Wikipedia:Teahouse

jmcgnh, 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.)

Sayonara Player with reliable and independent sources

Hello members,

in October 2019 the draft article Draft: Sayonara Player has been created. Two months ago it was updated with reliable and independent sources. In the meantime five members worked in finishing a reliable Wiki entry. Could someone please review the current version?

2A02:908:1A74:4360:982B:5BC0:A1F8:5AED (talk) 07:37, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

You could resubmit the draft, but as it stands, it is unlikely to pass. You need sources demonstrating the notability of the software, that is, sources that are both (1) independent of the subject, (2) reliable (meaning, published in an outlet with a history of proper editorial oversight) and (3) deal with the subject at length. Right now, the sources meeting (1) are:

1. [1] which according to [2] is pretty much user-generated content (see WP:SPS), failing (2)
2. [3] (wiki, so user-generated content, fails (2))
3. [4] is a blog so probably fails (2), and in addition three paragraphs likely fails (3)
4. [5] might be a good source (I have no idea whether the site meets (2))

So at best you have one good source, when "multiple" are required by WP:GNG. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 09:03, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi 2A02:908:1A74:4360:982B:5BC0:A1F8:5AED, the reason your submission was denied was because it lacked many secondary and independent sources. There didn't seem to be any significant coverage and a quick Google search shows the only websites mentioning the software are download websites. Sadly, I don't think your article is notable enough to be on Wikipedia. Hope this helps. Bᴇʀʀᴇʟʏ • ^{Talk to me}∕_{What have I been doing} 09:54, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Dear Tigraan and Berrely. Thanks for your answers, which I can't completely understand to be honest. In the Comparison of audio player software there are lots of less relevant players listed with almost no (1) independent or (2) reliable or (3) at length dealing with the subject sources like Guayadeque Music Player, JuK or with even no sources like MusikCube (how can this happen by the way?). After the submission was denied lots of independent sources had been added, but I wonder why there are so many different measurements, given the list of audio players in the English Wikipedia. I was searching for a mighty audio player in a Linux system for over 10 years or more and I would love to share my discovery, as it is the first capable player from my point of view and has been highly praised in tests (see references in the article draft).   Courtesy link: Draft: Sayonara Player 2A02:908:1A74:4360:78D9:9178:E4CD:36B5 (talk) 20:54, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia, because of its nature, contains lots of articles in violation of its policies. The existence of poor articles is no justification for the existence of other poor articles. Regarding the specific articles you listed... JuK has in its refs [6] and a (deadlink) Linux Magazine article. MusikCube indeed lacks sources but a quick search finds two reviews (the first one is from a usually-reliable outlet). For Guayadeque I find this and [7]. Maybe some of those are actually not enough, but they stand at least a decent chance at surviving an "articles for deletion" nomination, which Sayonara Player does not as far as I can see. (If you find an article that has no source and nothing that can be found online, feel free to nominate it for deletion or bring it up and we can do the nomination for you.) Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 14:47, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Just to chip in on notability, as a GNU/Linux user since about 1998 or 1999 (for whatever that's worth), this software was new to me, but there's a lot of software and not being aware of it doesn't incline me to think it's un-notable either. And seeing it has a launchpad.net project page does add to it's notability. This means it is on the path to become a standard Ubuntu package. If it was in the default APT repositories for Debian, Ubuntu or in RedHat/CentOS - I'd suggest it would certainly be notable enough to warrant an article. Just my $0.02 WinstonSmith01984 (talk) 12:29, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Speaking to myself here because I'm an idiot.. didn't scroll down enough on the homepage for this application. It's in Fedora, Gentoo and ArchLinux. So, I vouch for including this on the basis it is standard software distributed as part of numerous, popular Linux distributions. WinstonSmith01984 (talk) 13:13, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi Berrely, I clicked that link to the Google search you provided, but must be getting a different set of results to you. In the first page of hits we have the notable Linux Magazine talking about it here [8] and another independent positive review here:[9]. It certainly seems to me at least, notable enough for inclusion and is likely to have hundreds or thousands of users given the breadth of distribution it enjoys in mainstream Linux distributions. WinstonSmith01984 (talk) 13:41, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you WinstonSmith01984 It is good if others also understand the factual, objective point of view based on the sources, because you get self-doubt caused by the non-comparability and non-objective views that sometimes appear in the talk. 2A02:908:1A74:4360:35F6:6811:155C:68F3 (talk) 11:03, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

You're welcome, I'm going to try compiling it even, looks like a great media player! One other concern I had, was the rationale for objection based on notability being that the "only" websites mentioning it were "download websites". That adds to the software's notability - rather than detracting from it - because it establishes that the software is being distributed on the Internet. I would draw a different conclusion to Berrely given that fact, but that's just me. I'd also point out it seems like quite a high standard this article being held to. WinstonSmith01984 (talk) 11:11, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

My article keeps getting declined

It says it doesn't have reliable sources. I always link the most reliable websites. What can I do :( — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alisha9891 (talk • contribs) 12:34, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Alisha9891, thanks for coming to the Teahouse. I went through your draft and fixed a few minor problems.Nevertheless, you'd have to address the concerns of the user who declined your draft, "Sulfurboy". He pointed out that you didn't give enough sources. After all, when it was declined, it only had 1 source. (Now it has 3, but for an article this long to be accepted, I guess that 5 is a minimum standard.) You can see WP:ORGCRIT for more details, but according to that page, an article on a product would require more sources than, say, an article on a building. This is to prevent spamming and promotion, but if you can provide independent sources (a few more), then it would have a far greater chance of being accepted. Add oil with your editing and Sourcing! Cheers, tLoM (The Lord of Math) (Message) 13:10, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Alisha9891, the three sources all appear to be press releases. You need proper coverage independent of the company. Guy (help!) 14:31, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Indeed, Alisha9891. Remember that, for that article, Wikipedia has basically no interest in anything said by Paytm. It is only interested in what people unconnected with Paytm have chosen to say about the platform; if you can't find any such independent sources, then the platform does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability, and it is a waste of everybody's time working on the draft. --ColinFine (talk) 15:31, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Courtesy: This appears to be about Draft:Paytm First Games, as Paytm is an existing article.David notMD (talk) 17:12, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you so much all, let me try again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alisha9891 (talk • contribs) 10:55, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Alisha9891, I took a look at the article. One problem with it is a lack of 'significant coverage' per WP:CORPDEPTH. There are a number of 'incidental' articles reporting an event or a press release but not much coverage about the subject itself, for example an article which goes into depth about the company, its history, how they operate, etc. That type of source is important to establish a subject's notability.

Also, much of the article (the explanation of games) is unsourced. If there aren't independent sources covering this type of information, then the info probably isn't notable to be included in the article (even if it might be true).

With more significant sources and more thorough referencing, I think the article would be able to pass WP:AfC. -M.Nelson (talk) 11:23, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Help with a citation

Can someone kindly help me correctly cite a source to an essay by a specific writer that is part of a series of essays included in a gallery publication, i.e. a curator/writer Merike Talve wrote the essay "Vestiges of the Avant-Garde in Installation", an essay written for "Luminous Sites: Ten Video Installations" (1986). Would this be correct?

• Talve, Merike (author). «Vestiges of the Avant-Garde in Installation», "Luminous Sites: Ten Video Installations", a Video In /Western Front production, Vanguard Publications, 1986 (cat) ISBN 0920974147.

Thank you! LorriBrown (talk) 19:55, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi LorriBrown for this type of reference I normally use {{Cite book}} -On the template page there is an example of "Citing a chapter in a book with different authors for different chapters and an editor". Hope this helps, do come back here if you need further assistance. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:43, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Dodger67 That is very helpful, thank you! I have another question though, is it important in citations for a bibliography to include all writers and artists (for a exhibition publication) but okay to not include them in the bibliography for the individual writer? I ask because some of the publications have multiple writers and multiple artists which sort of makes the entry confusing. Thank you again! LorriBrown (talk) 22:52, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

LorriBrown, hii! Assuming I understand you correctly, full citations are good for cited references, further reading or bibliographies that are general references, and external links, but for the article body bibliography of the author who is the subject of the article, I recommend listing only the book titles (and other notable/minimal-identifying details about the book in simple language, not as a formatted citation (eg. "Title (year)" for books with their own articles, title translation if not in English, possibly adding "coauthored with Jane Doe" if there are only two or three coauthors with nearly as significant contribution, and maybe "(ISBN:XXXXXXXX)" at the end). Maybe create a table like filmographies if you want to add consistently additional details about the books. Best, Usedtobecool ☎️ 16:52, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Actually, turns out WP:BIBLIOGRAPHY goes to the page that has the actual guidelines on what I was talking about. Usedtobecool ☎️ 16:55, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Usedtobecool Thank you for addressing my question! :-) The thing that I seem to struggle with the most is how much information to include in each line entry in a bibliography (for articles written by the subject) some that do not have citations (no online version of the article available) or for a list of publications (curatorial exhibition catalogues) that the subject has curated and/or written the essay - or may have written an essay for another curators' exhibition catalogue. I can see that some of the examples that are provided do not go into a lot of detail; this seems reasonable because the subject they use in the examples are well know individuals who have Wikilinks. I readily admit that I may get easily confused and overwhelmed with the details.... The subject of the article I've been working is a woman who is not well known like in the examples. It may end up that her notability will be challenged at some point perhaps. I am hoping not but want to make sure the t's are crossed and the i's are dotted to give the article a better chance to survive. Several of her essays are not available on line and in magazines that no longer active but the work is available in certain library and organization holdings. I've found several articles in the local university and have requested some others from the local librarians. She is a Canadian and the magazines are from Canada from the 1980's. Several of the curatorial publications are out of print. I've been able to verify many of the articles thru google books, some archive organizations and good old google. I struggle with how much detail to include for example with the reviews written about artists. I've included the names of the gallery and city which I suppose may be extraneous. I tried to minimize the citations by using archive organizations search function that lists several reviews on one page. In reading the page that you note I see that you should not use the google link unless the book is available on line so I'll need to look at that. I've included the gallery & city where the exhibition took place and I am supposing that would be irrelevant. From what I've read (from my point of view) her writing was brilliant but I understand that is not relevant to determining notability.

