and pointing me in the right direction. I will fiddle away; I've checked out the documentation too (though didn't understand all of it). Will fiddle. thank you again WestportWiki (talk) 21:04, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

@WestportWiki: I might suggest you make a copy of the infobox then paste in multiple copies into your sandbox and work on them there, making notes as you go as to what you've done to each - it's less 'embarrassing' than constant fliddling with a live article and less worrying if you think you might mess it up. It's what I do when I'm a bit stuck. Nick Moyes (talk) 21:35, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes: 10000000000000000000000000% agree :) WestportWiki (talk) 21:42, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

changing date order on a list

List of winners of the Lenore Marshall Poetry Prize is displaying dates in the wrong chronological order. Is there a quick fix, some code that I can add the the first line or somewhere else?: {| class="wikitable" style="width: 98%;" thx MauraWen (talk) 21:23, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Good question, MauraWen, and welcome to our friendly Teahouse. You could make the table sortable (using "class="wikitable sortable"), but that wouldn't alter the original display order. See Help:Sorting for more details. If the table was too complex to work, my sledgehammer & nut approach would be to copy the text, paste it into Excel, then resort it and paste it back in. Because of the risk of messing things up, I'd trial it in my sandbox first, rather than live in the article. Does this make sense? Nick Moyes (talk) 21:43, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Nick Moyes I like your Excel idea! I will give that a try tomorrow in my sandbox. Thanks! MauraWen (talk) 21:49, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

@MauraWen: Yep, I couldn't resist it, and have just tried it. It works perfectly. I've not altered the article as that'll take the fun and learning experience away from you. Note that the original has a couple of extra blank lines that'll need deleting. If you get stuck, the re-sorted version can be found at User:Nick Moyes/sandbox4. If you ever need to create complicated tables, you can also do so from scratch in Excel and then convert it into wikimarkup with this tool: https://tools.wmflabs.org/excel2wiki/ Good luck! Nick Moyes (talk) 22:24, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

My images on Wikicommons

Hello...My name is John Mathew Smith I have link to my page...below....

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Photographs_by_John_Mathew_Smith

I have contributed many many images to wikipedia... and very happy to do so.. recently I lost contact with my administrator there... I have more images to send in... and trying to do them on my own ... I ended in trouble with my new ISP since I had moved... I need someone to take my block off... and may need a new Administrator...to help me... I would rather they help me post. I would need someone very in tune with the gravity of my historical work ( if you will ) someone who would take same interest in helping me as last administrator...

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:ListFiles?limit=20&user=Surtsicna&ilshowall=1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by John Mathew Smith (talk • contribs) 21:27, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

John Mathew Smith You will have to address any issues with or on Commons there; that is a separate website. 331dot (talk) 21:29, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, John Mathew Smith. Goodness, what amazing photographs of famous people you have taken! I can't add much to what 331dot has said. But we are often so short of good images of famous personalities that I am sure if you feel unconfident about uploading your own images, the quality and importance of those portraits will undoubtedly encourage someone to give you a bit of support or guidance. Over at Wikimedia Commons they don't have a Teahouse, like this, but there is a help forum where you should probably ask the same question. You can find it at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Help_desk I am imagining that you might have in mind a number of images of people which you are willing to release, potentially for commercial reuse, and others that you would wish to retain full control of. It might be a good idea to list either the names of those people, or link to a Flickr set where you've collated those images you wish to donate. That would, I am sure, get someone's juices flowing over at Wikimedia Commons. Thanks for posting here, and good luck! Nick Moyes (talk) 22:02, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Instant article creator

Recently I have been working on a not-yet-published article creator page in my sandbox you will be able to find at this link. It was made so experienced users can create new articles in a search box without the help of red links. I see there is already a similar search box at Wikipedia:Your first article, but I think this page will help because experienced users would be able to simply go to the page instead of having to scroll down through the beginner's article introduction. I can also link the page to mine. The page doesn't have any references but I don't think it really needs any since its merely helping with link navigation; however I don't know if this will cause bots to suspect it as suspicious behavior. Perhaps one of the village pumps would be a better place to ask this. -Prana1111 (talk) 21:59, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

In 1950, the Washington and Lee football team had an exceptional year and was invited to play in the Gator Bowl against the Wyoming Cowboys.

The Cowboys defeated the Generals that afternoon and soon thereafter Washington and Lee de-emphasized competitive football. (This information can be easily verified and I suggest that it be included in the existing Wikipedia summary of Athletics at Washington and Lee.) It was quite an honor at that time to be invited to a college football bowl game because there were only five active bowl games in 1950, the Rose, Orange, Sugar, Cotton and Gator Bowls. If you happen to be interested in this information, please feel free to contact me at <phone number redacted>. The University of Wyoming Athletic Department, ATTN: Assistant Athletic Director Kevin McKinney, can verify all this information and would approve of the Washington and Lee section being amended to include this information. Sincerely, Robert Allen, Retired Wyoming Trial Judge. Or I suppose you could contact the Gator Bowl administrators in Jacksonville, Florida as well. The history of Washington and Lee is not complete without this information. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8800:6000:5FC0:296D:B209:4286:DBAA (talk) 22:18, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

If you wish to suggest a change to an article, the place for such a suggestion is the article's talk page, but you will need to provide a reference to a published independent reliable source to support the information you would wish to add. --David Biddulph (talk) 22:25, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

need an assistance

hello there, I need an assistance on editing Wikipedia, I am a new member but I don't know how to editing Wikipedia, can you help me?

--the special girl is me (talk) 01:37, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

I've tested {{WelcomeMenu}} on your user talk page, just add specific questions here, clearly you have already figured out how to get a nicer signature ;-) –84.46.53.221 (talk) 01:59, 15 January 2020 (UTC)