Wikipedia:Teahouse

AlanM1, a Teahouse host

Welcome to the Teahouse!
Your go-to place for friendly help with using and editing Wikipedia.

Ask a question

Question forumMeet your hostsArticles to improveBecome a host

New to Wikipedia? See our tutorial for new editors or introduction to contributing page.
Note: Newer questions appear at the bottom of the Teahouse. Completed questions are archived within 2-3 days.

Help Wikipedia

Twitter

Is Twitter a sister project of Wikipedia DINOCOBLUE (talk) 13:37, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

DINOCOBLUE Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Twitter and Wikipedia as projects are unrelated. Twitter is social media, while Wikipedia is an effort to write an encyclopedia. 331dot (talk) 13:38, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

DINOCOBLUE, you can find a list of all sister projects of Wikipedia at WP:SISTER. Keep in mind that Wikipedia itself has a few hundred "sister Wikipedias" in other languages; check out List of Wikipedias. Mathglot (talk) 01:27, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Please help me

Not an issue for Teahouse. Referred elsewhere

 – Talk:Canimals

Hi

I have been finding sources for the TV show Canimals, but I can not do it because I have gotten really lazy recently. Can anyone help me? Links if you do not want to go though the pain:

http://news.khan.co.kr/kh_news/khan_art_view.html?art_id=201107111339471

http://www.hani.co.kr/arti/science/science_general/388623.html

https://www.ibabynews.com/news/articleView.html?idxno=4437

http://www.newspim.com/news/view/20140224000261

And You will need yandex translate to add these because they are all in the Korean language.

https://translate.yandex.com/translate

I hope you follow these links and hopefully, you find info, useless you do not use yandex when in that case use google translate. 2600:1004:B05E:87D5:D1B4:48BB:607D:F27A (talk) 16:37, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to the Treehouse! The place to discuss additional references for the Canimals article is the corresponding talk page: Talk:Canimals. Good luck! GoingBatty (talk) 16:58, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

GoingBatty This forum is actually called the Teahouse, not the Treehouse. Treehouse would be a cool name though. Hillelfrei ^talk 18:24, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

@Hillelfrei: Facepalm GoingBatty (talk) 18:34, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

By our logo, might as well be the treehouse. Usedtobecool ☎️ 10:40, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

COI for investors

Hello,

I am wondering if being an investor in a company requires a COI disclosure. Simple example, suppose an editor has no links to the company whatsoever but holds shares in Apple, Inc., are they required to make a COI disclosure if they want to edit that page? And if so would this apply to editors who only have like one share, or only big holders who own a notable percentage? Thanks. Wikiman5676 (talk) 19:40, 8 May 2020 (UTC) Wikiman5676 (talk) 19:40, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, please see WP:PAY; ss an investor, you would have a conflict of interest.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 09:24, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Interesting, I will keep that in mind if it ever comes up. Thanks. Wikiman5676 (talk) 06:08, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

What if the news media is just 100% wrong about a subject matter?

I'm not sure if I am in the right place but does the accuracy of Wikipedia matter? I am an environmental investigator and nine times out of ten, the media tends to print random and arbitrary things about toxic waste sites, oil spills, etc. This creates an echo chamber which causes more and more media outlets to pick up the same false information. A good example of this is the Porter Ranch natural gas spill. An activist went on TV and said that it was "the worst spill since Deep Water Horizon" but it wasn't. This statement was picked up by about 500 media outlets and now, in the history books, encyclopedias, this is what is printed, even though the original statement has no basis or sourcing. In the end, this false narrative is branded as fact. Fifty years later, it's history, even though it was never true. Does only sourcing matter and not facts, in these articles? Rightventracleleft (talk) 13:23, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Rightventracleleft, one of Wikipedia's core content policies is verifiability, which is distinct from our individual interpretations of the truth. Understandably you consider your opinion on the subject to be fact (who doesn't? 🙂), but if everyone were to begin writing Wikipedia articles based solely on what they knew, it would become quite an unmanageable mess.

Note also that Wikipedia is not here to right great wrongs that may have occurred in history. As an encyclopedia, we seek to simply summarize what is present in existing sources, even if we find it personally unfair.