Another question is do I need to disclose COI with this subject because she curated a show about a person that I do have COI with? This was not and is not the catalyst for my interest in creating an article for this subject; however, it was how I first became aware of her curatorial activities and writing skills. Kind regards, LorriBrown (talk) 03:13, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

LorriBrown, no, you do not have a COI, since she can no longer work with the person you have a COI with and hasn't for at least 22 years; unless you have become and remain friends of the family.

Bibliography doesn't require citations since the books are themselves citations (unless the work was written using a pseudonym in which case you need a secondary source connecting the subject with the pseudonym).

A list of works by the subject doesn't add to notability, only works on the subject can. Having a lot of obscure details is worse than having a few of them.

On the technical side, I think this could work:

Published reviews/essays

• That last exhibition, included in This collection of art reviews (1999), edited by Editor1, Editor 2.

Practically speaking, bibliography is for books, we don't include every piece of writing ever published by our subject. Imagine if we tried to do that with Roger Ebert. This seems specially relevant with the works published in Vanguard. You have already mentioned that the subject worked at Vanguard. That obviously means she would have published stuff in the magazine. If any of those were specially noted/referenced by other writers, those could be mentioned to give useful information, such as "This essay that she wrote for Vanguard was [reasons why this essay became special]". A simple list of things published in Vanguard which gives no further information on why any of it might be important enough to be included, provides no useful information since that adds nothing to the reader's understanding of the subject than when they read the sentence "She worked for Vanguard in the early 80's".

Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 06:07, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Usedtobecool Thank you very much! LorriBrown (talk) 15:04, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

my "Sandbox" disappeared from the top of the page where I click to work.

Hi.. I've been working very hard on my draft for my submission, the Etymology of Chicago... my email (Redacted). MY SANDBOX IS NO LONGER ACTIVE on the Wikipedia page. I got on my page today from a link I created for my desktop... but I would breathe easier if my "sandbox" up between "talk" and "preferences." I have nightmares about loosing all my work. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Etymology_of_Chicago?action=edit

Carl Carl J. Weber (talk) 05:14, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi Carl J. Weber. Your user sandbox can be found at User:Carl J. Weber/sandbox, but the content you previously added to it was moved by an administrator named DGG (see here) and can now be found at Draft:Etymology of Chicago; most likely this was done because you submitted your sandbox to Wikipedia Articles for Creation for reveiw, but the preferred WP:NAMESPACE for AfC submission is the draft namespace. Perhaps you intended to back up the draft you're working on in your user sandbox, but this is not really necessary (and potentially confusing) since you shouldn't lose anything as long as you click "Publish changes" whenever you finish an editing session; even if by chance the draft ends up deleted, it will still be possible for an administrator to recover it and restore it for you as long as it wasn't deleted for some type of serious violation of Wikipedia policy. If you really want to create a back up of your work, you might want to consider doing so somewhere other than Wikipedia.

As for not being able to see the "Sandbox" button at the top of your browser, you should be able to see it as long as you're logged into your account. Are you using a computer to edit or a tablet/smartphone to edit? Perhaps in the latter case the "Sandbox" button might appear in a different location to the size of the screen.

Finally, please be careful about posting your email address on Wikipedia per WP:REALWORLD; it's unlikely that anyone answering questions here at the Teahouse is going to respond to you by email, but such information might possibly be used by someone else in an inappropriate way. Like all Wikipedia pages, the Teahouse is a public page which means that anything posted here is there for all to see and use as they want. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:38, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

--- Thanks for the timely response. I’m using an desktop

User:Carl J. Weber/sandbox, does not bring me to anything recognizable to link to for my draft of Etymology of Chicago.

Draft:Etymology of Chicago; DOES bring me to the page I want.

I still don’t understand the navigation much…

If I bring up the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Carl_J._Weber page, where is, or how do I install a link from that. page to my draft?

Nor am confident in any way that I am sending this response to the right place…

Thanks much Carl Carl J. Weber (talk) 16:50, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

@Carl J. Weber: You can click Contributions at the top right of any page to see your edits. Old edits are moved when a page is moved so they currently link to Draft:Etymology of Chicago. If the draft is accepted then they would link to the article. You can save [[Draft:Etymology of Chicago]] in a page if you want a link to the current title of the draft. You can also find a link by clicking the "View history" tab at User:Carl J. Weber/sandbox and then "View logs for this page" at the top. This shows the move log with the new title. Often it would be enough to click "View history" but not in this case where a user chose to move the page without leaving a redirect. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:04, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Carl J. Weber, someone moved your draft to the draftspace where it can be worked on (and collaborated with other editors, should you so choose). It also means that when you are ready to submit it (and I mean checking the grammar, spelling, strong suitable references) the process is streamlined. But let me see if I understand what you want: do you want to be able to access that page in one click by using any of the links related to you at the top of the screen? Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 22:34, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Hello Carl J. Weber, I have made it so that you can reach your draft by clicking "sanbox". I have also linked your draft from your userpage; the "etymology of Chicago" phrase is now in blue in your self-introduction there. Do not worry, your draft will never be lost; even if you stop working on it and some deletes it, you can always ask to get it restored if you want to start again. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 07:34, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

username login question

Resolved

 – OP satisfied with answers given. --Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 14:08, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Why does one not stay signed in when navigating between, for example, Wikipedia and Wikiquote? Separate question: Why does a username appear blue (active) in Wikipedia (when signed in) and red in Wikiquote (when signed in)? I've noticed this for myself and others. --PaulThePony (talk) 16:47, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Blue means that there is a page at the destination. For example, you have a user page at User:PaulThePony, so in your signature, the rendered text for [[User:PaulThePony|PaulThePony]] shows up as PaulThePony, in blue.

If there is no user page for the user (either because the user does not exist or because there is such a user but he or she has not created a user page), it will show up as red: [[User:User:NoSuchUser|NoSuchUser]] shows up as NoSuchUser. TJRC (talk) 17:07, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

As to the other part, likely because it's a different website. Usedtobecool ☎️ 17:43, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Redlinks are absolutely nothing to do with whether anybody is logged in or not, PaulThePony: they are only about whether a page exists or not. User:PaulThePony exists in Wikipedia, so that link is blue. If you put the same thing ([[User:PaulThePony]]) on a page in Wikiquote, then the link will be red, because you have not created a User page in Wikiquote. (Confusingly, the "redlink" mechanism doesn't work across wikis, so the link wikiquote:User:PaulThePony does appear blue here in Wikipedia, even though the page doesn't exist). --ColinFine (talk) 18:47, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

@PaulThePony: You are supposed to remain logged in when you change between Wikimedia wikis but it sometimes fails, e.g. due to cookie issues in your browser. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:51, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your replies, TJRC, Usedtobecool, and ColinFine. Following up, do higher edit tallies result in attainment of editorial privileges? Is it, then, impossible to have particular tallies within Wikipedia, Wikimedia, and Wikiquote, result in one total such that the separate tallies would amass toward such privileges? And, while I've got your attention -- ;) -- should any new follow-up question be presented under a different 'new' subject heading? — Preceding unsigned comment added by PaulThePony (talk • contribs) 20:30, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

PaulThePony, no. The community can trust you with additional tools based on your history of contributions, that includes the quality of your contributions, your conduct with respect to other members of the community, and the level of knowledge of policies and guidelines you display. Edit count doesn't tell much. I am not clear what exactly the second question is, but I'm guessing it is no longer pertinent. You can ask followups here. When you want to ask about a completely different topic, you can either create a new section or do that here as well. There are no firm rules. Best, Usedtobecool ☎️ 20:59, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

PaulThePony, the only "editorial privileges" I'm aware of with edit count (and by extension, time) is that your account can become autoconfirmed (with 10 edits after 4 days of account creation) and eventually extended confirmed (with over 500 edits after 30 days from account creation). Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 22:40, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, PrimeHunter. That is very helpful in understanding the buggy nature of the beast. :) Thank you also, Usedtobecool. That does address all of my questions. P.S. You're still cool to me. ;) --PaulThePony (talk) 21:05, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, Tenryuu 🐲. How may I find out how many edits I've made? --PaulThePony (talk) 23:06, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

@PaulThePony: There are several ways to get your edit count (which may give somewhat different results). One is to go to your contributions page and click on "Edit count" in the box at the bottom. Another is to click on "Preferences" at the top of any page; an edit count is given under the "User profile" tab. Deor (talk) 06:00, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

PaulThePony, what Deor said. Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 14:57, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

With thanks to you both, Deor and Tenryuu 🐲. I shall do as you suggest. :) --PaulThePony (talk) 08:55, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

