Jump to content

Wikipedia:Teahouse: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
→‎Rishabh Jain: Replying to 122.161.66.229 (using reply-link)
Pilot333 (talk | contribs)
→‎Rejected drafts: new section
Line 685: Line 685:
: Welcome to the Teahouse, {{u|Paulwingle}} Your submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article they don't show significant coverage about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. [[User:Theroadislong|Theroadislong]] ([[User talk:Theroadislong|talk]]) 20:55, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
: Welcome to the Teahouse, {{u|Paulwingle}} Your submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article they don't show significant coverage about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. [[User:Theroadislong|Theroadislong]] ([[User talk:Theroadislong|talk]]) 20:55, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
:: (edit conflict) {{u|Paulwingle}} Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. It actually is not accurate to say that Wikipedia("we") is "the source of unique and relevant information". Wikipedia is not for merely providing information. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia; as an encyclopedia, Wikipedia summarizes what independent [[WP:RS|reliable sources]] with significant coverage state about article subjects that meet Wikipedia's special definition of [[WP:N|notability]]. The sources you have provided don't seem to have significant coverage of the subject, just brief mentions. [[User:331dot|331dot]] ([[User talk:331dot|talk]]) 20:57, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
:: (edit conflict) {{u|Paulwingle}} Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. It actually is not accurate to say that Wikipedia("we") is "the source of unique and relevant information". Wikipedia is not for merely providing information. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia; as an encyclopedia, Wikipedia summarizes what independent [[WP:RS|reliable sources]] with significant coverage state about article subjects that meet Wikipedia's special definition of [[WP:N|notability]]. The sources you have provided don't seem to have significant coverage of the subject, just brief mentions. [[User:331dot|331dot]] ([[User talk:331dot|talk]]) 20:57, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

== Rejected drafts ==

Are rejected drafts allowed to be resubmitted? Is there a difference between rejected and declined? What is the procedure to applying suggested edits to a rejected draft? [[User:Pilot333|Pilot333]] ([[User talk:Pilot333|talk]]) 22:24, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Revision as of 22:24, 10 April 2020

Skip to top
Skip to bottom

Lucien Thévet page

I've now removed the direct external links from the body of the text and consigned them to the footnote section. But I'm not sure why there is the comment [edit source] next to the Discography, Pedagogical Works, and Notes and references section. If there is some problem with the formatting, it would be helpful to know specifically what that is. Thanks! Corniste6367 (talk) 20:35, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy: Draft:Lucien Thévet. David notMD (talk) 22:53, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Corniste6367: That's not an indication of something wrong – it's just a link to edit that section (as opposed to the entire article). —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 03:54, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. The "edit source" links allow other editors to make improvements to the article. I've just made a couple of minor improvements myself. Maproom (talk) 08:54, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Previous page names

Where can I find the previous page names for any page? For example, I know the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic article wasn't called that in the beginning, it had a couple of names like 2019-20 Wuhan pneumonia outbreak, but I only know that from studying the topic from the beginning. How can someone look at the previous names of any article or page?

47.152.145.95 (talk) 20:42, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Put the current page name into Special:Log/move. ~~ Alex Noble/1-2/TRB 21:33, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Alex Noble, that's what I was going to say, but I tried that and it doesn't work. It looks as if special:log/move only accepts the original name of a move, and tell you about only moves from that exact name. So I can put "2019-2020 China pneumonia outbreak" in and it tells me it was moved to "2019–20 China pneumonia outbreak", but putting "2019–20 coronavirus pandemic" in gives nothing, because that page hasn't been moved to anything else. --ColinFine (talk) 21:39, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@ColinFine: There are entries made in the page history, e.g., Special:Diff/934292955 edit summary says "UnitedStatesian moved page 2019-2020 China pneumonia outbreak to 2019–20 China pneumonia outbreak: move to consistent title". Most of it (except for the ": move to consistent title") is, I think, generated automatically by the move page, so you can search page history for "moved page". Of course, with pages like that with many thousands of edits, that can be slow. There's probably a more technical solution (like an API/database query). Somewhere, there's a somewhat user-friendly way of running those, with a library of common useful queries available. Maybe try asking at WP:VPT. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 21:36, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Page for an Actor Declined

Notabilty, Actors

I wrote an article for a Thai actor named Mew Suppasit. It was just declined for failing the guidelines of "actor notability" according to wiki staff reviewers. I am confused as to why tho? The actor is quite famous in Thailand and throughout Asia. His drama has garnered an international fanbase, he recently reached 1M IG followers, acted in 4 dramas, several commercials, in-demand. So can someone please explain to me how that isn't significant? Is there something I am doing wrong? Thebriandez (talk) 01:34, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thebriandez, did you read WP:NACTOR? Did you provide reliable sources that demonstrate that your subject pass those criteria? GirthSummit (blether) 06:44, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I just took a look at the draft. I think the problem is the sourcing - lots of TV schedules, no actual coverage of the subject himself. Can you find any reliable, independent sources that discuss him? GirthSummit (blether) 06:50, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there are 2 articles (both in Thai and from the same source) talking about him. When I looked at a similar actor in his field on Wikipedia, they referenced similar articles. So is that not enough? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thebriandez (talkcontribs) 05:12, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have revised my draft, added more and in my opinion, better sources. I am hoping this will help get my article approved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thebriandez (talkcontribs) 07:35, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ugh... tip of my toung

this is probably not alowed here, but i am trying to recall the name of a wikisoftware - asumming its based on mediawiki. i can only remember 5 things about it 1. it was semi personal. you cold request a wiki 2.had a beehive like logo 3. looked build on metia wiki 4. might have sing in withwikipedia 5. probably open source any ideas? thanks 24.91.137.184 (talk) 02:53, 8 April 2020 (UTC) 24.91.137.184 (talk) 02:53, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe these MediaWiki or WikiApiary. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 04:17, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Based on the logo, it sounds like you are after Miraheze ~~ Alex Noble/1-2/TRB 08:25, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Editing clarification

 – Section header created by Tenryuu. --Tenryuu 🐲💬 • 📝) 05:55, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I need clarification with editing; i'm not sure if i understand what is expected of me.

Thank you, Peggy APSME.OKU (talk) 04:57, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@APSME.OKU: Please create a new section when asking a new question. If you're looking for an interactive tutorial to using Wikipedia, why not try out WP:TWA? --Tenryuu 🐲💬 • 📝) 05:55, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello APSME.OKU, welcome to Wikipedia! In a sentence, an editor is expected to improve the encyclopedia with each of their edits. The edit does not have to be perfect, it does not need to fix everything that might need fixing; the article should be better off with your edit than without, is all. This can mean something as simple as fixing a typo, or it could involve completely rewriting the whole article, or creating one anew, depending on the editor and their interests/mood (For you, it probably means whatever the professor has assigned you to do). Most of what's required of an editor is covered by common sense, that which isn't, you'll learn of one at a time, as someone else undoes one of your edits and leaves you a note explaining why it was not an improvement. There's tons of stuff (WP:PAG), which you can only be expected to learn as you go. The first mantras may well be, "be nice to others" and "be communicative"; the rest should follow naturally. That said, if you are feeling particularly diligent, it couldn't hurt to quickly skim through WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV before you start. Oh, and, extra care should be taken when writing about living people (WP:BLP), and, also, to not violate copyright laws (WP:COPYVIO). Think that covers the basics, Best wishes, Usedtobecool ☎️ 22:50, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Staffs in house for guiding newbies?

I met a newbie at User_talk:2001:8003:9008:1301:780A:CF5:F4B:EC87. Can someone who find it convenient to guide this new editor walkthrough Wikipedia on behalf of me? I may not have too much time to do so, that's why I come here to seek assistance. Thanks. Reciprocater (Talk) 05:05, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Reciprocater: If that user wants to create an account, they can ask to be adopted at WP:ADOPT, and they are always welcome to ask questions here or at the Help Desk. RudolfRed (talk) 15:39, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Using research in Wikipedia