Hope this helps, M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 14:41, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Mathematically speaking, the Porter Ranch spill was measured in tens of thousands of pounds. Methane in the atmosphere is measured in the hundreds of millions of metric tons. The plume of methane over Four Corners region is one-hundred million metric tons. Those are not my opinions. Someone in authority made a statement they were being paid to say, it was sourced by hundreds of media outlets and now it's "fact." It would be nice if scientific fact would have more weight than a news reporter who was barely paying attention that day and scraping for content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rightventracleleft (talk • contribs) 14:58, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Rightventracleleft You are speaking to larger issues that are beyond the control of Wikipedia. If you wish to assert that a specific source should not be considered to be a reliable source, you may visit the reliable sources noticeboard, but you can't do that with the news in general. If you have sources that offer what you consider to be accurate information for a subject, you are welcome to offer them. 331dot (talk) 15:06, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

I could post the personal e-mails from a media outlet's journalists, to me, that show a pattern of deceptive reporting, but is Wikipedia going to no longer allow the Washington Post as a source? Just making a point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rightventracleleft (talk • contribs) 16:02, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Rightventracleleft, unpublished sources are explicitly disallowed per WP:V. Trying to use such emails would also generally be in violation of WP:NOR.

I'd encourage you to click on the blue links in this message and my previous one: they answer several of the questions that you have with regards to Wikipedia. Also, please remember to sign your posts with four tildes: ~~~~. M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 16:12, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Rightventracleleft Given the rules under which we operate, the solution in such cases is to find other reliable sources that discuss the problem with the statement. We/you can then write about the discrepancy in the article, and cite the source. Unfortunately, if nobody has bothered to debunk a bad story, we can't do anything, since we are (intentionally) a tertiary source that writes about what others have written. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 19:45, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

A good example of this would be Harvey Weinstien or Cosby, who had the power to suppress media. During those years that those voices were suppressed, the editor of the New York Times refused to tell the stories of those woman. Later, that editor left NYT and started his own media outlet, ProPublica, that - with no sense of irony, whatsoever - then stood up as the champions of the very women's stories that he suppressed. It's crazy to me that our media is broken and there truly is no source for facts. In that way, Wikipedia is broken. Often, the only solution for getting around a disreputable editor is to create your own media outlet. One then prints actual facts and gets told that it's not credible enough for Wikipedia as media outlets like Washington Post, New York Times, and ProPublica are trusted sources. What a convoluted world. And remember, it's only popular opinion that those are trusted news sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rightventracleleft (talk • contribs) 10:34, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

user:Rightventracleleft, it may be easier to understand if you think of Wikipedia as an aggregator service. Ultimately, we don't engage in any form of original research, and our only role is to summarise what's already been said in existing sources. (The usual example to illustrate this is that, had Wikipedia existed in Galileo's day, we'd have said unequivocally that the sun circled the earth, regardless of our own personal doubts.) Editing Wikipedia on current issues is surprisingly difficult and not something we generally recommend unless you're confident you can write in accordance with sources rather than with your personal beliefs even if you strongly disagree with the sources. It's usually easier to begin with writing about historic topics, where the consensus has settled and it's possible to work from published books and academic papers, rather than from (inherently unreliable and unstable) newspapers and websites. ‑ Iridescent 20:39, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Then, bascially, nothing printed on Wikipdia has any credibility. What is the point of a website that only prints popular opinion and skews history? Ironically, I own a small newspaper that passes Wikipedia, so I am free to re-write history to fit scientific fact. That makes me laugh. Rightventracleleft (talk) 10:28, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Rightventracleleft, Wikipedia is a tertiary source, not a secondary one. If you wish to bolster your secondary source, go for it, but Wikipedia has to make do with what sources are given to it (with said sources' reliability being discussed and agreed upon). Everything is gameable if you try hard enough. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:59, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Some argue that there is a point anyway. Whether you agree with any of it is up to you.

• Wikipedia Is the Last Best Place on the Internet
• We Need the Wisdom of Wikipedia
• The Good Internet Lives On
• How Wikipedia’s volunteers became the web’s best weapon against misinformation
• How Wikipedia Prevents the Spread of Coronavirus Misinformation
• Using Wikipedia: Crash Course Navigating Digital Information #5 (one of my favorites) Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:07, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
• Threatin: Moderators Flagged and Deleted Wikipedia Page Months Ago for False Claims [Transcript Available!] Adding this because it's funny. The article got recreated later, so there's an argument that the guy "won". Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:35, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

You may also want to check WP:General disclaimer. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:23, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Someone's using my WM Commons photo without credit. What do I do?