(Question) Draft:Sadaharu Yagi for submission

 Courtesy link: Draft:Sadaharu Yagi --Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 20:31, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi. Since I am not experienced, I am not clear what part of the article looks like “advertising“ as the article looks written objectively and supported by secondary sources which are all facts based data available online. I would like to have an advice from experienced editors regarding what exactly should be changed so that the next submission doesn’t get declined. Looking forward to hearing from you. Thank you in advance! 75.83.94.230 (talk) 17:18, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Hello, IP user. The person to take this up with is the editor who declined your submission, SamHolt6 (I have just pinged that editor, so they should see this.) For what it's worth, I don't agree with them that it reads like advertising. --ColinFine (talk) 18:52, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Saw the ping. IP can ask me on my talk page or the draft talk for an in-depth analysis of the issue, but in short I will say the draft is likely in violation of WP:NOTADVERTISING given the past undisclosed paid editing issue. Couple that with the notability issue (raised by another AfC reviewer), and the draft has some issues that need addressing. SamHolt6 (talk) 02:03, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Without regard to any past issues or whether they are notable, I have to say I agree with Colin – it reads dry and factual, just the way we like it. I see no promotion, puffery, or attempt to mention any non-notable accomplishments (all the awards are Grammys, etc.). —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 07:42, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

ColinFine, SamHolt6, and AlanM1, thank you for the professional advice! Yes, I was aware of the tag mentioning something about undisclosed payments. I don’t know what happened with this article in the past, for me the current draft article looks pretty neutral and fact based. SamHolt6, could you please help me fix the situation and get the submission accepted? Should I write this on your talk page? Among Latin music producers and audio engineers, Sadaharu Yagi is well known for his work bringing 3 Grammys to Draco’s recent albums. As a music production geek, I simply want to contribute to getting this article published. Thanks!75.83.94.230 (talk) 23:17, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

As they said above, you can contact them at their user talk page or ping them to the draft's talk page. If you reach an impasse, you can ask them not to review the draft again and resubmit. Best, Usedtobecool ☎️ 05:30, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

One suggestion for the UI

Hello, i have a suggestion for the wikipedia's UI. When we have a long article needing a task done, it is frustrating to read it upto the end then scroll back up to click on the edit button or publish button. I wanted to suggest that can't we have a scroll up button at the bottom right corner in every wikipedia page? I think this will help a lot. Lightbluerain (talk) 17:29, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Lightbluerain, have you tried using the Home and End keys on the keyboard? Usedtobecool ☎️ 17:39, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

The best place to discuss questions about the UI is at the Village Pump, Lightbluerain: either WP:VPPR or WP:VPT. --ColinFine (talk) 18:54, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

@Lightbluerain: A browser search (often Ctrl+f) for "bottom" at Wikipedia:User scripts/List finds several scripts for this or the opposite direction. I haven't tried them. I always use Home and End. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:42, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

ColinFine, thanks a lot. Usedtobecool and PrimeHunter, that's a great shortcut! But i use wikipedia on mobile, and we don't have ctrl keys here. Lightbluerain (talk) 09:30, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

My question is "why not have the tabs (edit, talk, etc) at the bottom of the page as well as the top?" --Khajidha (talk) 14:05, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Khajidha, so that would take us back to ColinFine's answer above. Teahouse can only help you with what already is. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 05:26, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

How can one send a comment regarding a particular article to its editors?

Resolved

 – Question answered. --Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 04:01, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Joe van Zwaren March 14. 2020 Good.o.joe (talk) 18:25, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Use the article's talk page. You can start a new section there if you don't want to continue an existing discussion. --David Biddulph (talk) 18:31, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

editing help needed

Please have a read of my draft article at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dsouzaron/sandbox. I had submitted it before and it was deleted. Is it good enough now?Tissueboy (talk) 18:55, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Dsouzaron, welcome to the Teahouse. From a glance better grammar could be used. I harbour doubts if she meets the general notability guidelines for Wikipedia. Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 20:34, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Please kindly refrain from giving yourself a completely different username so that people can ping you correctly. Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 20:35, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree she is not notable enough for an article; teachers rarely are. That she was at the same educational establishments as notable people does not make her notable, and her own education and qualifications certainly don't. (I write as a teacher who attended universities with notables and I have qualificiations!) That said, 50 years' teaching is a personal achievement, but not that special I'm afraid. Emeraude (talk) 09:38, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Marking a person in red

Hello. I spotted the name of an author who I think qualifies as a notable person. As a first step, how do I mark her name in red as being someone about whom an article could be written? Alison Alison hunter (talk) 23:05, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Alison hunter Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Others may disagree but I think you might be putting the cart before the horse, so to speak. If you wish to write an article about this person, you should do that first before worrying about links to it(which is important, but you have to have the article first). If you have never created a new article before, you should use Articles for Creation to create and submit a draft for a review by another editor before it is formally placed in the encyclopedia. This way you find out any issues to work out while it is still a draft, when it will be treated less critically. Be advised that successfully creating a new article is the hardest task on Wikipedia, especially if you have not edited many existing articles. Before starting a draft I'd suggest reading Your First Article and using the new user tutorial. 331dot (talk) 23:11, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you 331dot I have just started drafting an article about her in my sandbox. Thanks for these pointers. Alison Alison hunter (talk) 23:52, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Alison hunter, out of curiosity, what is the name of the person who you want to make an article about?ThatMontrealIP (talk) 23:15, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi ThatMontrealIP Her name is Jessie Kerr Lawson. I saw her name in an article about my town, Anstruther. So many names listed were in blue, but hers was not even red. I've now started drafting something but it will take me a while. Thanks for your interest. Alison hunter (talk) 23:52, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Alison hunter, just to explain what red links are: they're just when someone has tried to link to an article that doesn't exist, like this: Jessie Kerr Lawson. (You can find out more about them here.) So to make her name red on the Anstruther page, you would just try to link her name to the (non-existent) page about her. That being said, I agree with User:331dot that it's better to make the article first.  :-) (Incidentally, while I have never been to Anstruther, I was Pittenweem not that long ago—it's a lovely part of the world.) YorkshireLad ✿ ^(talk) 00:18, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

@YorkshireLad: Ah, you were a stone's throw from Anstruther. Just a stroll along the coastal path. Yes, it's lovely, as is Yorkshire! Alison hunter (talk) 18:27, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

• Alison hunter, I think you have found someone who deserves an article, if you mean the Scottish-Canadian poet and writer Jessie Kerr Lawson 1838-1917. She appears notable by our notability standards. I'll leave you a note on your talk page.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 02:10, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

ThatMontrealIP Thank you. I love what you've done. Alison hunter (talk) 18:27, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Mass changes dealing with punctuation

So there's a user making massive changes in punctuation, and I am not sure what they are, but here's what he or she has done: Special:Contributions/DannyS712. What's it all about? BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 06:51, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

@BeenAroundAWhile: (in the future, I'd appreciate being pinged if you start a discussion about my edits) I moved periods (or full stops) to go before reference tags, in line with Wikipedia:Citing sources#How to place an inline citation using ref tags and Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Punctuation and footnotes and as explained already at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language#Fixing period locations and User talk:DannyS712#Period? DannyS712 (talk) 07:21, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

@BeenAroundAWhile: I don't know why this has to be in three places, but please see MOS:LQ for information about why the '.' goes where it does here. Also see the information Danny linked to about where references go in relation to punctuation. Most people that have been around a while, like us, understand there are different varieties of English with different vocabulary. I don't have any problem understanding someone that writes "full stop", or "colour", or "lift". There's no requirement I know of that edit summaries employ the variant of English in use in the article. There are plenty of editors whose native variant is different from the one most closely related to articles they edit. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 08:10, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

PLEASE APPROVE THIS ARTICLE

Draft:Manjappada_Kerala_Blasters_Fan_Club is a supporting club of Kerala Blasters FC Like West Block Blues of Bengaluru FC. so please approve this article

@Iamfrzu07: Your draft has been declined 3 times before finally being rejected. Please read the comments with   in front of them as to why reviewers are not inclined to approve it. --Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 14:30, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Akhmetova Laila Seysembekovna

Good day! 4th of December 19, I've created an article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Akhmetova_Laila_Seysembekovna). Is there a chance that it will be moved into the article space? Or maybe I need to review the draft or edit it? If so, please, make me know how I can improve it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ДиркСтруан (talk • contribs) 09:53, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

ДиркСтруан, welcome to the Teahouse. Looking at the page it is currently pending review. Because of the vast number of drafts that are waiting for review it can potentially take a long time before it gets looked at. Feel free to improve other articles while you're waiting.

Please remember to sign with ~~~~ at the end of your post.

Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 14:32, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

My article keeps getting declined

This submission does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article. Entries should be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources. Please rewrite your submission in a more encyclopedic format. Please make sure to avoid peacock terms that promote the subject. What can I do? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.113.18.133 (talk) 10:28, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Have you checked out Where to get help section in your article? Next time, remember to sign your comment by inserting four tildes: ~~~~. If you don't, you will just get autosigned, and even if not, your username will get saved in history along with timestamp. There is really no way around. Fortunny (talk) 12:40, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

I am an artist , I have a new graphic novel out in bookstores everywhere, I used to have a wikipedia entry but it was deleted by admins

Hi, I used to have a wikipedia entry but it was removed a while ago by admins, I guess because they thought the content was not true or verifiable or not interesting enough.