I have been making Wikipedia submissions for over 10 years. In the past I was able to create articles for my small community. They are hard to support because we are very small but live in an area where there is deep history of the native Americans and along the main access to the west in Canada. Some of my submissions I have researched for hours upon hours and used the words from local people and natives. They are now being rejected because I cannot find enough online sources to support them. This is such a shame. A Killer can kill 2 people and will get a Wikipedia page, but real history is rejected and deleted because there is no online information about it. This was where I was coming to make the online information about it. I am very disappointed in the direction that Wikipedia has gone. I believe that research should be accepted before cites from news papers etc. How can I cite a historical place if there is no place to get cites from? Singlepole (talk) 05:23, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Singlepole: if you have carried out detailed research, then the answer is to get it published elsewhere, when it can be cited here. The principle that an encyclopedia is not a place to publish original research is a sound one, and won't be changed. (By the way, you wrote "online" several times above as though only online sources count. This is far from being true.) Peter coxhead (talk) 05:55, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Singlepole, welcome to the Teahouse. If you can provide reputable independent sources (online or offline) it will help get your draft approved. I'm not sure when Wikipedia's notability standards became stricter: any other hosts able to chime in? Tenryuu 🐲💬 • 📝) 05:59, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Singlepole, welcome. The way Wikipedia works is that we rely entirely on assessments done by others of a subject, in the form of reliable sources. This is how the wiki was built: anyone can edit it because you just need to be able to assess reliable sources. You do not need to be a subject matter expert. This is why we rely only on good published sources, and do not allow original research. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 06:15, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

how to edit and replace the dead links and make the changes

Hello, i am new to the Wikipedia, i want learn about editing and making changes in Wikipedia. Vishal.acquire (talk) 07:26, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vishal.acquire, the first tip I'd give you is to read COI and WP:NOTPROMO. Your edits so far suggest that you are here to add links to your website. Please don't do that. GirthSummit (blether) 07:51, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

no, i do not want to add my own links, i just want to learn how it works and how i can make the changes if any link shows 404 error or page does not exist — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vishal.acquire (talkcontribs) 08:00, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to explain using one of your edits as an example. A reference in a Wikipedia article serves one purpose only: to verify the information in the article. The article Automation and the Future of Jobs describes a documentary film. One of the references is a dead link; the information that is verified by that reference is the time when the film was first broadcast on television. Here you changed that link so that it pointed to a website that has nothing to do with the documentary – the film is not mentioned on the website at all, so it follows that it doesn't verify the information about the broadcast. This is a form of reference spamming – the purpose of the edit was to add that particular link, not to verify the information in the article. Hope that makes sense. --bonadea contributions talk 08:15, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
To follow up on what I said above, Vishal.acquire, in this edit I changed the reference to one that works and verifies the information. If you are able to do that kind of update (and remember that the new link must be a reliable source), feel free to do so, but if you don't know any reliable source that can verify it, please leave it be. That an URL in a reference is dead does not hurt the encyclopedia, but if the URL is changed into one that is inappropriate, it does hurt, and it creates more work for other volunteers who have to fix that later. Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 08:24, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
For context see [1]. -KH-1 (talk) 09:05, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Bonadea, thank you for sharing and letting me clear my doubts. moreover, to make changes how i can suggest and propose edits to the editors ? thank you

Vishal.acquire Please remember to sign your posts, by typing four tildes, like this: ~~~~. You can request an edit using an edit request - follow the links for instructions. GirthSummit (blether) 10:59, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Web archives - is there a guide  ?

I have seen in many articles that references are linked to web archives. I know nothing about this - ie what circumstances, why, how etc. Is there a guide of some kind that I can read to find out more about when and how to use web archiving ? Marshelec (talk) 08:31, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Marshelec, generally, any internet reference should have an archive done at the time of citing - see Help:Using the Wayback Machine for the details.
I think there is a bot that automatically archives new links added to Wikipedia additionally. ~~ Alex Noble/1-2/TRB 08:45, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your Feedback is highly appreciated as i am still new on Wiki

Dear Wiki Users, Kindly note that i want to create a page with title "yacht clubs in Lebanon" or "Oldest Yacht Club in Lebanon" and for this reason 2 draft were created one for Beirut yacht club : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Beirut_Yacht_Club and one for Lebanese yacht club: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Lebanese_Yacht_Club can you please check them and revert with your feedback in order to submit them for approval. much appreciated your kind feedback. Peace. Princesse Marissa (talk) 08:38, 8 April 2020 (UTC)Princesse Marissa[reply]

Hello, Princesse Marissa. If your goal is to create an encyclopaedia article about "yacht clubs in Lebanon" or "oldest yacht club in Lebanon", then I'nm afraid you are going about it the wrong way. You need to start by establising that that precise topic that you want to write an article about is notable in Wikipedia's sense. What reliable published sources have you found that talk at length about yacht clubs in Lebanon? If you have found some (several), then you can write an article about yacht clubs in Lebanon, and you do not need to create articles about individual clubs first. If you cannot find any such sources, then the subject is not notable, and you cannot write an acceptable article, irrespective of whether there are articles on individual clubs. And what you absolutely should not do is to create articles about the clubs, and then try to use the information about the individual clubs to create an article about the clubs in general: that would be original research.
My guess is that "yacht clubs in Lebanon" may well be a notable topic - there may be books, or significant articles about the subject. I would be very surprised if there were a book, or more than maybe one article in a magazine, on the topic of "the oldest yacht clubs in Lebanon", so I doubt if that topic is notable.
Looking at one of your individual articles, it does not appear to me that Draft:Beirut Yacht Club has any references that are both independent of the club, and substantial, so they do not establish notability. Please see WP:CSMN. --ColinFine (talk) 10:33, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dear ColinFine (talk), Thank you very much for your reply and have checked WP:CSMN.

regarding Draft:Beirut Yacht Club it still lack references and i am working in that issue and i think it will take sometimes before finding the approved references.

for the other Draft Draft:Lebanese Yacht Clubcan you please just give your feedback in it?

my idea is to create category with the name: Yacht Club in Lebanon

and once articles are approved i.e. Draft:Lebanese Yacht Club i will list is in the Category.. am i on the right track? Peace. Princesse Marissa (talk) 10:52, 8 April 2020 (UTC)Princesse Marissa[reply]

Hello, Princesse Marissa. I don't understand your fixation with the category. Categories are a way to help people navigate Wikipedia, nothing more. It is high-quality articles which make the encyclopaedia. I am not going to look at the BYC draft right now - maybe later today. --ColinFine (talk) 11:24, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Dear ColinFine ColinFine (talk),

you are right, i am trying to provide strong sources for both articles to be high-quality and approved. may i kindly ask you to take a look when you have time to (Lebanese Yacht club) Draft, i need an expert opinion as i am still very new here and i am trying to learn and understand things ... the (Beirut Yacht Club) BYC article still needs some resources... wish you a very pleasant afternoon or maybe eve at yours. Princesse Marissa (talk) 11:44, 8 April 2020 (UTC)Princesse Marissa[reply]

How to insert draft articles for the main article when they're complete

I created an article about Merle Norman Cosmetics after I saw strangely there wasn't one [link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:CTR117/Merle_Norman_Cosmetics ], and I can't figure out how to insert it to be the main article. CTR117 (talk) 09:47, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello CTR117! In WP-language, that's not an article, that's a draft.
However, in it's current form, it will not be accepted, you can't source it mainly to their own website. See WP:GNG, HELP:YFA and WP:NORG. Good luck! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:36, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Hello, CTR117, and welcome to the Teahouse. I have added a header to your draft which includes a "submit" button, to submit the draft for review. But as Theroadislong says in a comment, the draft has no chance of being accepted at present because it is based on what the company says, not what independent commentators say. Please see WP:CSMN. --ColinFine (talk) 10:42, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I cleaned up the draft Draft:Merle Norman Cosmetics, but did not look to see if the remaining refs (the ones not to the company's own website) establish notability. Goal is quality (at least a few refs that are at-length content about the company) over quantity. David notMD (talk) 12:59, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Creating a biography

I need a help to create biography page. Lakshika rodrigo (talk) 11:48, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Lakshika rodrigo. Writing a WP-article that is accepted is difficult, especially if you don't now much about the "rules" involved, but if your topic is WP:NOTABLE as WP defines it, it can be done. Start with reading Help:Your first article carefully. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:05, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Understanding if these are acceptable sources.

Hello there,

I recently had an article declined about a woman, who I think is phenomenal. Quick context, I learned about her work in class, heard her speak at an event, and after seeing so many articles on Google & wikipedia about her, thought she should have her own wikipedia page. I am excited to learn how to make this article better.

So, these are just a few of the sources I found about her that aren't directly from her company's website. I'm hoping you can help me understand which of these types of citations meet the secondary source criteria? Thank you for your help ^_^

Ripple, Inc

WilmerHale Wins Case Against Abortion

Stanford University Center for International Security and Cooperation

Interviews with Fox News, MSNBC, Bloomberg, etc

Aspen Institute appoints Anja Manuel as Director 2019crisissimus2 (talk) 14:52, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2019crisissimus2, hi. All of these sources seem to be affiliated with the subject, and as such they are not ideal, and would not contribute towards Wikipedia's concept of notability. What you are looking for are sources which are reliable, which are independent of the subject, and which are secondary rather than primary. If you can find a few such sources that cover the subject in significant depth (not just a passing mention), then an article could be written. Good luck GirthSummit (blether) 15:01, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just to expand on that - she is a director of Ripple; she was on the WilmerHale litigation team that article is about; she is an 'affiliate' at Standford (which is why they have a biog about her); that's her own YouTube channel; she's a director at Aspen. They're all directly affiliated sources. What you need are entirely independent sources. GirthSummit (blether) 15:04, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, 2019crisissimus2. You might find common sourcing mistakes helpful. --ColinFine (talk) 18:38, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

rejected article

Hi, my article on Rena Dumas has been rejected for not having verifiable sources. These are the same sources that are fine in French ... what can I do? Thanks Pollymagoo (talk) 18:55, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It was declined rather than rejected. What you need to do is to find and add reliable sources to demonstrate the notability of the subject. The French Wikipedia has its own standards, which are not relevant here on the English Wikipedia. --David Biddulph (talk) 19:01, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Help with getting published

Hello! I had recently tried to get an article published because it is part of a graded assignment for my english class. However, my request was rejected because it was marked "contrary to the use of Wikipedia" (or something along those lines, sorry) and was considered "an uncensored advertisment". The assignment is due today so I really need to get it published; I am willing to make the corrections needed in order to do so! Agwarnock (talk) 20:08, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your tutor has given you an unreasonable task. Tell him/her to read Wikipedia:Student assignments. --David Biddulph (talk) 20:12, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The same question was also answered at this page.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 21:26, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
and also here too. Theroadislong (talk) 21:31, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That the company exists does not make it notable. David notMD (talk) 22:32, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

subject of a page is not supposed to be the author?