Hi. My photo File:Bangladesh international school dammam school image.jpg is being used on Instagram without the credit it requires. It's a creative commons attribution 4 license. What action can I take? MRC2RULES (talk) 15:51, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

@MRC2RULES: I am not a lawyer. This isn't really a Wiki issue, but there isn't much you can do other than contact the account owner and ask for credit, if they don't give it, file a DMCA claim with Instagram (read more here) Ed6767 (talk) 16:24, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

@Ed6767: can I file one even though it's not copyrighted?

MRC2RULES (talk) 22:35, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

MRC2RULES, if you took the picture, then under Saudi law you, by default, hold copyright over it for 25 years according to Wikipedia Commons. M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 18:50, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

@M Imtiaz: Is it still copyright even though it's a CC4A license? I mean that I didn't post it as copyrighted? So does it automatically become one?

MRC2RULES (talk) 22:35, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, in almost all most cases, the act of publishing a photograph creates a copyright on that photo. A Creative Commons license does not make the copyright "go away", it just allows use of the photo under clearly defined conditions. The copyright remains, unless you specifically disavow the copyright in writing. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:04, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

@Cullen328: So even though I never copyrighted or submitted it for copyright it by default becomes one? I really need to check WM commons policies again.

I heard that you got to submit a form to get it copyrighted. MRC2RULES (talk) 10:12, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

What you heard is incorrect, MRC2RULES. Copyright is created automatically when a photo or writing or anything else is published. Copyright registration is pretty much a thing of the past, although some old copyrights can be renewed. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:35, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

For more information, read Copyright registration. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:40, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Just wanted to note that everything written here is not legal advice. --MrClog (talk) 19:46, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

MrClog I was just asking what action can I take. You don't expect me to 0go to court tomorrow:D. But do you or anyone know If how I can officially get papers showing that I am the copyright owner? Ik that the topic is not for wikipedia. But last question. Than thread endMRC2RULES (talk) 20:13, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

MRC2RULES, simply print out the Wikimedia Commons file page for the photo, where you made a formal legal declaration that you are the author (photographer in this context) and are therefore the copyright holder. That is a legal document. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:35, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

The legal declaration you submitted reads "I, the copyright holder of this work, hereby publish it under the following license: w:en:Creative Commons attribution share alike.This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license." Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:41, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Article declined for lack of notability

Hello, my draft on Draft:Scantrust was declined for lack of notability. However, based on my understanding on the assessment of notability for corporations described in ps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies), there is a number of sources in the article which I believe contribute to establishing notability.

I have included at least 5 different articles which are exclusively about Scantrust, and were published in the most read newspapers in Switzerland (e.g. 20 Minuten, Le Temps, 24 Heures, L'Impartial/L'express, HandelsZeitung). A list of the top newspapers in Switzerland can be found here: https://www.4imn.com/ch/

Some of these sources are in French and some are in German, as Scantrust is a corporation based in Switzerland. Can these sources count towards notability? If they do not count, I would like to understand the reasons. And if they do count, then can the notability of the article be re-assessed by other reviewers?

Let me note that I have a COI which I properly declared, although I do not believe this should affect the assessment of notability. Many thanks for your help! Factfox (talk) 21:59, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Sources in German, French, etc., can contribute to establishing notability (though English-language sources are preferred here in en:WP, if available). Sources with only a mention of the subject cannot, nor can sources based on press releases from the subject. Which four of the sources cited in Draft:Scantrust do you think do most to establish notability? Maproom (talk) 22:11, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the quick response. I would say these sources, which are exclusively about Scantrust

20 Minuten (most read newspaper in Switzerland): "Schweizer Start-up sagt Fälschern den Kampf an". www.20min.ch (in German). 2015-12-29.

Le Temps (5th most read, and most read in the French part of Switzerland): "ScanTrust lève ses premiers fonds externes". Le Temps (in French). 2015-05-04.

24 Heures (7th most read): "QR Codes Swiss made pour lutter contre le piratage des produits". Corset, Jean-Marc (2016-05-09). 24 Heures.

L'Express - L'Impartial (21th most read) "ScanTrust détecte le vrai du faux grâce à un code-barres". Christen, Lucien (2014-10-14). L'Express - L'Impartial.