My name is Ian David Marsden and I have already published several books and done quite a few things in the art, graphics, illustration and cartoon world. I was the very first Google Doodle creator for example.

I have a new graphic novel out which is about the life of the composer Marvin Hamlisch:

https://www.schifferbooks.com/marvin-based-on-the-way-i-was-by-marvin-hamlisch-6815.html

https://www.amazon.com/Ian-David-Marsden/

More about me:

https://marsdenillustration.com/about/

I do NOT wish to write an entry about myself, nor to write changes to any other entries regarding me or my books. Therefore I am adressing this forum. I don't know what it takes to "Merit" an entry but I thought maybe this new U.S. publication about a notable figure and one of only two winners of the PEGOT awards might qualify.

It would be very nice if at least my new book about Marvin Hamlisch could be added to the Marvin Hamlisch page. After that I would of course like it if my own entry could either be reinstated or if a new short one about me, my books and my artwork could be created, linked to all the relevant topics (illustrator, cartoonist, Swiss cartoonist, graphic novel author, etc.)

I will gladly provide any further information that is required. I would like to stress again: I don't want to write about myself and I don't wish to get into any arguments whether I should have an entry or not. I just wanted to put this information out there so that you can be the judge yourselves and decide and take approproate action, if any.

Thank you very much.

Ian — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marsdenillustration (talk • contribs) 12:32, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Next time, remember to sign your comment by inserting four tildes: ~~~~. If you don't, you will just get autosigned, and even if not, your username will get saved in history along with timestamp. There is really no way around. Fortunny (talk) 12:43, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

• @Marsdenillustration:, hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I had a look around and I do not see any in-depth coverage of you or your work in independent sources. As such coverage is required for an article, you don't meet the notability standard. Thanks for your note.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 14:42, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

For information, the article was deleted in 2012, as a result of the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ian D. Marsden. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:46, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

@Marsdenillustration: The former article about you was deleted not because admins "thought the content was not true or verifiable or not interesting enough" but because that was the consensus of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ian D. Marsden, a discussion that you apparently participated in (under a different account name). If you think thst subsequent coverage in reliable, independent sources demonstrates your notability, you can ask for that deletion to be reviewed at WP:DRV. Deor (talk) 14:52, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Does a link to the publisher's website to the published book count as an "realiable, independent source"?

https://www.schifferbooks.com/marvin-based-on-the-way-i-was-by-marvin-hamlisch-6815.html

Book links in all of the major bookseller websites?

https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/marvin-ian-david-marsden/1132899883?ean=9780764359040

https://www.target.com/p/marvin-by-ian-david-marsden-marvin-hamlisch-gerald-gardner-paperback/-/A-79514989

https://www.whsmith.co.uk/products/marvin-based-on-the-way-i-was-by-marvin-hamlisch/iandavid-marsden/paperback/9780764359040.html

https://www.amazon.com/Marvin-Based-Way-Was-Hamlisch/dp/0764359045

All the other books on my amazon author's page?

https://www.amazon.com/Ian-David-Marsden/

Google Doodles:

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702304911104576444363668512764

Indeed I did participate in the discussion in 2012 and I believe I already stated at the time that I don't see why I should have to prove that I am "notable". My books, my Google Doodles, My FIS World Championship Mascot Design are not figments of my imagination. They can all easily be verified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marsdenillustration (talk • contribs) 15:12, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is notability, not just whether something can be verified, Marsdenillustration. Please see WP:GOLDENRULE for a simple explanation of that threshold. Your publisher's website is not an independent source. What is required is independent media or academic coverage of your work. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:32, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

@Marsdenillustration: we don't determine notability by counting up accomplishments. We determine notability (i.e. if someone is notable enough for an article) by counting up and assessing what others have said about the article subject. You have not been the subject of enough independent, in-depth coverage by others. It is that simple. We are also not keen on the article subjects trying to get their own article published, as it impacts on the neutrality of the encyclopedia. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 16:22, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

The Gallagher Index and Infometrics

Not an issue for Teahouse. Referred elsewhere.

--Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 17:23, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Hello all, long time listener, first time caller.

Just curious how to go about adding automated infometrics to articles? Eg; the SVG world maps with colouring showing the spread of viruses or demographic data and the like - do people just upload these SVGs on a regular basis or something? Can anyone please point me to some relevant templates/guides?

Reason I'm asking is that I've written some (Python) code which computes the Gallagher index scores for election systems, which helps to quantify the amount of dis-proportionality in voting systems. Would there be any interest in including such data in election articles? It's not really original research or anything, just an implementation of the least squares function to help churn through and present the data.

The basic idea of the Gallagher index is it gives you a measure of difference between the percentage of votes, versus the percentages of bums on seats in any given legislature. In the US election system this number can go over 10%, which is rather 'undemocratic' by international standards. Dis-proportionality itself is a non-partisan issue affecting both republicans and democrats, but the data I'm seeing for the US primaries does suggest some penalties and bonuses in some states which might be notable enough for inclusion, especially when this number is over 10%.

What are other people's thoughts on this? Would it be a useful and relevant inclusion on election outcome templates/articles? Or is it too close to original research? WinstonSmith01984 (talk) 12:56, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

The appropriate place to discuss this is the talk page(s) of the article(s) in question, WinstonSmith01984. John from Idegon (talk) 17:01, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Red and green numbers

Resolved

 – Question answered. --Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 04:38, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

what do the green and red + and - in contributions mean? please awnser in my sandbox so the tea house doesent get clooged — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thewikimeowman (talk • contribs) 14:58, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Thewikimeowman, this is the byte count of the edit. It shows how many characters were added (green) or removed(red) in the edit. The number in black to the left of that is the total byte count of the article. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 15:02, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Thewikimeowman, we don't answer questions elsewhere unless there are policy based privacy issues involved. The answer to your question doesn't "clog" the Teahouse. It's here to help you and to help others with the same question who may see it. Also, in general, if another editor is going to communicate with you directly, it would be at your talk page, not your sandbox. John from Idegon (talk) 17:15, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Suggestions to save the page from Deletion

A new page created for Ashwin Kumar Lakshmikanthan is marked for AFD deletes. Please suggest ways to save the page from Deletion.

@Adapongaiya:, please read the WP:GNG for reasons as to why the article is nominated for deletion. Most crucially, the subject has not met Wikipedia's those guidelines.

Please remember to sign with ~~~~ at the end of your post.

--Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 17:15, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

nachos history

I know first hand that nachos were served at San Antonio Spurs basketball games in the Hemisphere Arena in the winter of 1975/76. This was several months before the Texas Rangers baseball games in the spring of 1976. These were the earliest examples of "ball park nachos". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xfthm (talk • contribs) 17:34, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Xfthm Unfortunately, we cannot accept personal knowledge as a source of information on Wikipedia. All information must be cited to a published, independent reliable source that is possible to verify. 331dot (talk) 17:51, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

So to enlarge on that, Xfthm: if you are able to find something like newspaper or sports journal reports on any San Antonio Spurs basketball games in 1975/early 1976 (perhaps in the archives of a local public library) that mentioned the serving of nachos, we could use those as Reliable sources to which we could cite the fact and amend the article(s) concerned. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.27.39 (talk) 08:52, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

True story, please help -notability+have the company listed on wikipedia

I will tell the truth I started to write the articles and be active at wikipedia to have the notability of myself and my companies listed at wikipedia in the quickest way. I started approximately 5 days publishing at many languages but the process of getting notability is very ambigouous and depends on the approval of editors. I relly on the internet articles which spreads for more quantity of articles describing "how to get your company listed on wikipedia, Part 1" and others.

I had the luck or rather wisdom and the sober and vigiliance of my brain to be active in the most emerging technologies so according to the wikipedia 5 pillars and other articles if i will be right in writing and stick to the rules of wikiedia i hope i will get my profile nobility and my company will be listen on wikipedia.

Younger people(especially poker players) have their own profiles at wikipedia at german version which gives me big courage and motivation to speed up this investment.

Please help: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rocketmanplus (talk • contribs) 18:43, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Autobiography. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:03, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

So far, every Talk page comment you have made has been reverted, as Talk pages are not intended as a forum for your own opinions and thoughts. Your attempts to create article-like content on your User page has been deleted. Wikipedia (English) has articles, not profiles. What may be permitted in one language can be forbidden in another. And, as noted, attempts at autobiography are discouraged, as are writing about your own company (see WP:COI). David notMD (talk) 19:08, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Rocketmanplus, welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia is, unfortunately, not a forum. We deal in sourced material, not unsourced assertions. If there are reliable sources to back them up they may be considered. Please understand that an article about yourself/your company is not necessarily a good thing. Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 19:13, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

The nobility confirmation it is in my opinion very powerful incident as observing famous young poker players they have nice profiles at wikipedia(Domink Panka, Dmitr Urbanovitch, Chris Moneymaker) also other companies Berkshire Hathway, Kulczyk Investment have their own article.