From what I understand, the subject of a page is not supposed to be the author. Is this correct? Tunesmth (talk) 20:51, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tunesmth, that is correct, see WP:AUTO and WP:COI. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:11, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Visual Editor

May I know why was the Visual Editing option removed from Wikipedia please? AlAzhar 21:09, 8 April 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alazhars (talkcontribs)

Alazhars, afaict VE is still with us. Did you perhaps disable it in your own "Preferences" somehow? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:14, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Alazhars: We still have the Visual Editor; just uncheck the "Temporarily disable the visual editor while it is in beta" in Preferences → Editing → Editor. --Tenryuu 🐲💬 • 📝) 21:39, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I believe it is only available to editing articles, not for talk pages or anything else. What page are you trying to use it on? RudolfRed (talk) 01:27, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Question

 – This header was created by Tenryuu. --Tenryuu 🐲💬 • 📝) 21:39, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

how can i put an on wikipedia 41.210.145.65 (talk) 21:16, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What is your question? --Tenryuu 🐲💬 • 📝) 21:39, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How to get a page published

I've finished editing my page and everything appears to be in good order. I clicked the publish button on the bottom of the edit page but am uncertain as to the current status. Can you help me to understand what is the next step. Bobw7165 (talk) 21:29, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bobw7165 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Please be aware that "Publish changes" should be interpreted to mean "Save changes". It does not mean "publish what you wrote to the encyclopedia". You have only saved what you wrote, you have not submitted it for a review yet. I will shortly add the appropriate information for you to do so, but if you were to submit it now, it would most likely be declined, as you offer no independent reliable sources with significant coverage to support its content. Wikipedia articles only summarize what independent reliable sources say about subjects that meet Wikipedia's special definition of notability(in this case, the definition of a notable academic, please review). Please read Your First Article for more information. 331dot (talk) 21:45, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

assistance requested

I submitted my first entry and it was rejected with the notation (ADV/BIO) which I understand to mean advertising and not notable biography. Please let me know if I am incorrect. If that is the case, and I understand notability is somewhat driven by independent news coverage of a subject, is it a lack of diverse citations that leads to this or is a wider search done by the reviewer? Any tips for improving the evidence of notability or do I simply make peace with the fact that this is more of a regional author/expert and give it up? Thanks for any thoughts. Whirly12 (talk) 21:37, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Whirly12, and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm afraid that this is a common experience of new editors who plunge straight into the extremely difficult task of creating a new article before they have spent time learning how Wikipedia works by making small improvements to existing articles for a few months. Put simply: Wikipedia has little interest in what a subject says about themselves, or what their associates or institutions say about them; and absolutely no interest in how they would wish to be presented. A Wikipedia article should be a neutral (neither for nor against the subject, or any source) summary of what several people who have no connection whatever with the subject have chosen to publish about them (and been published by reputable publishers). If you can find at least three such sources, you can write an article based almost 100% on what those sources say. If you cannot, then the subject fails to meet Wikipedia's criteria of notability, and no article on them will be accepted, however it it written. I haven't looked at your sources, but from their titles and origins it does not look as if a single one of them is independent of Mona. Since you have no independent sources, it is unsurprising that the text of the draft is not neutral, but struck the reviewer as advertising. Please read your first article, and WP:CSMN.
One more point: when a new editor goes straight into creating an article about a person or an organisation, it is very often the case that they have some connection to that subject. If you are connected with Mona, please familiarise yourself with the advice on editing with a conflict of interest. Further, if you are in any way employed or paid by him, please also read about paid editing, and make the mandatory declarations. --ColinFine (talk) 22:17, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Courtesy: Draft is Draft:David L. Mona. David notMD (talk) 22:34, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Whirly12, As a note: you should have gotten a longer explanatory message than that, but your reviewer accidentally typed their feedback in the wrong box, so it didn't create the right templates. Hope that explains the short review. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! 22:39, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

got it, thanks. Understandable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whirly12 (talkcontribs) 22:41, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Whirly12 - I made some edits to merge the refs and correct the syntax, but the article is going to need to be rewritten to be less promotional, including removing way too specific biographical items. In addition, there will need to be better sourcing. Please read the basic notability criteria for biographies of living people at Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 22:46, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vampire Balls?

I am interested in writing an article on the Vampire Ball of Los Angeles. There appear to be adequate sources which discuss the subject in depth, but it turns out there are actually several events around the country themed "vampire ball", and I don't want the LA event to be confused with them. Neither, however, do I want to write 10 articles on vampire balls! Since there are currently no articles called "Vampire Ball", should I just create the LA one under that title and wait for others to disambiguate it from that one if/ when articles on the other balls are written? Or should I call it Vampire Ball (Los Angeles)" even though there are no other articles called "Vampire Ball" yet? A loose necktie (talk) 22:02, 8 April 2020 (UTC) A loose necktie (talk) 22:02, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@A loose necktie: - you can call it Vampire Ball since you are the first, but I think you're going to have a hard time demonstrating notability with media coverage. It's not even the first Vampire Ball that shows up on Wikipedia. I could only find this from the defunct LA Weekly. [2]. I was going to suggest dding it to the LA Globe article, but that was just a draft that was abandoned. You could request a WP:REFUND of the draft content and go from there, with this info to be added [3] [4] [5]. Good luck. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 22:20, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
When did the LA Weekly become defunct?? They were still publishing articles as of this morning! A loose necktie (talk) 23:44, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You're right - I knew the OC Weekly was shut down and thought it was the same company. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 00:40, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why did my page get rejected?

Why did my page get rejected? I wrote a biography about myself under Bennettheyn/sandbox. Here is what I wrote. (redacted) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bennettheyn (talkcontribs) 22:49, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bennettheyn Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Your draft was deleted as a blatant advertisement for both you and your company. Please understand that Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell about themselves. Wikipedia only summarizes what independent reliable sources state about article subjects that meet Wikipedia's special definition of notability. Please read the autobiography policy to learn more about why writing about yourself on Wikipedia is not advisable, and you should also review conflict of interest.
I removed your draft from here as this is not the place for it. I can see it as an administrator even though it was deleted. 331dot (talk) 22:52, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

need 2nd perspective isnt this a run-on sentence

am i wrong that this is a run-on sentence? maybe im wrong about the term, but this sentence seems convoluted.

It is based on the DC Comics character Batwoman, a costumed crime-fighter created by Geoff Johns, Grant Morrison, Greg Rucka, Mark Waid, and Keith Giffen, and is set in the Arrowverse, sharing continuity with the other television series of the universe.

Any suggestions on how to improve? ToeFungii (talk) 23:58, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ToeFungii: It's a bit long. You could just change it to:
It is based on the DC Comics character Batwoman, a costumed crime-fighter created by Geoff Johns, Grant Morrison, Greg Rucka, Mark Waid, and Keith Giffen. It is set in the Arrowverse, sharing continuity with the other television series of the universe.
TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 00:37, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Now if i can ask a follow-up.ive noticed a lot of wiki has long sentences which i understand because people add info but sometimes dont think about readability. problem is i tried to change the sentence and another user reversed me saying its not a runon sentence (ive looked up runon sent and id say this is just an overly long sent as Tim said.been long time since english class). ive seen a lot of contentiousness on pages with some users acting as stone. i dont want to just make another change because im certain this user will likely simply undo it again, so what is one to do with an obvious problem but faces a user that feels status quo is right? as am fyi the page is Batwoman TV series.ToeFungii (talk) 00:44, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ToeFungii: I'd say if you think it sounds better and change it, and someone reverts it, don't sweat it and move on - there's plenty more that needs to be fixed. This type of runon is borderline acceptable. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 02:43, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Should "Plantscape" be an AfD?