Factfox (talk) 22:25, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have included this one from Handelszeitung instead (12th most read): "ScanTrust: Die Fälschungsfinder" . Handelszeitung (in German). Retrieved 2020-05-04. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Factfox (talk • contribs) 22:32, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Factfox. The only one of those five which is not transparently based on an interview is the Handelszeitung (and I'm pretty sure that that one is also based on an interview or press release). Wikipedia is basically not interested in anything that the subject says about themselves: it is only interested in what people with no connection to the subject have chosen to publish about the subject. None of those, except possibly the Handelszeitung piece, do anything to establish notability - and there isn't very much meat in that piece. I'm also a bit concerned about where those PDFs come from: I see that they are directly from Archive.org, but you ought to put that URL in the archive-url parameter, and the original URL in the url parameter (even if it's dead) so that it is clear where these documents come from. Were they originally from the respective newspapers' websites? I wasn't aware that any newspapers published their own articles as PDFs, so I'm concerned that these might be copyright-violating scans. (It is not essential to provide a link to a source, though obviously it is more convenient to do so; but we do not link to copyright violations). --ColinFine (talk) 00:33, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

I will restate what I noted in my decline of the draft: "This draft is written from the viewpoint of the company, focusing on what the company says about itself. Corporate notability is based on what independent reliable sources have written about the subject. Not every business corporation is notable, and this draft does not establish corporate notability." Many drafts about companies repeat what the company says about itself. If a newspaper repeats what the company says about itself, it is still what the company says about itself. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:21, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello ColinFine and Robert McClenon, thank you for your feedback. Regarding the access to the PDF, these are my copies and I mistakenly thought I had to make them accessible, as otherwise you might not be able to check the content; I also wrongly assumed it was common practice on Wikipedia as I saw other articles giving access to content in the references in this way. I would like to correct this error. I can remove the link to the PDF in the source although I believe I am not allowed to access the draft now. I have initiated the process to remove them from archive.org (this may take time so for the moment the PDF may still be accessible).

Referring to the essay in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Interviews and the discussion in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Notability/Archive_64, I understand there is a grey area in how to evaluate notability when an article appears to be based at least partly on an interview, and there does not appear to be a general consensus or a clear set of rules within the Wikipedia community. I will nevertheless base my reasoning on the relevant highlight of the above-mentioned essay: “Interviews generally count as primary sources, but commentary added to interviews by a publication can sometimes count as secondary-source material”. While the articles I mentioned above do contain primary material in the form of quotes, they also contain commentaries from the interviewers which should be counted as secondary material. In addition, these articles were written by journalists of reliable and respected publications that are known for fact checking, and which reached out to Scantrust because it was already notable (in the general meaning of the term).

The article also contains other sources which have content that can be counted as secondary material. For example, https://www.reconnaissance.net/tax-stamp-news/issues/april-2017/, https://www.ledgerinsights.com/scantrust-anti-counterfeit-blockchain/ or https://phys.org/news/2015-05-combatting-counterfeiting-qr-codes.html. Factfox (talk) 10:05, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Education assignment template?

I have been under the impression that student editors enrolled in a class are to put a template on one of their pages, as well as on the Talk pages of articles to be edited by a class. I would have also thought that instructors would put a template on their own page, so we know who and what institution are involved. If this type of editing is going on somewhat informally, does such a practice conform to WP standards?--Quisqualis (talk) 22:53, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Quisqualis, I think, and these are just my thoughts, the informing and what not about who all are teachers and who all are students, and what they plan to do, is all about Wikim/pedia's PR and the prof's PR and so that other editors here go more easy on the inevitable mistakes these editors are likely to make. Of course, we ought to go easy on all new editors but at least we know with them, that they are not WP:NOTHERES (a contradiction in terms as most students assigned work in Wikipedia are most definitely not here to build the encyclopedia). Without all those disclosures, we would treat each individual editor just like any other, without the preferential treatment that we are likely to give them when there are all those disclosures. In short, more for their benefits than ours. Wikied redirects to m:Wiki Education Foundation which took me to wikiedu.org. I stopped there. Usedtobecool ☎️ 11:00, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