I did my own translation of some of the company articles into the german but received this: No encyclopedic article or content) (thank you)

I will try to read more article to fit into the model as I reckon to deserve to have same profile like younger than me Dominik Panka, Dmitr Urbanovitch or Mike Mcdonald not mentioning about FAcebook, Mark Zuckuberg and others. {rocketmanplus} — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rocketmanplus (talk • contribs) 23:27, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Neither Domink nor Dmitr have English-language articles. Chris Moneymaker does. Please 'sign' your comments by typing four of ~ at the end. — Preceding unsigned comment added by David notMD (talk • contribs) 04:10, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Discussing regarding the jian in Vietnam

A few weeks ago, I was involved in a ongoing dispute with SimeonManier (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jian&diff=945108100&oldid=944245559) which I want to end this sooner than later. Unfortuntaly, the only response from Simeon is this. I tired the Dispute Noticeboard but no admin had been responded. If anyone who is an expert in Vietnamese culture or martial arts, then you are welcome to discuss. I don't know these sources that Simeon removed are reliable or not. In regards to Vietnamese swordsmanship, I can't find any good sources about this art of swordfighting from Vietnam. Since China is known to influence Vietnam culturally, this is going to be a big dicussion. SpinnerLaserz (talk) 19:20, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

SpinnerLaserz, I have declined your edit request at the talk page and left a reply. If you do not have reliable sources to back up or do not know if the sources you have are reliable, that is a very poor position to enter a content dispute with. If you know of reliable sources that would support your position but can not access them, you can try WP:RX. Otherwise, dropping the matter until such sources are found/can be presented by yourself or with the help of another editor, may be your best option. Best, Usedtobecool ☎️ 05:01, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Sean Depner

Hello Teahouse! So I submitted my article for the actor Sean Depner. It was declined twice, because of lack of reliable sources. The problem here is, most of the informations I got of him, are from social media accounts and that will not get accepted as a reliable source. I also used IMDB as a reliable source, but it also got declined. My article is a right based on my own research, but they are not reliable sources for Wikipedia. I do not know what to do now, because the actor does not have many informations on reliable sources. What would be your advice? Should I just delete it and wait for reliable sources? I really would like to publish my article. Greetings, Lia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lia Prince (talk • contribs) 20:00, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Link: Draft:Sean Depner. Interstellarity (talk) 20:49, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

If there are not multiple reliable (which social media isn't) and independent sources that discuss this person, he isn't notable. Notability is the requirement for having an article. John from Idegon (talk) 23:12, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Lia Prince, welcome to the Teahouse. Unfortunately IMDb is not considered a reliable source here on Wikipedia. Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 03:22, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Allowed

Dear Managers, Am I allowed to transfer articles from drafts like this Draft:Mardas (Shahnameh) and this Draft:Iran-Turan war or not? Goodarz Irani (talk) 20:07, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Goodarz Irani, and welcome to the Teahouse! To answer your question, you technically could, at least once autoconfirmed. However, you should not do so, but you should wait for the review, which is likely to actually come sooner than 4 months. (It once took me two days to get an article reviewed.) Hope this answers your question, King of Scorpions 21:49, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

WikiProjects

Are regular editors able to create WikiProjects? I want to create WP:WikiProject Backlogs, a Wikiproject dedicated to clearing backlogs, and was wondering if I had permission to do that. Thanks, King of Scorpions 21:52, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi, King of Scorpions. Yes, but it is recommended to propose it rather than go ahead and create it directly. See WP:WikiProject Council/Guide, especially the section Creating a WikiProject. --ColinFine (talk) 22:20, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Bring this up at Wikipedia:Cleanup as they are very active and can recommend what is best.--Moxy 🍁 22:34, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

@Moxy: On the main page or the talk page? King of Scorpions 15:05, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Talk page....ask if the project incorporates backlog agendas.--Moxy 🍁 16:15, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

​Done King of Scorpions 16:34, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Are Cookies Required for Registered Editors?

An unregistered editor has stated that they edit as an unregistered editor (IP address) because they cannot use cookies on the device that they use to edit. Is this correct? Is it true that an editor cannot log in to a registered account from a device that does not support cookies? Is there a workaround? Robert McClenon (talk) 00:28, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: From WP:COOKIES, it states that you do need to be able to accept cookies to log in. There is no workaround mentioned that I could see. RudolfRed (talk) 00:32, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

What sort of device could an editor be using that doesnt support cookies in 2020? What sort of dumb terminal is in use? (Maybe that is a self-answering question, a dumb terminal.) McClenon mobile (talk) 04:03, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

It's also worth mentioning that anonymous editing also sets and uses cookies. But yes, if you want to stay logged in past the login screen, cookies are required. Otherwise, the servers would forget who you are immediately. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 04:11, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Rejection of Etymology of Chicago

 Courtesy link: Draft:Etymology of Chicago --Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 03:26, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Hello,

I had my article, Draft:Etymology of Chicago rejected. The reason given is that "This submission provides insufficient context for those unfamiliar with the subject matter. Please see the guide to writing better articles for information on how to better format your submission."

In one sense, most people are unfamiliar with the subject. That's why they are looking it up on Wikipedia. I am putting pieces together, fully referenced, in a new way, in the spirit of what I think an encyclopedia should be. My introduction (lead) gives the essentials of what the piece is about.

My piece is a scholarly article -- with no jargon or technical talk -- written for an intelligent person interested in the subject of "where did the word Chicago come from." What have others said, who-what-where-when, and what is new to say about it, based on existing resources. Fifteen years ago, a Pulitzer Prize winning investigative reporter for the Chicago Tribune (William Mullen) said that my work would revise history. What Wikipedia has currently for the etymology of Chicago is subject to critical review of the background information.

If a person reading my piece was unfamiliar with the main actors and events, I have links that give context to many of them. Could I please have some other opinions about the rejection? What in this case in meant by "context?

I intend to write more articles in this subject matter area, and I believe that Wikipedia is in the spirit of what I would like to give.

Carl

Carl J. Weber (talk) 03:02, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi Carl J. Weber. You write a whole page about the etymology of Chicago but never link Chicago. That article should be linked in the opening paragraph to give context. I also suggest linking etymology, orthographic, provenance, and folk etymology, or using simpler terms. You claim "no jargon or technical talk" but I don't think you realize what sounds technical to ordinary people outside your field. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:50, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Carl J. Weber, I personally don't think that the context is insufficient. However, the formatting could definitely be improved to fit Wikipedia article standards. I'll point out a few things:

• Articles have lead (lede) sections that do not have a heading, making the first heading wholly unnecessary.
• Do not throw bold and italics everywhere in the article. See MOS:NOBOLD.
• Headings follow sentence style capitalisation, not title.
• External links have their own section (usually at the end) in articles. They (usually) do not go in the body. See WP:EL.

I would message the reviewers on their talk pages if you want to get clarification for their reasons. Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 03:58, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

I did a bit of clean-up, but did not address the reviewers' concerns. David notMD (talk) 04:32, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Carl J. Weber, to above, I will add that, if you are going to link to your personal website, you have a conflict of interest (WP:COI) which you must declare. I do not think a link to your website is essential, so I recommend just dropping all the links, then you don't have to worry about it at all.

I was concerned by what you said above, that the "piece is a scholarly article... and what is new to say about it ... said that my work would revise history." That says to me that you are trying to build a new research article of your own, not just summarise what other sources have said. Reading the draft also gives the same sense, that the sources are not used to corroborate the claims in the draft, but rather the cited sources are being used as a foundation for an original thesis. This is incompatible with the purpose of Wikipedia. We have a strict NO ORIGINAL RESEARCH policy. If your intention is to get new knowledge out into the world, I suggest getting your work published in a scholarly journal. Only then, will it be acceptable for said new knowledge to be incorporated into a Wikipedia article. Usedtobecool ☎️ 04:33, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

• Carl J. Weber, I took a pass a this and made some formatting edits. My overall impression was that there is too much information for the average reader.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:48, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

• I disagree with the other reviewers that it doesn't provide sufficient context. However the article appears to be mainly original research that is not reflected in reliable published scholarly sources. We can't summarize how words are used in primary sources, we only summarize what reliable secondary sources say. Note that writing an article from scratch here on Wikipedia is one of the hardest things one can do because there are so many things that are valued in the real world (novel deductions and beautiful argumentative prose) that are not valued in Wikipedia's hyper-neutral no-original-research world. We cannot cite your own material unless you first get it published in a scholarly source, and even then it the viewpoint would only be given attention in proportion to its prominence among other scholarly theories (see WP:DUE). I would not recommend continuing editing the draft here since Wikipedia isn't a publisher of original thought, I would however recommend expanding some of our already existing articles with reliably sourced material. – Thjarkur (talk) 10:10, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Vandalism help

If there is a high level of IP vandalism on a page over the last few hours, is that enough to request page protection (it might only need to be short term)? And if so, what's the fastest way to get the protection?

The page is Bridgeport, Connecticut, Centennial half dollar. Thanks! - Whisperjanes (talk) 06:05, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Whisperjanes, welcome to the Teahouse. I agree that the page can do with some semi-protection, as that will prevent IP editors from editing. There are two ways you can request protection:

1. Put {{edit semi-protected}} on the article's talk page and state your reasons why it should be protected.
2. Go to the WP:RPP board and state your case and proposed action.

Hope this helps! And thanks for linking to the article in question and signing. :) Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 06:14, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, Tenryuu! And for future reference, does one of those ways usually get a faster response, from your experience, or are they pretty similar? - Whisperjanes (talk) 06:18, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Whisperjanes, I have not personally participated in getting a page protected so I'm afraid I can't tell you which method is faster. I know of these two solutions from checking out the source code from protected pages and the action that was provided in this archived Teahouse question. Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 06:23, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Whisperjanes, when it's just one user, it's better to leave warnings to their talk page, and report them at WP:AIV if they persist, or if vandalism is all they are doing and they are doing it so fast that it is urgent to damagecontrol, you can skip the talk page and report directly.