Hi, I'm pretty new and was looking to de-orphan articles and came across Plantscape which, upon further inspection, might be a valid candidate for deletion. All of its seven citations are dead, and I could find few mentions of it of much substance outside its own website. I think it might have been made as a way to add prestige to a brand, though it is a neutral article now. A second opinion and some advice would be appreciated. Trevey-On-Sea (talk) 23:58, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I entirely agree.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 00:24, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Trevey-On-Sea: Plantscape is another term for interior landscape, which is notable per [[6]] and [[7]]. I'd just rewrite this article to be about interior landscaping, keep the title as plantscape, and not even bother with the AfD. Stub it if you don't want to put too much time into it. If anyone protests who doesn't have a COI, then you can AfD it. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 00:35, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Timtempleton: I'm start a draft of "Interior Landscaping" but Plantscape just seems like such a specific word, more used in company names than in general parlance. I suppose General parLance must be a cavalry officer. Trevey-On-Sea (talk) 00:58, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Trevey-On-Sea: You could then turn plantscaping into a redirect to an interior landscaping article. I thought about adding interior landscaping as part of landscaping, but the landscaping article says it's outside only and that seemed to be a hill not worth dying on, whether we controlled General Parlance's or General Parking's armies. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 02:36, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Timtempleton: I wasn't sure if Interior Landscaping was actually important enough for a page so I left a question about adding a section on interior landscaping to interior design's talk page, I'll add it there if no one pops up with a better idea, here or there. Let us hope for a peaceful end to the Grammar-Municipal government conflict. Trevey-On-Sea (talk) 02:56, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why did I get reverted?

I was asked by Yebba's management to make updates to her Wikipedia page because there were clear errors and inconsistencies. I spent hours making changes only to then have the whole thing reverted to its original state. The only message I received was that the edits were not constructive. How can I ensure that my changes will be saved since they were approved by the actual artist management? Davidjr25 (talk) 01:04, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm adding this Yebba (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for those looking into this. MarnetteD|Talk 01:08, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Davidjr25: Information needs to come from published, reliable sources. Management approval does not play into it. Please read and follow the required disclosures at WP:COI and WP:PAID. After that, you can post suggestions on how to improve the article at the article's talk page. RudolfRed (talk) 01:26, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Davidjr25. I've added a welcome message to your user talk page that contains (blue) links to various pages that you might find helpful. Please take the time to look at them and familiarize yourself with relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines because it will help you avoid running into problems when you edit. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:36, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Who does not have COI?

Hi folks, I've read the COI pages, but need more guidance. I publish software packages. One of my packages is the subject of 3 books (2 published by Springer) and is often mentioned in papers published in professional Journals in the Medical and Educational fields. It has thousands of licensees and the freeware version has hundreds of thousands of downloads. I am often asked about it, so a Wikipedia page would be helpful. But who can write it? Me? One of the book authors? One of the paper authors? A licensed user? A freeware user? A knowledgeable competitor? I welcome your guidance. Thank you. Winsteps (talk) 02:02, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the teahouse User:Winsteps! I am assuming this is medical in nature because of what's said above. Best review Wikipedia:Conflicts of interest (medicine) and then bring a more detailed explanation on the content and your involvement at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine. WikiProject Medicine can't help determine is notability status and help find secondary sources and give guidance.--Moxy 🍁 02:37, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dates in references when you use a web archive

I have begun using a web archive to ensure that references I quote remain accessible. However, I am unsure about whether it is important to retain the accessdate parameter, as well as the archive-date parameter. Once you archive a web reference and give the archive-date, is the accessdate now irrelevant ? Here is an example I am working on: "National performance review - Residential water efficiency". Water New Zealand. Archived from the original on 9 Apr 2020. Retrieved 9 Apr 2020. Marshelec (talk) 03:24, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Marshelec, I would personally opt to retain the access date, as a page may be archived multiple times, so its good to note when you accessed the version so that someone searching the Wayback machine can find that exact version. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! 09:17, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

references are linked to Sources on Johanna Alida Coetzee, is this method should be untouched ?

its kind of confusing to me to find links on same page. however, we have multiple ways to provide references. here author using {{sfn|Scott|2007|p=2}}.

my query : is this method correct ? or it can be improved ? Leela52452 (talk) 07:55, 9 April 2020 (UTC) suggestion or critique is preferred here[reply]

Short citations are perfectly acceptable under Wikipedia's citation guidelines. Generally speaking, you need a very good reason for changing a valid style of referencing if it has already been introduced by the article's creator; here, my advice would be to leave well alone. Yunshui  10:21, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The use of shortened footnotes is one of the permitted citation styles. WP:CITEVAR says not to change an article from one style to another if the style is consistent in the article. --David Biddulph (talk) 10:18, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

New Desginer PAge

"I want to create a designer brand page. How can I do it without it sounding like a promotional page? Lavanya Venky (talk) 09:01, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lavanya Venky, For starters, are you in any way associated with the subject? If so, you ought declare a conflict of interest. If you are being paid by the subject, are an employee of them, or have been compensated in any way for your edits, you must disclose that by following the steps at WP:PAID. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! 09:14, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to write pages on Fashion Designers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lavanya Venky (talkcontribs) 09:24, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lavanya Venky, Everything on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view. I only briefly glanced at the page before it got deleted, but it was not written with formal encyclopedic tone and language. Avoid buzzwords, and language that puffs up the subject. Remember that we are an encyclopedia: we must present our subjects neutrally, and from an...almost uninterested position. We transfer knowledge about a subject, such as when it was created, not where you can buy their stuff and how much it costs. Additionally, your article was not appropriately sourced. Our articles need to be supported by reliable sources, cited inline. Again, since I can't see the deleted article, I can't give much more specific guidance at this time, unless you have particular questions. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! 10:09, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Lavanya Venky. I think you can get a big start to getting the tone right by not framing it as "a designer brand page" but as "an encyclopaedia article about this brand". --ColinFine (talk) 10:33, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Police Constable John Woodcock, Northumberland County Constabulary. Interred Ponteland Cemetary. 1868.

92.23.114.59 (talk) 09:36, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy hello, and welcome to the Teahouse! Do you have a specific question regarding this feller? If you want to make an article on them, you can use the WP:Article Wizard to draft one. You'll need to find some reliable sources that discuss their life. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! 10:15, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Someone changed her birthplace to "Hatfield" - Herfortshire stood there first. I cannot confirm this change - and i don't know what to do... leave it like this or undo or??? Maybe you find better sources than me to confirm this? I'm excusing myself already if this is a very stupid question! Kind regards, Gyanda (talk) 12:07, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Gyanda! I took that out, since it was unsourced and in a WP:BLP. If someone want to add it again, they should find a WP-acceptable ref first. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:58, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much! I translated the page for the german wikipedia and therefore i wasn't sure whether to also update the german site or not. Am happy with you! Thank you and stay safe! --Gyanda (talk) 12:59, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Help

23.176.32.1 (talk) 12:37, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My name is Shelby Kloberdanz and somebody is hacking my account please call the MCPD at 641-424-3636

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. We can't help with these kind of questions. This forum is for questions regarding using and editing Wikipedia. Interstellarity (talk) 12:49, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Editing feedback

Hi, I am new to Wikipedia. I have copyedited a few articles from the backlog page, some in parts and others in full. Do I need to inform a senior editor so that they can double-check and removed the 'Need copyediting' tag from some of these pages? How does it work? The articles are as follows: 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero_downtime_manufacturing 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_information_on_the_Internet 3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO%2FIEC_27005 4. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gurdwara_Gobind_Ghat 5. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cameraman_Gangatho_Rambabu 6. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copula_%28probability_theory%29 Thank you Earthianyogi (talk) 13:38, 9 April 2020 (UTC) 6.[reply]

Hello Earthianyogi! If you feel that you have dealt with the problem so the template is no longer necessary, you can remove it. If someone disagrees, they can reinsert it/talk to you about it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:58, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Gråbergs Gråa Sång Thank you Earthianyogi (talk) 14:18, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(Adding this anyway because I'd typed it in already, working off an older revision) Earthianyogi, if the tag accompanied a talk page note elaborating on why it was tagged, you'd best discuss it with the tagging editor first, to make sure that they too are satisfied that issues are now resolved. If not, it's like any other editing. If you think the tag doesn't apply (or doesn't apply anymore), you can remove it. There are some tags you should not remove simply because you disagree with the tagging, such as a "connected contributor" tag on an article you have considerably edited, speedy deletion tag on a page you created, etc. Copyediting tag is not one of those. On an unrelated note, Wikipedia articles can and should be linked within site as wikilinks by putting the title between a pair of large brackets, like so: [[Zero downtime manufacturing]]. Best, Usedtobecool ☎️ 14:22, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Usedtobecool Thank you Earthianyogi (talk) 16:46, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Hi, this is Shadowblade08 again. I had a quick question. (at least I hope its quick)

Is it possible for me to close a topic on my discussion page? I've seen this on article talk pages. I currently don't have anything that I want to close, but is it possible for me to do it? Thanks. Shadowblade08 (talk) 13:57, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shadowblade08, yes, you can. Usually, only editors whose talk page it is, close discussions on them; usually because the conversation is not going anywhere productive. The how of it is explained at WP:Closing. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 14:20, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A more simple process for your own Talk page is to either delete content or archive it. You have already been deleting. David notMD (talk) 16:53, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Having looked at your >100 edits to date since registering an account on 29 March, so far you have done nothing to contribute to the encyclopedia process, i.e, you have edited no articles. You have repeatedly asked questions at Teahouse and you have started discussions on editors' Talk pages. If you continue this pattern you may be blocked for not being here to help with the encyclopedia. David notMD (talk) 16:53, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize for that all being harsh. I can understand wanting Wikipedia to be like friendly chat. But its not. David notMD (talk) 21:33, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How to undo more than one edit?