SARS

What happened to SARS? I remember when SARS was breaking and all the reports by scientists and doctors were referring to SARS as Sudden Acute Respiratory Syndrome! But here it's referred to as SEVERE ACUTE RESPIRATORY SYNDROME! Do you realize severe and acute are redundant terms? I think someone has a lot of editing to do! 72.224.145.240 (talk) 01:36, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, a place to ask questions about editing Wikipedia. I see that the first reference on the Severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) article is a reliable source stating that SARS stands for "Sudden acute respiratory syndrome". If you have suggestions for improving the article, please discuss them on the article talk page - Talk:Severe acute respiratory syndrome - with any reliable sources you have. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 01:47, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello, IP editor. As a general rule, Wikipedia article titles are based on the terminology used by most of the reliable sources discussing the topic in detail. In this case, the preponderance of sources use the "severe" wording as opposed to the "sudden" wording. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:49, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Aside from the source usage, which is the primary consideration, "Sudden Acute" would be redundant. Acute (medicine) says "In medicine, describing a disease as acute denotes that it is of short duration and, as a corollary of that, of recent onset. ... the core denotation of "acute" is always qualitatively in contrast with "chronic", which denotes long-lasting disease". —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 07:45, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Article Publication

I want to publish an article on a Pokemon but I'm not sure how to do it or if I have enough sources to make one. I have tried to make a Porygon article but I don't know what happened to it. Please help. UB Blacephalon (talk) 03:45, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

@Blacephalon: Welcome to the Teahouse. Porygon is a redirect to the list of generation I Pokemon. If you are looking to contribute detailed information about Pokemon, there is always Bulbapedia. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 04:23, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

OK. But I've submitted a Porygon article and I have no idea what happened to it. Can you find out? UB Blacephalon (talk) 04:28, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

@Blacephalon: No Porygon article was submitted, though I do see a draft over at Draft:Porygon. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 04:41, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

How can I make it better or submit it? UB Blacephalon (talk) 16:40, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

PICTURE

Is this picture able to be posted to the legislator's wiki page as it is his official photo on the state legislative page? https://sdlegislature.gov/Legislators/Legislators/MemberDetail.aspx?Session=2020&Member=1720&Cleaned=True https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brock_Greenfield History007man (talk) 03:53, 10 May 2020 (UTC) History007man (talk) 03:53, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

@History007man: Has the copyright been waived or does it meet WP:NONFREE criteria? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 04:16, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

I did not see anything saying it was copyrighted?History007man (talk) 04:28, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

@History007man: The bottom of https://sdlegislature.gov/Legislators/Legislators/MemberDetail.aspx?Session=2020&Member=1720&Cleaned=True says "© 2020 - SD Legislative Research Council". Before uploading the photo to Wikipedia, you'll have to understand the specific copyright for that photo. In order to protect the copyright holders, we can't just copy photos from the internet to Wikipedia. GoingBatty (talk) 04:35, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you I am new and learning. So how do you get a picture of these public figures that is acceptable?History007man (talk) 04:39, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

@History007man: There are some good suggestions at Wikipedia:Finding images tutorial. GoingBatty (talk) 04:42, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello, History007man. I see that you edit mostly about South Dakota politicians. I live in California and have taken many photos of California politicians. I simply go to public events where these politicians are scheduled to speak and then take photos of them when they are talking to voters. I upload the best of my photos to Wikimedia Commons. This strategy may not be viable during the pandemic but the day will come again when politicians meet with voters. Be there with your camera. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:02, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Cullen328---that is a great idea! and fun way to be involved! Thank you, I am learningHistory007man (talk) 13:52, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

@History007man: There are other suggestions on Wikipedia:About you#Picture. GoingBatty (talk) 20:37, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Deletion of file

How do I delete a file, it has been moved to the commons. File to be deleted: [Charge! Network Logo] PhoenixStarlight (talk) 05:06, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

@PhoenixStarlight: To clarify, do you want it deleted because it has been moved to the Commons? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:30, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

File:Charge! network logo.png gives you a link to CSD F8. --David Biddulph (talk) 10:39, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

@David Biddulph: Yes, I think it should be deleted, because I checked the two and the description (details) and the format matches. --[[User:PhoenixStarlight|PhoenixStarlight]

Mount Everest

In Mount Everest, quote " Tenzing, a Nepali Sherpa who was a citizen of India" Is this true? Was Tenzing Norgay, climbing pair of Edmund Hillary a citizen of India? Roshanghimre59 (talk) 07:29, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi Roshanghimre59. You might have more luck asking about this at the Wikipedia Reference Desk since the Teahouse is more of a place to ask questions about editing Wikipedia than it is for asking whether the content in a Wikipedia article is correct. If, however, you think that an error has been made about Norgay's nationality in the article about Mount Everest or the article about him and you are able to provide links to reliable sources which support your claim, then you should discuss your concerns at Talk:Mount Everest or Talk:Tenzing Norgay and see what some others editors think. The article about Norgay describes him as being "Nepali-Indian" but the article about Mount Everest describes him as only "Nepali" in addition to being a "citizen of India". That might be something worth discussing on the talk pages of both those articles. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:54, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