The fastest way would be to post to the talk page of an admin who is online; of course that won't be possible if you don't know many admins. In case AIV has a backlog and it is urgent, you can directly post to WP:AN asking that appropriate action be taken. If the issue isn't something that would be obvious to everybody, and might require discussion/explanations, WP:ANI would be preferred to AN. Best, Usedtobecool ☎️ 06:21, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

To clarify, if blocking an editor, an IP or a range of IPs is likely to take care of the problem, Page protection is unwarranted. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 06:25, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Usedtobecool You know what I just realized? I think it's because it's Today's Featured Article. Is that common? I don't think blocking a range of IPs would take care of the problem in this case. But would requesting protection be too much, since it's a TFA? And thank you for all the helpful information so far! - Whisperjanes (talk) 06:38, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

The IP has been blocked by @Oshwah:. Perhaps, they can help here. I am not sure about protection policy vis-a-vis TFA's. Usedtobecool ☎️ 07:08, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Whisperjanes - Yes, vandalism made to the current featured article of the day is extremely common and occurs like clockwork for each article that makes it to the front page. The protection policy applies to this page just like it would any other page on Wikipedia, and Wikipedia's protection policy spells these guidelines out in detail. While there are some admins who will out-right refuse to protect an article if it's currently today's featured article and is being featured on the main page. For the record, I'm not one of those admins. ;-) However, I note that there are admins (including myself) who try to keep the duration of any page protection applied to today's featured article to be as short of a length as possible (usually an hour or two). I understand their main argument that, by principle and as a website that we say "anyone can edit", we're showing new users and potential future editors that this isn't really the case when we protect the featured article on the main page. However, I also believe that we should do what's necessary in order to put a stop to repeated and high-rate disruption when it's found. You're of course always welcome to file a request to have a page protection by visiting this noticeboad and following the directions there; you're not doing any harm by doing so. If anything, it'll be helpful and bring the issue to the admins' attention. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:27, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you all for the help! I'm glad to understand more about the protection policy now c: I think the IP vandalism has gone down on that article considerably since that one IP was blocked, but I'll keep an eye out and report if it gets worse again. - Whisperjanes (talk) 16:39, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Another visual editing question

Can you add timelines using the visual editor? Also, is there a guide on how to do it on source? WDM10 (talk) 07:04, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

WDM10, maybe see WP:Timeline and the help page it links to while you wait for an answer? I don't know if that helps at all since I have never worked on one. Best, Usedtobecool ☎️ 07:12, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

@WDM10: I've no idea about doing it in visual editor. In source editor though, if you have a particular type of timeline in mind that you have seen in an existing article, the easiest thing to do is edit that article, copy the code used to make the timeline to your article, then modify the copied code to reflect your data.

Thanks for guiding me to that. WDM10 (talk) 07:35, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

If you don't have a particular article in mind, there are apparently several types of timeline listed at WP:Timeline. If you click on one of the links to a template, like {{Graphical timeline}}, and then click on "What links here" on the left sidebar, then in the "Filters" pane, click "Hide links" and "Hide redirects" (so "Show transclusions" is the only "Show" remaining), you get a list of the articles that "transclude" (use) the template, e.g., Cambrian. I hope this makes sense. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 07:29, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for guiding me to that. WDM10 (talk) 07:35, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

@Whatamidoing (WMF): another visual editor question, where the answer is likely no, but not many who can give it definitively. Usedtobecool ☎️ 07:42, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping, Usedtobecool. You can't insert a new timeline, but if a timeline is already on the page, then you can edit the content (a very basic editor – a basic box with the codes in it). You can also open an article that has a timeline in it in the visual editor, copy that one, and paste it into the visual editor in a new article. I've requested that they add support at phab:T247766. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 15:46, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

How to cite more than one author in a book?

Hey eveyrone,

Just wanna ask, when filling in the book citation, how can I add more than one author when it only provides one tab on first and last names of author? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pinkdelta (talk • contribs) 11:24, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Pinkdelta, at the bottom, there should be a button to add additional information. When you click on it, it should provide additional parameters. Either choose from the list, or type in. Best, Usedtobecool ☎️ 11:33, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

If you edit with wikitext, and use the reftoolbar described at Help:Referencing_for_beginners#Using_refToolbar, there's a green+ button for adding more authors. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:56, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

1:1 translation from German Wikipedia rejected in the English space – why?

Hello,

It would be nice if someone could give me a few tips about what I did wrong - and how I can do better in the future: Unfortunately I can not quite understand why this (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:ContiTech) article was rejected. Can anyone tell me specifically where something does not fit? It is a 1:1 translation from the German Wikipedia (https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/ContiTech), has been online there for 14 years and has since then been checked by several administrators and adapted again and again by numerous participants (https://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=ContiTech&offset=&limit=500&action=history). And I think that it’s written from a neutral point of view, and that it refers to a wide range of independent, reliable, published sources.

Greats Stefan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stefankohl (talk • contribs) 11:44, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Stefankohl Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Please understand that the German Wikipedia is a separate project from the English Wikipedia, with its own editors, policies, and practices, and what is acceptable there is not necessarily acceptable here. The draft seems largely sourced to press release type articles, the company itself, and other primary sources, which do not establish that this company meets our special definition of a notable company(please review). The draft just tells about the company and what it considers to be its history; Wikipedia (this one) is only interested in what independent reliable sources state about subjects like companies. 331dot (talk) 11:49, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Le Grand Mag article

Hi everyone! Can someone please help me understand why my draft was rejected? I provided sources to support my article, but I got the feedback that "this submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources", can someone help me? Luxury yogi (talk) 14:17, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Luxury yogi, welcome to the Teahouse. Taking a look at the deletion logs tells me that your draft has been deleted speedily two times (one recently and the other over a year ago) for the same reason: unambiguous advertising or promotion. This suggests that you should:

• rework the article's prose to have it be much more neutral in tone
• find sources that talk about your subject, but are not connected to them (e.g., not social media sites, company websites, etc.) Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 14:49, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Hi Luxury yogi, I hope you are well. According to the logs, your draft was deleted today for being "unambiguous advertising or promotion". Since it has been deleted, I cannot see the draft so I cannot say specifically what was wrong with yours that led to its deletion. However, Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view and not in a way which advertises or promotes their subject - the two admins who have deleted your draft believe that yours was too promotional. While having sources in your article is important, this alone is not sufficient for a Wikipedia article and will not save it from rejection if it is written like a promotion. I would also note that the type of sources you include in an article is important. You should use multiple sources which are reliable and independent of the subject and offer significant coverage of the topic. As I said, I cannot see the deleted version of your article so I don't know exactly what sources you used on the article (an admin might be able to help here); however, that might also help to explain why your draft was rejected and then deleted. Let us know if you have any further questions. WJ94 (talk) 14:58, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Would this article on Robb Report https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robb_Report be a good example to follow in terms of neutrality and references? Because I would say Le Grand Mag is to luxury lifestyle as Vogue is to fashion. Thank you so much! Luxury yogi (talk) 15:15, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Imho, Robb Report is another candidate for deletion. These are glossy magazines filled with advertisements for luxury products. Creators of the products pay for the articles/advertisements, the magazines are distributed free to wealthy people, and no-one actually reads them. Consequently no-one writes about them either, and they are not notable as Wikipedia uses that word. Maproom (talk) 17:16, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Edit Sidebar Links on Work Wiki

Hello! I'm trying to learn some Wikipedia edit, as my workplace uses a private Wiki to manage code documentation. In this wiki, we have a sidebar with headings akin to the ones displayed on an open Wiki (i.e. Interaction and Tools). However, the links under those headings are outdated. I've been looking through the archives, and have gone in to edit various pages, but have seen no means with which to edit the sidebar links. If there does exist a reference article, or if someone can point me in the right direction, that would be very kind. Urodele (talk) 14:25, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Urodele, have you looked at mw:Manual:Interface/Sidebar. If it isn't on there, you might have more luck asking at mw:Project:Support desk - there are only 11 local editors that can edit the interface. ~~ QRA: Alex Noble - talk 15:03, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Alex Noble, that looks like exactly what I want! I'll be sure to read it more thoroughly and test it out, then otherwise head to the support desk. Thanks for your help. Urodele (talk) 15:13, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

We only have 11 Wikipedia:Interface administrators who can edit sitewide JavaScript and CSS pages. But most pages in the MediaWiki namespace can be edited by all 1144 normal administrators. This includes MediaWiki:Sidebar and pages defining terms there like MediaWiki:Currentevents-url and MediaWiki:Currentevents. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:39, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

PrimeHunter Thank you for information!Urodele (talk) 16:46, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Articles

I was under the impression that when i wrote an article, it would start as a draft, but the first article that i wrote immeadietly got uploaded as if it was finished, which it was far from being, and it got deleted. How do i make drafts and not articles? Sbob99 (talk) 15:27, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Sbob99, and welcome to the Teahouse! It's simple to create a draft; you just type "Draft:Foo" (where "Foo" is the draft name) in the search bar (in the top right part of the screen). Then, you can create it. Hope this helps, King of Scorpions 15:39, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

@Sbob99: Also see WP:REFUND if you want to request a copy of the deleted material. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 01:27, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Article doesn’t meet notability guidelines?