The last two revisions of Noakhali riots (by the same IP address) look like they might be vandalism. How do I undo these two edits and bring the page back to the previous version?

Thanks for any help, Coldspur (talk) 14:08, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coldspur, In the history page, when you click the radio button on the revision you want to restore the page to, all subsequent revisions will appear with two radio buttons. Hitting the right one in any of the latter revisions, and clicking "Compare selected revisions", you can open a diff. You should find a "Restore to this version" option at the top of the left column. I am not sure it's certainly a vandalism; please leave an edit summary explaining the revert when you do. More, including alternative ways, at H:RV. Best, Usedtobecool ☎️ 14:40, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Usedtobecool, [restore this version] is visible only to users who have installed Twinkle after qualifying for it. Can you please ascertain this. I verified this on sandbox. Undo appears to be the only possible way to do that in 2 separate edits. --Cedix (talk) 15:04, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There is a way to do it with a single Undo, though – after clicking the round button by the revision you want to return to, hit "Compare selected revisions", and then just click "Undo". I sometimes do that if I want to leave a longer edit summary than the one automatically provided by Twinkle. --bonadea contributions talk 15:22, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Cedix, yes, seems that's true. So, Coldspur, you'd need to use "Undo" as Bonadea suggests below, until you can get Twinkle. The undo procedure is also explained at WP:UNDO, part of the help page I linked earlier. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 15:58, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've always 1) gone to the revision history, 2) clicked on the date/time stamp of the last good version, 3) clicked "edit source", 4) clicked "publish changes". --Khajidha (talk) 13:10, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible to hire someone to edit my page so that it conforms to requirements and can be published?

Is it possible to hire someone to edit my page so that it conforms to requirements and can be published? Alt4960 (talk) 15:30, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alt4960, by doing so, you'd be forcing that person to follow Wikipedia's WP:PAID guidelines, which means they'd be discouraged from editing the article themselves. Tenryuu 🐲💬 • 📝) 15:44, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Alt4960 Note that it is not "your page", but an article about you . We cannot stop you from hiring someone, but they would be required to declare that you are paying them. Please understand that Wikipedia is not interested in what someone wants to say about themselves (either directly or through a representative). Wikipedia only summarizes what independent reliable sources with significant coverage say about subjects that meet Wikipedia's special definition of notability. If you just want to tell the world about yourself, you should use social media or other forum where that is permitted.
I will add that a Wikipedia article is not necessarily desirable. There are good reasons to not want one. 331dot (talk) 15:57, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Submit a draft article

I realized that a product that can be found across the globe and that a few of us have dedicated our lives has no entry in the encyclopedia. So since we are confined to our homes, I thought to spend time to author one. How do I get my Draft:JNIOR article considered for release? What is my next step?

Bruce Bscloutier (talk) 16:05, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Bscloutier: welcome to Wikipedia and thanks for wanting to add to it. add {{subst:submit}} at the top when you are ready, and the draft will be added to the drafts awaiting review. Note that there is quite some backlog so after submitting, you will need to be patient. RudolfRed (talk) 16:15, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
But, Bscloutier, and welcome to the Teahouse. I second RudolfRed's acknowlegment to you, but I'm afraid that the answer might be "start again" (though it might not). Unfortunately, you have done what most new editors do when they have the idea of creating an article: write from what they know. Creating a new article is very difficult, and I always advise new editors to get some experience of how Wikipedia works before they try it. Wikipedia articles are not based on what you know (or I know, or any random person on the internet knows); and they aren't based on what the subject or people closely associated with the subject say about it: they are based, almost 100%, on what people who have no connection with the subject have chosen to publish about the subject. So writing an article starts with identifying reliably published sources wholly unconnected with the subject. Please have a look at your first article. --ColinFine (talk) 16:26, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Bscloutier I looked at the draft for Jnior, and while it is well written it is 95% original research. As ColinFine mentions above, we do not publish what we know. Rather, we publish a kind of summary of what we have found in reliable sources. I looked for reliable sources for Jnior, but could not find enough to establish notability. My opinion is that it is not notable enough to be included on Wikipedia. If you can find five or six newspaper or magazine article that talk abotu it in depth, then it might be a different story.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 17:47, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@ThatMontrealIP: There are no articles as there is no press. We don't even employ a salesman or someone for marketing. Yet, there are 15+ years of this item in over 55 countries in use in 1/3rd of all movie screens for example. That is not to mention all of the other places it shows up. All of this from a company of 4 or 5 people. It is both insignificant and critical at the same time. No one writes about it. They just use it and rely upon it. So the topic has to start someplace. There is some evidence of it but presenting those references would more appropriate in a sales piece. I hope that with this Draft:JNIOR article just to document that it exists and what it is. Especially since I am uncertain whether or not we will survive this pandemic. Bscloutier (talk) 18:48, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Bscloutier: in that case, since we rely on articles published in the news, magazines or books, the subject would not be notable. Sorry, but that is the way we have built this encyclopedia. Arduino is a good comparator here: since there are hundreds of published articles about it, we have an article for it. Finally, you also appear to have a strong conflict of interest. Anyone involved with the subject should not be writing articles about it. That is how we maintain the neutrality of the encyclopedia. Thanks.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 18:53, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Links!

I have edited a page with a new link. My link is black, not blue like the other links. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Odonis_Odonis Reference #8 Can someone please tell me what I've done wrong? This is my 1st Wiki edit ever. Thank you OGSepterhed (talk) 17:20, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, OGSepterhed. As far as I can see, you have done nothing wrong, and the link is working, but you may be confusing two different kinds of link.
Where you see one or more words in blue, they are "Wikilinks" – that is, they are links to an article elsewhere in Wikipedia: this may be an article with the exact same title as the blue word(s), or the title may be something different (because of grammar or synonyms), but relevant.
What you have created, correctly, is a citation of a numbered reference linked to a site external to Wikipedia. The citation (in blue) appears as a superscript 8 in square brackets immediately after the full stop following the album name you wanted to link. If you click that blue "[8]", it will take you down to #8 in the References list at the bottom of the article. The text of that reference comprises an URL which you have linked, so that clicking on it takes you to the actual site you have used as the reference source.
Please note that I am not making a judgement as to whether or not that site – the page for the album on Bandcamp – is acceptable as a Wikipedia reference. I will leave that to editors more experienced in this field. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.27.39 (talk) 18:47, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by OGSepterhed (talkcontribs)

@OGSepterhed: Your browser displays a link in a different color when you have already visited the target page (whether you did it by clicking the link or in another way). The color for an external link should normally change from blue to purple. Maybe it looks black to you. Internal wikilinks change from blue to dark blue. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:22, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Newbie - How best to respond to comments?

I have responses to my first question. What is the accepted procedure for replying to those? The same for a comment appearing on my article? Clicking on the (talk) link associated with the comment's author does not take me to a consistent form or entry point for a response. If it does where does that response show up? I can edit to add a response but then am I responsible for my own date and time? Is there a wizard or something? Searching the help... seems just to get me further and further away from an answer. Bscloutier (talk) 17:27, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Bscloutier: the standard way to reply on a talk page is to make a post as you did above, but you would add an indenting colon ":". Click edit and you can see the wikicode for my reply. For the date and signature, you just need four tildes like this: ~~~~. A reply is the same as what you wrote above, but it is usually indented. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 17:43, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@ThatMontrealIP: Thank you! This is helpful. Is there a shortcut for this {{reply-to:someone}} block? This is not as simple as an email reply. Another issue that I have is that my email comes in on a different system. My attempt at a reply there using the link in the email shows only that IP address. I need to login there but where do I go to change my password as I used the cryptic thing first offered to me? I don't let Chrome shuffle around my credentials. If I click on my username I just get an opportunity to create my page. Bscloutier (talk) 18:20, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Bscloutier, you can use {{Re}} as a shortcut. The software will still recognise it as {{reply-to}}. Tenryuu 🐲💬 • 📝) 19:01, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Bscloutier, you might be intrested in the reply link script. The details are at User:Enterprisey/reply-link.
It can be installed by placing importScript( 'User:Enterprisey/reply-link.js' ); // Backlink: User:Enterprisey/reply-link.js on Special:MyPage/common.js.
It places a link to reply after every comment, and then handles indentation and formatting for you, so you just write in the content. ~~ Alex Noble/1-2/TRB 19:12, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I second this as I also use it for replying to a lot of talk page discussions. Just be aware there are times where this script fails to submit your reply and that you may need to go into the actual editing window to post a reply. Tenryuu 🐲💬 • 📝) 22:04, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Bscloutier, you can change your password without leaving Wikipedia. Pick "Preferences" at the top of any page when you are logged in and you'll see the option there. --ColinFine (talk) 19:13, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Question about referencing