@Roshanghimre59:, I checked online, and it seems that he was granted Indian citizenship after the Mt. Everest expedition, and was born a Nepali (he held dual citizenship if my understanding is correct). In my opinion, the “who was a citizen of India” should be removed because he became a citizen of India after the expedition. RedBulbBlueBlood9911 (talk) 09:01, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

delete revision history’s

Hello Can you delete the 4 edit history from 14 And 16 September 2017 in Denmark in the Eurovision Song Contest 2010: Revision history because those are embarrassing edits and i wanted them deleted Amazon111 (talk) 08:50, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Amazon111 You should contact an oversighter; WP:OVERSIGHT has the instructions on how to do so. 331dot (talk) 09:04, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Courtesy: At Denmark in the Eurovision Song Contest 2010 appears that back in 2017 there was a prolonged edit war about removing/keeping content. The editors were mostly IPs. Amazon111 is a brand new account, so hard to see how years old edits can be embarrassing. David notMD (talk) 09:10, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Article declined due to tone of language

Hi, I have created a draft for someone who I have been acquainted with but do not personally know or associated with. The draft is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Faizal_Kottikollon I have made several changes based on the feedback that it looks like a promotional article. However, despite the changes, it says the language used is "puffery". Could you please help me with some specific direction in terms of what needs to be changed with some examples? Thanks so much. Vathsalak (talk) 09:50, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

If I had to remove the promotion and puffery from Draft:Faizal_Kottikollon, I'd delete the whole lot and start again, basing what I wrote on entirely what I found in reliable independent sources. Maproom (talk) 10:44, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

For example "Feted by the Indian business community for contribution to education" is puffery sourced to a press release and none of the "Honors seem to be notable? Theroadislong (talk) 10:55, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you so much Maproom and Theroadislong. I did look at different press releases and publicly available articles. Are those considered to be reliable, independent sources? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vathsalak (talk • contribs) 11:03, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

@Vathsalak: My general advice for tone is to write in such a way that even someone who hates the subject can agree with the bare statement of facts.

Articles are a neutral summary of mainstream academic or journalistic sources. You can find a step-by-step guide to writing articles that won't be rejected or deleted here. Ian.thomson (talk) 11:16, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

In addition to press releases, interviews with the subject of the article are also not considered reliable sources. David notMD (talk) 14:48, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

That is not correct, David notMD. Interviews are p0erfectly reliable sources if published in a venue where editorial control is present, just like any other sort of article. However, most interviews consit of short, general questions by the interviewer, with relatively long answers by the subject. That means that most of the significant words are those of the subject, and so the interview is not an independent source this means that it will not contribute to notability, should not be used to source facts about people other than the subject, and should not be used to source controversial statements. But once a topic has been established as notable by other sources, interviews may be used as primary sources to support specific facts, and particularly to establish what a subject's own views and claims are.In short the same limitations apply to it as tom a statement on the subject's personal web page, see Self-published sources and WP:ABOUTSELF. Note that a few interviews contain extensive comment by the interviewer/reporter. Such interviews may serve as independent sources and contribute to notability. This is a judgement call. Press releases, like most interviews, are normally not independent, Vathsalak. They may or may not be reliable, and if they are, may be used to support specific facts in a Wikipedia article, but they do not help in establishing notability, as a rule. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 18:04, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Is Pending Changes Protection appropriate for copyvios that happen about twice a month?