Hello, I’m new to Wikipedia editing, but I found this article https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inta_Omri on an extremely famous middle eastern song. After having read the notability guidelines, I strongly believe it is notable enough to warrant its own article, but the article itself is severely lacking. There is a warning type thing on top of the article that says “The topic of this article may not meet Wikipedia's notability guideline for music.” How can I help show that the music is notable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erythrochroism (talk • contribs) 15:38, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Hey Erythrochroism, welcome to Wikipedia! If you want to show that the song is notable enough, you could add independent and reliable sources to the article. You can remove the notice once the sources have been added, as the issue has then been addressed. --MrClog (talk) 15:57, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

This may seem like a silly question, but do the sources have to be referenced in the information in the article, meaning cited to support some information, or can I add them at the bottom just to establish notability? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erythrochroism (talk • contribs) 16:14, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

I would advise you to use them to support existing information or to support new information. --MrClog (talk) 16:21, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Erythrochroism, ideally the references should be cited at the sentences of the content they support. The software will generate a reference list when {{reflist}} is used. Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 17:45, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Natasha Moraga

Hi... the article Natasha Moraga still is tagged for tone. I have worked on it and asked on the talk page if anything else needs to be done but it seems to be forgotten. Can anyone take a quick look? --HicksW (talk) 15:51, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

HicksW, welcome to the Teahouse. Taking a quick glance at it I can see parts of it which are peacocking a little. I'll give it a closer look in a bit. Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 16:51, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Tenryuu thank you--HicksW (talk) 16:54, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

@HicksW: I did a complete edit of the article. Some stuff I've deleted as it didn't serve any purpose besides praising her, and others I've enclosed in comments due to their size and could be re-included in the article if they can be made more neutral.

Shameless plug: If you ever have questions or would like feedback from other editors who do the same thing I do, please drop by the requests page of the Guild of Copyeditors and someone can help take a look at your article and edit it accordingly. --Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 17:21, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Teahouse Archive

Should there be a searchbox to the Teahouse Archive? T3g5JZ50GLq (talk) 17:24, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

T3g5JZ50GLq, in what way? There is one on the main page, see file:20200316_search_archive.png ~~ QRA: Alex Noble - talk 17:34, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

There is also one on the top right of this page --Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 03:00, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Zagg Wikipedia Page

I'm working on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zagg . For the past few months, this page has had the flag that it's written like an advertisement. I removed content that I thought would trigger this warning and then updated all of the outdated information I found on the page. I also removed sources that weren't credible with better sources I was able to find on the web.

Could someone take a look and let me know if there's any additional action I should take to get that removed? I'm still trying to figure out this whole wikipedia editing thing!

Thanks for your help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by NB1995 (talk • contribs) 18:54, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Hello NB1995, you should not be directly editing the article. As per the WP:PAID editing policy, you need to declare your employer and client on your userpage and use WP:Edit requests to make changes to the article. Usedtobecool ☎️ 07:42, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Making a family tree on Wikipedia

Hi guys, I am trying to construct a family tree on Wikipedia but so far I have had no success. I used the templates given on this link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Family_trees but none seem to be working so far. Whenever i input data it is collapsed on the page itself. I tried using the added parameters but nothing seems to be working. E.g. for the Ahnentafel template their is the |collapsed=no to {{ahnentafel}} parameter. Are there any how to do videos, or step by step instructions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by EthanyRouge (talk • contribs) 19:40, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi EthanyRouge, welcome to the Teahouse. There are only the template documentation pages you may have seen like Template:Ahnentafel and Template:Tree chart. Editors often look for working code in an existing article and adapt it for their purpose. If you save your code at the "Sandbox" link at top of any page then we can see what is wrong. If you have only tried [10] then I'm afraid it's too confused to guess what you are trying to do. VisualEditor seems poorly suited for this. Try the source editor. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:03, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Reverting an edit based on POV

What should be my action, if an editor reverts my edit which had WP:RS citation with her/his own generalized phrases based on his POV which doesn't improve the section in the article much? TIA. Santoshdts (talk) 20:12, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

@Santoshdts: Start a discussion on the article's talk page. Don't start a edit war. See WP:BRD. RudolfRed (talk) 20:28, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

RudolfRed Thanks for reply, currently in discussion stage. I hope some better content emerge. Santoshdts (talk) 20:57, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Was the main page of Wikipedia ever vandalized by administrators?

Has this happened before?   ApChrKey   ^Talk 21:34, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

@ApChrKey: No. Then again, why would trusted editors vandalize? LPS and MLP Fan (Littlest Pet Shop) (My Little Pony) 21:38, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

@LPS and MLP Fan: But what if they slowly work to gain support and then vandalise the main page?   ApChrKey   ^Talk 21:43, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

@ApChrKey: I don’t think so. If you have any other questions, feel free to ask me or another host. LPS and MLP Fan (Littlest Pet Shop) (My Little Pony) 21:46, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

See also WP:DDMP. YorkshireLad  ✿  ^(talk) 21:51, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

@LPS and MLP Fan: I hope this question doesn't permanently end my chances of becoming an administrator.   ApChrKey   ^Talk 21:52, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Don’t worry; you are fine as long as you make helpful edits to the encyclopedia. LPS and MLP Fan (Littlest Pet Shop) (My Little Pony) 21:53, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

LPS and MLP Fan, if you don't know the answer to a question leave it for someone else to answer, don't just make things up. To give the actual answer, yes, it's happened surprisingly often, particularly in the early days of Wikipedia, although in more recent instances it's tended to be the result of admin accounts having their passwords compromised rather than the more traditional "admin flouncing out after an argument". (This is one of the primary reasons we now enforce strong passwords.) It hasn't happened for almost a year; the last instance was on 24 March 2019. We've also surprisingly often had admins accidentally cut-and-paste material onto the Main Page when it was intended for somewhere else, such as here, while Maxim managed to accidentally delete the main page altogether once. ‑ Iridescent 21:57, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

@Iridescent: Another question... Why are some vandalism edits deleted from the page history of a page? They are grey and cannot be viewed.   ApChrKey   ^Talk 22:02, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

@ApChrKey: See Wikipedia:Revision deletion. It doesn't have to be due to vandalism. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:05, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

As the policy on redaction (revision deletion) explains, there are several reasons for it, that include some copyright violations and some BLP violations. Vandalism is not usually redacted in this fashion unless it is considered to be "purely disruptive", which is something of a judgment call. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:14, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia citation bot....?

Hello Wikipedians, Would you please provide with example usage of the citation bot via the webpage link below? https://tools.wmflabs.org/citations/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Citation_bot/use I have tried it, but faced with THE error message and no result. If you kindly answer my inquiry, Please add my ID Goodtiming8871 in your reply and I can see notification via email Kind Regards, Goodtiming8871 (talk) 00:42, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Greetings @Goodtiming8871:. Note: I am not an experienced editor. I used the citation bot on a single page. This is a link to the diff. You can see in the diff that, for this page at this time, it only normalized letter casing of isbn. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Backpacking_(hiking)&curid=854046&diff=945942998&oldid=943718539&diffmode=source —¿philoserf? (talk) 02:47, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

WikiProject Directory

I notice this list has not been updated since February 20. (Wikipedia:WikiProject Directory/All) Is that normal? I ask because I am waking up a WikiProject and care that the information about it is correct. I also noticed that this possibly related page hasn't been updated in 4 years while the bot’s page says it is still active. (Wikipedia:WikiProject Directory/Description/WikiProject Backpacking) —¿philoserf? (talk) 01:17, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Contacting an editor who edited my draft

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Etymology_of_Chicago&action=edit
A simpler link: Draft:Etymology of Chicago (added by CiaPan (talk) 12:33, 17 March 2020 (UTC))

Hello... How can I find the contact info for the person(s) who edited my draft, so I can contact them and discuss their review. Thanks Carl J. Weber (talk) 02:31, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi Carl J. Weber. What you can do is go to the drafts page and near the top you should see a "View history" tab. This is the page's history and if you click on you be able to see a record of every person/account who edited the draft. All you will need to do is find the person you want to contact and then click on their user name. This will take you to their user page, and all you need to do then is go to their user talk page (look for the "Talk" tab) and then post your message.

Finally, I noticed something the last time you posted at the Teahouse that seems to have happened once again. When you want to start a completely new discussion at the Teahouse or on any other talk page, the easiest thing to do is to scroll to the very top of the page and click on "New section" (since the Teahouse is for geared towards new editors, there's also a big blue button at the top that says "Click here to ask a question" that does the same things). When you click on "New section" a new window will open and you can post your comment. Make sure to try and add a "Subject/headline" and then click "Publish changes" when you're rading to post. This will ensure that the thread is put in the correct place on the talk page, etc. It kind of looks like you're either clicking "Edit" at the top of the page or scrooling down to the very last thread on the bottom of the page and clicking "Edit" for that thread. You can do those things if you like, but you then will have to make sure you properly format you post, add a headline/heading, etc. because the software will not do it for you. If, on the other hand, you want to add a new comment to an already existing discussion thread, then you shouldn't click "New section", but rather just the "Edit" button for the particular thread and then add your comment. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:54, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Help - In reference 13

{{Tl|cite web|url=http://sbcihq.in/d-p-burma-memorial-lecture-award/D. P. BURMA MEMORIAL LECTURE AWARD

I am trying to create this link, but why this - cite web/url is visible in reference.