I am writing an article about a scientist who has published many highly cited papers. He is among the pioneers in several disciplines, which is reflected in many citations to those papers. The reviewers are asking to prove his notability by references. My problem is that I do not know which references would prove it. What sort of references or links are appropriate to show that a subject has highly cited papers? From the other articles on Wikipedia I can see that links to Web of Science or Scopus are not provided. I inserted some references in which Matej Pavsic is cited, but the reviewers say that causal mentions are not sufficient. This is not the case with mentioning of Pavsic. Especially in a paper published last year by a famous physicist in Physical Review D extensively describes two papers by Pavsic, which are important and gaining more and more citations. In addition, his book The Landscape of Theoretical Physics has many citations, as well as the paper External Inversion, Internal Inversion and Reflection Invariance that has more than hundred pure citations. He is among the members of the International Advisory Board for the series of conferences on Clifford algebras, and is in the Standing Committee of IARD conference series. So again my question. I need a concrete example of referencing that show many citations. Terazij (talk) 17:30, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Terazij, although producing highly cited papers is a good guideline for the kind of people that would be considered notable, what we need in the article is coverage about the person; our article is about the person, not about the subject of the person's research, so the sources should be about the person.
Someone could have done lots of influential work, but if there isn't any information about them out there, there aren't any sources for us to base an article of, so we can't have an article. ~~ Alex Noble/1-2/TRB 19:09, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not very familiar with this area, Terazij, but it seems to me that your subject may satisfy section 1 of WP:NACADEMICS. It is up to you to demonstrate that he does, though. --ColinFine (talk) 19:16, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
At a simple level, it's not what he has written, but what people have written about him that conveys notability. David notMD (talk) 21:46, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion proposal

An IP user with zero other contributions deleted my Proposed For Deletion tag on the “Little Dogs on the Prairie” article without providing a reason why it should be kept. Could I undo their edit or do I have to go through the formal deletion process? Dronebogus (talk)

Dronebogus: although users are strongly recommended to provide a reason when removing a prod tag, this is not a requirement. Unless the tag was removed by a banned or block evading user, the page is considered deproded, however poor (or non existent) the reasoning.
Hence, to progress with deletion, it should go to AFD.
~~ Alex Noble/1-2/TRB 19:05, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Article for filmmaker declined

Hi there,

I submitted a draft today for an article and filmmaker which was declined. I was wondering if you could give me some specific tips to make this article wiki-worthy?

This is the feedback I received: This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia. USHistorian1867 (talk) 18:09, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@USHistorian1867: Hello and welcome. I would say the advice in the feedback above is correct: include more reliable sources. For example, the early life section on Draft:Jordan Shanks has no references. What we look for is in-depth coverage of the subject in independent publications. More of those is what is needed. Trivial coverage (event announcements, name checks etc) do not help with determining if a subject is notable enough to have an article.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 18:43, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Swaraj Abhiyan is not a political party and is not synonymous with Swaraj India, which is a registered political party in India. Swaraj Abhiyan is a socio political forum for social work (like an NGO) and a sister organisation of Swaraj India. Now Swaraj India redirects to Swaraj Abhiyan. I thought Swaraj India has grown significantly in the past few years and deserves its own page. Can a draft for Swaraj India be created? Davidindia (talk) 18:23, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Davidindia: welcome to Wikipedia and thanks for wanting to make it better. For suggestions on existing articles, start a discussion on that article's talk page. To start a draft of a new article, follow the guidance at WP:YFA and there is a wizard there to help you create your draft for review. RudolfRed (talk) 18:26, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A vandal undid my editing twice and pretend to forbid me to correct his errors - French schooner Belle Poule

User "Llammakey" stated in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_schooner_Belle_Poule that "The vessel was constructed in 1932 as a replica of a cod fishing vessel used off Iceland for the French merchant marine school". It is obviously wrong. This boat was ordered for the french naval school ("Ecole Navale") and not for the merchant marine school.I corrected this twice and this guy nndid my edition twice. This kind of vandalizing is unacceptable. I asked him to restore my text.

cf https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Llammakey

There is an official description of this boat on french navy official website at: [1]

they clearly state (in french) that "L'Étoile à été mise en service le 20 novembre 1932 et la Belle-Poule le 20 juillet 1932". Which means in english that Belle-Poule was commissioned into the French Navy (Ecole Navale) the day it was delivered that is the 20th of July 1932. No way it could have been ever commissioned by french merchant navy.

Plus, this boat is somewhat different from french fishing schooners, its hull lines are much narrower and designed for higher speed. It could be qualified as a sail training vessel inspired by XIXth century Dunkerque's sailing schooner which mostly operated off Newfoudland and not off Island.

I know this boat for ages having first visited it #45 years ago. My grand-grand-father also knew this boat quite well in the 30' 78.194.143.124 (talk) 18:40, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and welcome! I am pretty sure that Llammakey, with over 80,000 edits to their credit, is not a vandal. If you are having a dispute about content (which needs to be verifiable through published sources, by the way), post a message about it on the talk page of the article.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 18:47, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, the English language, ever a fickle creature. 78.194.143.124, the prepositional phrase for the merchant marine school modifies the noun phrase a cod fishing vessel, not The vessel [Belle Poule]. The article text does not contradict the official information from the French Navy. Stay well, Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 21:17, 9 April 2020 (UTC) and reworded 21:28, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Rotideypoc41352. However, the sentence could be more clear that the Belle was not constructed for the merchant marine school if the words "that was" are added after the word "vessel." David notMD (talk) 21:55, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, Rotideypoc41352 is wrong, whatever the prepositional phrase for the merchant marine school modifies, he is plain wrong, this schooner was not built for the french merchant navy school and is obviously not "a replica of a cod fishing vessel used off Iceland by the French merchant marine school". Because 1) no cod fishing vessel where ever built for the French merchant marine school, and, 2) The Belle-Poule is not a replica of of a cod fishing vessel used off Iceland. It is a very much altered and reinterpreted adaptation of fishing schooners used off Newfoudland, with much sleeker water-lines. So this text is rubbish and "Llammakey" and "Rotideypoc41352" don't know what they are talking about.
Plus "Llammakey" undid my editing twice without asking anything, insulted me, treating me of "vandal", and menaced me of forbidding me access to Wikipedia editing if I persisted to correct his errors, and nobody seems to have read my comments on the talk page of the article. I am shocked by his incorrect behavior and by his refusal to let people who know something about boat correct his mistakes.
Hello IP editor. The proper place to discuss this routine content dispute is Talk:French schooner Belle Poule, where no one has commented since 2011. You have not posted there. Calling a good faith editor a "vandal" is unacceptable behavior on your part, and calling their efforts "rubbish" is not a very good first step in reaching consensus for whatever changes that the article needs. Please try a more collaborative attitude. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 23:01, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I first commented my addition to this article with this text : " l'Etoile and la Belle Poule were built in 1932 for the French Navy (Ecole Navale..) at the request off Admiral Durand-Viel then chief of staff, who attended Ecole Navale in 1892 and had been part of the last round-the-world cruise of sail-frigate "Iphigénie" (in "View History"), then "Llammakey" undid all my work saying I had "Vandalized his article", after that, I corrected once more his error about who had this boat built in 1932, with following comments ("View History") "[2] are just plainly wrong l'Etoile and la Belle Poule were built in 1932 for the French Navy and not for the merchant marine. Please stop vandalizing my text because of german errors or propaganda. Plus they are not copy of fishing shooners, hull line are much finer. They ware inspired by Dunkerque's fishing schooner of 1850'. Naval architect was probably the same as for french battleship Dunkerque (1935)" and "Llammakey" answered ''"Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at French schooner Belle Poule, you may be blocked from editing. Llammakey (talk) 13:00, 8 April 2020 (UTC). I have every reason to consider that I am a the good faith editor who has been treated of "vandal" by "Llammakey, and that, for reason I can not understand he just refuses to have his error corrected whatever my arguments which he refused to discuss before undoing my work twice and forbidding me to persist in correcting this.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.194.143.124 (talk) 23:19, 09 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Again, IP editor, please discuss the content dispute at Talk:French schooner Belle Poule, rather than trying to debate the details in edit summaries or here at the Teahouse. Thank you. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 23:28, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]


References

Linking to Commons photo without displaying photo

I'm working on some improvements to our article on Pillar Point Harbor. I uploaded a photo on Commons of a plaque in the harbor commemorating a local shipwreck. The photo itself is not great, with the text impossible to read in a thumbnail and difficult to puzzle out even at full size. So I don't really want to put the photo in the article, but the text itself (which is transcribed in the description of the Commons file) is of some interest. Would it be appropriate to put a link to the Commons file in the External Links section of the article? Or is there a better way to handle this? CodeTalker (talk) 21:36, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, CodeTalker, and welcome to the Teahouse. I think that adding the image as a thumbnail would still be the way to go, in this instance. When you add it as a thumbnail, interested readers that click on the image to try to get a better view of the text would see your description from Commons and would be able to read the text on the plaque from that. OhKayeSierra (talk) 22:01, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@CodeTalker: I would use {{Rquote |1=right |2=ANCHOR OF THE RYDAL HALL<br /> On the night of ...<ref>(cite for the source of the text)</ref>}}, producing the quote box at the right. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 23:04, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gadget/tool for developing talk pages of newly created pages?

Curious if there's some kind of gadget or tool for easily developing talk pages of new pages. I've created a couple dozen pages so such a tool, if there is one, could definitely help me out. Thanks. Loksmythe (talk) 22:35, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Loksmythe, The tool I recommend is WP:RATER, which allows you to easily create talk pages and sort a page into WikiProjects and rate them. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! 22:51, 9 April 2020 (U
Ditto on that advice. In my browser I have to reload the page after rater is run in order to see the work it has done.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 22:55, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is great! Thank you for the recommendation CaptainEek and the affirmation ThatMontrealIP! Loksmythe (talk) 23:08, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Pro tip: you can also revisit a page a few months or years later, and it will update the ORES rating (stub, start etc) when you run it.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 23:13, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ooooooo, very cool! Good to know, thanks! Loksmythe (talk) 23:14, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can i ping a non user?

can i ping a non user? --Disoff (talk) 01:13, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disoff, If you mean can you ping anonymous IP users? No you cannot, but you can still leave them talk page notices and they do get notified about those. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! 01:27, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
CaptainEek yea thats what i mean, thxs!--Disoff (talk) 01:32, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

what is the right way to fix "Warning: Page using Template:Authority control with "XXXXX", please move this to Wikidata if possible (this message is shown only in preview)."

issue is on Julie Cairney. it contains code {{Authority control|ORCID=0000-0003-4564-2675}} . i have added url on https://m.wikidata.org/wiki/Q49882552, however the issue still persists. Leela52452 (talk) 01:48, 10 April 2020 (UTC) suggestion or critique is preferred here[reply]

How to cite/include tribal knowledge

How do you cite something that is more less tribal knowledge, such a common nickname or do you just not include it? I wanted to include the nickname of the airplane the RQ-170 Sentinel which I know from working in the defense and aeorspace industry. But this isn't something I feel like I can give a reliable online source because what comes up is www.militaryfactory.com and medium.com

I've found before that the best parts of wikipedia are when they mention connections to other ideas that may not be "offcial" but to a layperson or someone not familiar in the area, it makes the mental connection. Therefore I'd like to properly include some of this type of information. Estatic707 (talk) 01:49, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Estatic707. Acceptable Wikipedia articles summarize what published reliable sources have to say about the topic. So, the only way to include "lore" in the encyclopedia is if a reliable source describes that lore. Please read Wikipedia's core content policy Verifiability which is very relevant to your question. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:01, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you means "Wraith" then that name appears in the website you mentioned above (militaryfactory), so that can be the reference. David notMD (talk) 12:53, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comic Book Lists

I recently posted a question in the teahouse about comic books which is archived on my talk page - Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1054#Comic Books Someone responded that you could not make a list of a publishers publications regarding comic books.

but here: List of Timely and Atlas Comics publications I found a list of these publications.

My original goal was to make a list of all the comic books published by several different publishers and add them to wikipedia, because organized lists can often be helpful to those who read and collect comics.

Is that answer still valid or is there something different about this list that makes it different than what I am trying to achieve?

A response would be helpful. Thanks. Svrangerchrista (talk) 03:06, 10 April 2020 (UTC) Svrangerchrista (talk) 03:06, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Svrangerchrista. That list article you linked to above is a really poor quality article because it is referenced to websites that sell old comic books to collectors. Such sales sites are not considered reliable independent sources for Wikipedia since they profit from those sales, and Wikipedia should not be driving traffic to sales sites. List articles should be based on the same quality of reliable sourcing as any other article and Wikipedia is not a collector's sales catalog. We now have well over six million articles and at least a million or more of them have serious problems like this one does. We do not need to create more poor quality articles like that one. Instead, new articles should comply with our policies and guidelines. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:56, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How do you make a wikipedia template?

Aaron Justin Giebel (talk) 06:19, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Aaron Justin Giebel: Welcome to the Teahouse. The help page is over at Help:Template. Generally templates are created in the Template space, but if it's for personal use, you can do so in your own userspace. Consider my template {{User:Tenryuu/GOCE talk}} as an example. If you're looking for ideas as to how to use templates, search for templates that fit what you want, take a look at the code, copy it over, and experiment with it. --Tenryuu 🐲💬 • 📝) 06:53, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pranjal Bhatt

Disregard
 – OP blocked for legal threats. --Tenryuu 🐲💬 • 📝) 15:05, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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


dear sir, these are all valid , i am doing on pranjal bhat behalf and please dont interfere and remove all your work done on her, it is serious issue . you have no right of her profile and photos and wikipedia. you cannot change our profile , if you do it again we will take police action regards sumeet Suprach (talk) 07:29, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Suprach: A Wikipedia article is not a profile, and it does not belong to the subject of the article. However, much more serious than that is the fact that you seem to be making a legal threat here. You must retract that before you make any other edits to any Wikipedia page (I will post about this to your user talk page as well). --bonadea contributions talk 07:37, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

give me your mobile no - need to know more about editing Suprach (talk) 07:49, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Of course not. You could have asked any questions you had about editing here, but since you ignored the note above and on your user talk page, your legal threat has been reported. --bonadea contributions talk 08:01, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
User Suprach has now been blocked for legal threats. This thread should be closed.Cedix (talk) 08:50, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

My article it has been declined

my article it has been declined, i don't know why and am just new in here, i need your help. Moses rukanima (talk) 08:46, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Moses rukanima, I think the advice of the reviewer was quite clear: Websites that are associated with Mohameds' company (that is, websites written by people working for/paid by Silent Ocean) and social media websites aren't reliable information because they're primary sources. Instagram and YouTube are user-generated websites, so they aren't reliable, either. What part of that is not clear to you? Seraphimblade Talk to me 09:27, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

i real appreciate for your help. sorry can you help me to edit it if possible. thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moses rukanima (talkcontribs) 09:43, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Volunteer editors here at Teahouse provide advice. If they so choose, they may provide help, but that is outside the function of Teahouse. David notMD (talk) 10:44, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Editing the text published on List of countries by food energy intake - Wikipedia

Dominique.Habimana (talk) 09:16, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am Dominique Habimana, a statistician at FAO based in Rome.

We appreciate the publication of information and data on food energy intake that we produce. Thank you for that. However, we would like to request you if there is a possibility for us to support the editing and revising the numbers and text related to this page so that we provide the more updated information as a team in charge of producing such data.

In summary we need to know how we can edit the text and figures published on this page. Thank you. Dominique

Briefly, individuals (not teams) may edit existing Wikipedia articles as long as quality references are added. The information in the list List of countries by food energy intake is from a 2009 FAO document that tabulated data from 2003-2005, so newer information would be welcomed as long as it is referenced. As to how-to, clicking on Edit on the top menu opens the document for editing. A new number would need to replace the old number for each country. Once done, click on the blue-boxed Publish changes at the bottom. A replacement reference is required. This can be a published FAO report. It cannot be unpublished information known to FAO. OK to leave a question on my Talk page if this is unclear. David notMD (talk) 10:45, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Ajeet Jaiswal, Anthropologist

Draft:Dr. Ajeet Jaiswal, Anthropologist. I want to publish this information related to Dr. Ajeet Jaiswal, but i am not getting approval from your side. Please let me know the reseaon. I have checked all info there is no copy write issue is detected. 2007.sapna (talk) 10:24, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@2007.sapna: Don't paste his CV here. Even if you have permission, that's just not how we create articles here.
Articles are a summary of independent professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources that are specifically about the subject but not dependent upon, affiliated with, nor connected to it.
Here is a guide on how to write articles that will not be rejected or deleted. Ian.thomson (talk) 10:28, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@David.moreno72: pinging the user who had reviewed your Articles for Creation submission. — MarkH21talk 10:30, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly go thru it again, I have not pasted his CV here. I typed all important information related to his career and his teaching specialization. Please check it again. Thanking you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2007.sapna (talkcontribs) 10:33, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@2007.sapna: Kindly read my last response again (and actually look at the guide I gave you) and you'll see why the review is going to fail -- you don't have any source. Ian.thomson (talk) 10:43, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@2007.sapna: See Franz Boas and Jane Goodall for examples of fully-developed articles on anthropologists. You should consider developing your article at Draft:Ajeet Jaiswal (no "Dr." prefix or suffix per MOS:TITLE), not your talk page, which is like an "inbox", designed primarily for other editors to communicate with you. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 13:47, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I copied what was on your Talk page to the draft space Draft:Ajeet Jaiswal created by AlanM1. Continue editing there. Per what Ian.thomson wrote: references are required. After the draft is improved, ask here how to submit it for review. David notMD (talk) 17:47, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How do I create a new article page on Wikipedia?