Shruti Malaker (talk) 05:04, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Shruti Malaker, You didn't close the template at the end with the }}. Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 05:45, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi Shruti Malaker. You can found out more about the formatting of the "cite web" template at Template:Cite web, but it looks like you're leaving out some important parameters and that's what's causing the url to be displayed in the citation.

One of the more basic formats of a "cite web" template looks like this: <ref>{{cite web|last=|first=|url=|title=|date=|website=|access-date=}}</ref>. You should try and fill as many of these parameters as you can for the citation to be displayed properly.

What you've formatted above looks like

<ref>{{cite web|last=|first=|url=ttp://sbcihq.in/d-p-burma-memorial-lecture-award/D. P. BURMA MEMORIAL LECTURE AWARD|title=|date=|website=|access-date=}}</ref>

and that's leaving some important paramters empty. In particular, you seemed to have unintentionally combined the "url" paramter and "title" paramters together so that no "title" is being displayed in the citation. So, try formating the template like

<ref>{{cite web|last=|first=|url=http://sbcihq.in/d-p-burma-memorial-lecture-award/|title=D. P. Burma Memorial Lecture Award|date=|website=|access-date=}]</ref>

and see if that resolves the problem you're having. The meanings of the other paramters like "last" and "access-date" are explained on the template's documetation page; you're not required to use them all, but generally the more you can complete the better. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:04, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

P. BURMA MEMORIAL LECTURE AWARD http://sbcihq.in/d-p-burma-memorial-lecture-award/D. P. BURMA MEMORIAL LECTURE AWARD Check |url= value (help). Missing or empty |title= (help)

I put code }} in the last but now it is showing as - value (help). Missing or empty |title= (help)

Shruti Malaker (talk) 05:58, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

@Shruti Malaker: Put D. P. BURMA MEMORIAL LECTURE AWARD Check after the parameter |title=.

Please don't make a new section to reply; edit under your question heading so that we can keep everything in the same section. --Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 06:05, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Help - In reference 13

I did so many changes, but unable to do it.

http://sbcihq.in/d-p-burma-memorial-lecture-award. Missing or empty |title= (help)

Shruti Malaker (talk) 07:04, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

References

Hello Shruti Malaker, I have fixed it for you. If you are having trouble getting the hang of it, there should be a "cite" button at the top of the editing window. You can use that one. For most cases, you can simply choose automatic, provide the url and it will make the citation for you. In some cases when it fails, you can go to the "manual" tab and fill in the details. Best, Usedtobecool ☎️ 07:20, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Help - In reference 13

http://sbcihq.in/d-p-burma-memorial-lecture-award. Missing or empty |title= (help)

Thanks for your modification in reference 13. But the problem is still there.

Shruti Malaker (talk) 07:34, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Shruti Ji, please stop creating a new discussion every time you reply. Instead, please find the thread of the continuing discussion to reply. I am not seeing the error. Please refresh the article and if it persists, provide further details as to where and when you are seeing the error message. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 08:00, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Question by Phatman2045

how to edit — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phatman2045 (talk • contribs) 05:17, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia and welcome to the Teahouse, Phatman2045! To get started editing, I suggest looking over Help:Introduction to get an understanding for how to edit. I'm also going to leave you a message on your talk page with some more information about Wikipedia that might be helpful for you. If you have any more questions, please feel free to ask away! OhKayeSierra (talk) 05:24, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Help with archiving sources

Hello! I use a lot of different news articles in my edits and would like to get some help where I can find proper guidelines regarding archiving sources. Other editors have been adding archives to some of my sources and it feels like it could be helpful for me if I could do that myself also. Would really appreciate if someone could give me some guidelines regarding this matter! Thank you in advance :) Zandor (talk) 07:10, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

DariuZzandor, see Help:Archiving a source, and/or give User:IABot a try. Best, Usedtobecool ☎️ 08:08, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Usedtobecool Perfect, thank you very much, will check them out! Zandor (talk) 08:16, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Peer reviewing articles

How long does an article usually take to get peer reviewed? I'm fairly new to the process as I listed an article of mine just over a month ago and it hasn't gained any traction. WDM10 (talk) 08:39, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

WDM10 It can take many weeks, sometimes months, as we're all volunteers here, doing what we can when we can. 331dot (talk) 08:50, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. WDM10 (talk) 08:51, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

How to get permission to translate and link protected articles

I have translated a protected article but I can't link the newly translated page with the original one. How do I get permission to do that? Kidus (talk) 10:58, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, Kidus, I don't understand what you are asking. Interlanguage links are usually handled in Wikidata, and as far as I know there's no question of permissions there. Please explain exactly what you are trying to do, and what happens when you try. --ColinFine (talk) 11:44, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

I translated this article (which is a protected article) into this. But the language link wasn't automatically added (as it is for non-protected articles). When I try to manually link it, I get an error saying I do not have the necessary permissions to do so. Sorry if this is not the place to ask this. Kidus (talk) 12:17, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

T'ena Yest'illiñ, Kidus. You'll have to ask at am-wiki: this is nothing to do with en-wiki. I very much doubt that it's anything to do with the article being protected here, but I may be wrong. As far as I can see, 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic is already linked to am:2019-20 ኮሮናቫይረስ ወረርሽኝ, via d:Q81068910. --ColinFine (talk) 13:27, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Strikethrough in edit history

I removed an unnecessary merge propsal tag on 3 articles. One article shows this removal as a strikethrough in the article's edit history. What does this mean? You can't even see the edit, although the edit was fine, and the tag was removed. The edit occurs in the other 2 articles. There was a merge tag before my edit, and no merge tag after my edit, so what's this about that my edit doesn't show as a regular edit with diff? There was copyrighted text removed, but my edit was not to copytighted text, and my edit staye, and it should be in the history.

21:09, 28 April 2019 diff hist  -79‎  Remote sensing ‎ no rationale or discussion attempted

This is the edit. Thanks, Farm lenses (talk) 11:13, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Hey, welcome to Wikipedia! Your revision (the page after your edit) contained copyrighted text, even though you weren't the person that added the text. To protect against copyright claims, all revisions that include copyrighted texts are deleted. This is not a warning or whatever to you, just some maintenance. As you can see, all revisions with the text were deleted, until the edit by Kees08, which is the first revision since the addition of the copyrighted material that no longer includes the text. --MrClog (talk) 11:33, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

I understand the copyrighted text, but my revision was done. I removed the merge tag, and the merge tag stayed removed. My revision did not deal with the copyrighted text. All that's done hy hiding my revision as if it hadn't been made is hiding the history of an actual edit. This is my concern, that an actual accepted edit is hidden. Farm lenses (talk) 12:04, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

There are multiple edits not attached to their editor in the history. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Remote_sensing&type=revision&diff=928435760&oldid=868174959 Farm lenses (talk) 12:08, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

@Farm lenses:, all versions of the page that contain copyrighted text will be hidden when revision-deletion is done. This means all edits, good or bad, to versions of the page that already included copyrighted material will be hidden. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 12:10, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

@Farm lenses: The whole page at the time is displayed below a diff, e.g. in [11]. There is no system to examine whether the diff itself could be displayed without revealing information which should be hidden. Such a system would be complicated and require a lot of work for the editors who make revision deletion, like carefully checking every diff during the time. A diff can be made to any edit and a diff to a blank page would always show everything so a hypothetical system would also have to only permit a diff to the previous revision. But history merges and other events can change the previous revision, and changes to the diff software can cause diffs to display different content, so the diff would have to be "frozen" when an editor has checked it. A lot of work with a lot of room for errors where hidden content leaks out. By the way, I recommend always saying in the edit summary when you add or remove tags, e.g. Remove {{merge to|Remote sensing|date=October 2018}}, no rationale or discussion attempted. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:07, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

an edit attributed to me, I didn't do?

I went to the site to look for pummelo, and got a notice that there was a message for me. Huh? I have never "inputted" a thing to Wikipedian I simply don't have knowledge worth posting there. <G> Then, when I clicked on this "message", I was told that and edit the bot figured came from me was taken down. Then, there was an actual "warning", with a long number behind it. What?!? It was supposed to be about Queen, Lambert, as I recall. I hear of this subject for the very first time when reading the warning message. What gives? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.35.188.15 (talk) 13:02, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

You will see that the message is from 2017. At the foot of your user talk page it should be displaying the message in MediaWiki:Anontalkpagetext, explaining that yours is an IP address which may be shared. The contributions from that IP address are shown at Special:Contributions/72.35.188.15. To avoid seeing messages which may not relate to your own edits it is wise to create an account. --David Biddulph (talk) 13:10, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) User:72.35.188.15, hi! I see the edit; it was made in 2017. When you're editing without being logged in, your edits are logged under your IP address; ISPs sometimes recycle these and give them to new people, and you'll have a different one when you use a different computer, say. If you don't wish to edit Wikipedia, you don't need to worry as long as you aren't actually making the edits, though you can avoid them by creating an account, which has other benefits. It's also recommended if you decide you would like to edit—it doesn't have to be about having knowledge that's not on here, as there are lots of ways to contribute. See the tutorial for more on that. YorkshireLad  ✿  ^(talk) 13:11, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

How to see contributions of blocked user?

I was wondering what contributions this user made: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:NEOWIZ_Global

but i cannot find a way to view it, unlike if i try to view contributions for most users.