I am a new contributor to Wikipedia and I would like to create a new article. How do I do this? MrJCasey (talk) 11:19, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MrJCasey Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Be advised that successfully creating a new article is the absolute hardest task to perform on Wikipedia. It takes much time and practice. New users are much more successful when they first learn how Wikipedia works by editing existing articles in areas that interest them, to get a feel for how Wikipedia operates and what is expected of article content. You should also read Your First Article and use the new user tutorial to learn more about Wikipedia.
I see that you have attempted to declare a conflict of interest on your user page- it's even harder for users with a COI to edit or create articles. If you have a conflict of interest with what you wish to write about, you definitely should use Articles for Creation to create a draft. You also should not directly edit any existing article related to your COI, instead you may make formal edit requests on the article talk page. 331dot (talk) 11:28, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wanted to know the status article.

I created an article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohan_Shakti_National_Heritage_Park but unable to know, what's the status with few queries like : Do I need to verify it from someone for getting Grading scheme ? Thankyou Pankajkukreti03 (talk) 11:32, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Pankajkukreti03, welcome to the Teahouse. I have rated it as one of our shortest/most incomplete article types (a Stub) and have added it to WikiProject India. There might be other relevant Projects it could be added to, but it's not a field I am familiar with. I would make the following suggestions for you to improve the article, please:
  • Consider adding approrpiate categories to the article.
  • Add an infobox with cooordinates so it can be located on a map
  • Remove the excess number of images and add a template to Wikimedia Commons to show that further images can be found there.
  • Add wikilinks to other articles (like Solan and Atal Bihari Vajpayee), ensuring you clarify where in the world this site is. I assume it's India, but you didn't explicitly state that! Remember that we have readers from all round the world who will not be intimately familiar with such places.
  • Please don't use Wikipedia as a source - wikilink to a topic instead, please.
  • Consider what the top notices states and try to address those issues.
Hoping this feedback is of help. regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 14:33, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Quick question

Hi all dos anyone know of somewhere or someone who I could go to to request the creation of football kit patterns? on the subject is there a way for me to create some patterns myself that is simple and easy and dos not cost the earth like photoshop thanks! REDMAN 2019 (talk) 12:36, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@REDMAN 2019: I don't think any of that is really what the encyclopedia is for. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:08, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Ian.thomson: What about season articles? example. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 13:10, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@REDMAN 2019: Ah, if you mean for adding them to articles, those aren't actually picture files but text inputs. If you edit the source, you'll see code in the infobox like pattern_b1 = _chelsea9394h | pattern_la1 = _drkredhoop | pattern_ra1 = _drkredhoop | pattern_so1 = _chelsea9394h and so on. The best thing to do with that would be to experiment at the sandbox. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:16, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Section edit links disabled

Edit links are disabled in all articles I have tried to edit. Only the edit link on top of the page is active but with it, I can only edit first section Ugbedeg (talk) 12:52, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ugbedeg, welcome to the Teahouse. The pencil icon for mobile section edits is currently invisible for some mobile users (reported at phab:T249864). It still works if you can hit the right spot. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:44, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It works, though difficult and time wasting to locate. Thanks. Ugbedeg (talk) 14:00, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Need help on the page - Gary Vaynerchuk

Hi,

I am a paid editor and had suggested clean-up edits on the talk page (along with paid disclosure) of Gary Vaynerchuk to deal with the COI tag on the page. Since the page is too long, I had broken down the requested edits section-wise. I had also shared the explanation of each change along with the requested edits, but I was asked to 'Please work in smaller requests, and explain why you want the changes.' I had already done that.

There is no addition of information, just toning down the current text working inline with WP:CLEANUP but my requested edits were misjudged as an attempt to whitewash the article. I request help or cooperation of the editors to understand the underlying issue and deal with the COI tag on the page. Thanks a lot! FamJoshua1 (talk) 17:00, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a COI tag on the page? REDMAN 2019 (talk) 17:23, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I copied the PAID tag to your User page and removed the COI tag from the Vaynerchuk article. Given your paid status, you properly proposed specific from-to changes on the Talk page. The reply was that you had put everything into one large, multi-part request. I suggest you create a series of requests, each limited to one section of the article. This may induce an editor(s) to review each request. David notMD (talk) 17:25, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a reliable source?

Would East-West Digital News be considered a reliable source to use on articles?  ArchonBoi(Talk) 17:36, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Hello, IP user. The place to ask about reliability of sources is WP:RSN. Searching the archives, that source doesn't seem to have been discussed before, so I suggest you post a query there. --ColinFine (talk) 18:58, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, should have pinged ArchonBoi. --ColinFine (talk) 19:01, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rishabh Jain

Header inserted by ColinFine (talk) 18:58, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am Rishabh jain I am a Indian actor I want to edit my own page so what is the best way to do it? 122.161.66.229 (talk) 18:15, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As an addendum to ColinFine, you may edit an article about yourself if there is obvious vandalism on it or make edit requests with reliable sources on your article's talk page. Tenryuu 🐲💬 • 📝) 21:05, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Hello, Rishabh. I guess you are not the same person as Rishab Jain the inventor. I'm afraid that the answer to your question "What is the best way to do it", is to go to some site that allows self-promotion. (see WP:OUT): Wikipedia doesn't allow promotion of any kind.
If at some point Wikipedia has an article about you, it will not be your page, it will not have your text on it, but will be based on what people unconnected with you have published about you; and you will not be allowed to edit it directly. See autobiography for more information about why you shouldn't do this. --ColinFine (talk) 19:06, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can a stub-article contain only the lyrics of a song?

I just found this article and I think it doesn't meet the wikipedia notability. sorry if I should have found this myself but I was overwhelmed by all of the pages and couldn't find what i was looking for so even a link to the description would be greate. Erfan Talk☻ 18:44, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In general no, but this is something of a special case. This song is written by Stephen Foster, who pretty much invented what we now consider traditional American music (think of anything you consider a traditional American song and chances are it was written by him), and as such the exact nature of his lyrics is of more interest than would usually be the case. We generally delete stubs that don't actually say anything about their article subject, but in this case we can say with certainty that there's going to be more to say about this song (Foster is one of the most written-about musicians on the 19th century) and that it just hasn't been expanded yet. ‑ Iridescent 18:50, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
thanks for the help Erfan Talk☻ 18:54, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Et0z. We cannot include full song lyrics for the large majority of songs published since 1925, because they are copyrighted. This restriction obviously does not apply to this and similar songs published long ago, but even then, including independent commentary by reliable sources about the song is more important than adding the complete lyrics. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 19:08, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bob, thank you for accepting my change to the 1968 Democratic National Convention! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.36.105.237 (talk) 18:52, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up to COI

Hi. Regarding Michael Stokes (photographer), I would really like to resolve the issues of conflict of interest and incorrect citing of sources. I have stated -- though it's likely I did it in the wrong place -- that I do not know the subject personally. I did email him to ask if I could upload a photo from his website. He said yes, and I uploaded it, not realizing that this would create a copyright issue. The photo was removed (I understand why) but then the conflict of interest note appeared at the top of the page. I guess it was assumed that if I asked his permission to use the photo that I must know him. I do not. I have never met him. As for the incorrect citing of sources, I have tried a few times to fix this but I clearly don't know what I'm doing.

If someone can please tell me what I need to do to resolve these issues, I would appreciate it. I find this all a bit confusing, and I feel bad for messing up this person's page. Glendon wasey (talk) 19:09, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's not "this person's page," it's an article you created in 2015 and have edited on and off since then. If there are better sources, assume that in time someone else will add them and someone else will decide to remove the tags. David notMD (talk) 19:32, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia writer

202.134.174.127 (talk) 19:54, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]


I’m trying to write Wikipedia of a supermodel actress . How can I get her more information?? I have draft ready , anyone can see and tell me what correction needed ??

Hello and welcome. Do you mean you are trying to write a Wikipedia article? There are no other edits from your IP other than your comment here, what is your draft? If you created it under an account, remember to log in. 331dot (talk) 19:58, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Article was rejected. Where i can find concrete reasons?

Hello, i am posted first of it's kind Article and it was rejected.

"published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject." It's not a concrete reason.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Heated_stick Where i can find reasons? Because we are the source of unique and relevant information. I can't understand. Paulwingle (talk) 20:48, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, Paulwingle Your submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article they don't show significant coverage about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Theroadislong (talk) 20:55, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Paulwingle Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. It actually is not accurate to say that Wikipedia("we") is "the source of unique and relevant information". Wikipedia is not for merely providing information. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia; as an encyclopedia, Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources with significant coverage state about article subjects that meet Wikipedia's special definition of notability. The sources you have provided don't seem to have significant coverage of the subject, just brief mentions. 331dot (talk) 20:57, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rejected drafts

Are rejected drafts allowed to be resubmitted? Is there a difference between rejected and declined? What is the procedure to applying suggested edits to a rejected draft? Pilot333 (talk) 22:24, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]