I am currently watching (and improving when I have the time) 29 articles relating to Nokia’s Android smartphones (thank goodness edits are not very common in those articles). But I’ve noticed that three editors, all of whom have a history of uploading copyrighted stuff as “Own Work” (I checked on nokia.com and all their images are copyrighted by HMD Global, which runs the mobile phone business) have uploaded a total of 7 copyrighted images (some without any modifications, some with a white background) in the last two months. The first two editors’ images have been deleted, but given how often random people are adding copyrighted images, I’d like to know if there is a way to stop people from adding images to the article, without interfering with other editors’ work (especially since almost no one else has been causing any trouble on these articles). If there is no way, does this disruptive editing (or vandalism, if deliberate copyvios count as vandalism) warrant putting the pages under the pending changes review system? RedBulbBlueBlood9911 (talk) 10:20, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

RedBulbBlueBlood9911, deliberate copyvios are not vandalism, which is defined at Wikipedia:Vandalism as "editing (or other behavior) deliberately intended to obstruct or defeat the project's purpose". And the base problem is that these editors are uploading copyrighted images, either to en:WP or to Commons; a solution should deal with that, regardless of whether the images are then added to particular articles. (I'm curious as to why someone wanting a picture of a particular smartphone doesn't just take a photo of one – but that's irrelevant.) Maproom (talk) 10:57, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Maproom, ignore my question about whether there is a way to automatically revert media addition (I realised now only that if someone tries to add their own picture of a phone, they’d have issues 🤔) would putting the affected articles under Pending Changes Protection be appropriate? RedBulbBlueBlood9911 (talk) 11:15, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

(ec)Persistent addition of copyvios after warnings are ground for blocking, which are not then easily lifted. That should be the way to go here. Warn them for each instance of copyrighted addition and if they persist, report them. If you can identify the problem editors, deal with the editors. Page protection is for when, in general, some kind of editors are causing problems, such as IPs or new ones. And there isn't an option to "allow edits except adding images". Pending changes is for hiding edits from the general public (not logged in) until an experienced editor approves them. I don't see how stopping a section of our readers from seeing those images would help anyone. It doesn't make it less of a copyright, nor does it reduce work for other editors. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 11:17, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

@Usedtobecool: Without commenting on the specific merits of this case, "It doesn't make it less of a copyright" is a weird thing to say. The copyvio is definitely less severe if only a small group sees it. In addition, beyond the legal status, it is morally also better to hide copyvios from as many people as possible. --MrClog (talk) 11:21, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

MrClog, guess I was thinking only in terms of the amount of editor work needed and the legal liability Wikimedia might face. We'll still have to remove them (same amount of editor work) and I reckon someone who wants to sue, won't change their mind just because we had pending changes enabled to reduce exposure. The actual liability does not depend on the amount of exposure because the individual editors are responsible for their copyvios not Wikimedia. Suppose there's case though to be made that less people who are likely to sue may be logged in at any given time.

So, do you think pending changes will-be/are implemented on the basis that copyrighted images are being added and need to be hidden from as many people as possible? Usedtobecool ☎️ 11:40, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

@Usedtobecool: Besides the likelihood to suit, the seriousness of the infringement (and thus the injury suffered by the copyright holder) are limited with PC. However, in this case, warnings/blocks are a better solutiont than PC protection. MrClog (talk) 11:47, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Okay, so I’ve decided to just warn and watch anyone who uploads and adds copyrighted images to the articles I’m watching. Consider this issue resolved. And by the way Usedtobecool, WP:PC says that it may be used against copyright violations in the last line of the lead. RedBulbBlueBlood9911 (talk) 11:51, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Save Draft

Hi! I'm working on a new topic which will take time for final submission to publish. I searched a lot " how to save draft" but no luck. pls guide me for the same.

Thanks, Shekhar Shekhar in (talk) 12:51, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Shekhar in To save your draft, click "publish changes". This does not mean "publish my draft to the encyclopedia", it simply means "save changes". It used to say "save changes" but it was changed to emphasize that anything saved is visible to the public, even if not formally part of the encyclopedia. 331dot (talk) 12:56, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

how can i edit a wikipedia entry?

 2600:1003:B46A:C155:CDA7:FF83:DF99:EA71 (talk) 13:25, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello IP user, and welcome to the Teahouse. You can learn about editing by going to Help:Editing, though essentially you look for the 'Edit' or 'Edit source' tab at the top of the page (assuming you aren't trying to edit on a mobile device.) Note, however, that new editors cannot edit certain 'semi-protected' pages until their account has reached a a certain age and made a minimum number of edits (usually 4 days and 10 edits). Non-registered users cannot edit them at all. Semi-protected pages have a little padlock icon on the top right of the screen. I would also point out that your individual IP address has been specifically blocked from editing Harvard Extension School until the end of May as you appear to have been editing on that page in a disruptive manner - possibly by edit warring. If you need further explanation on anything, let us know. Nick Moyes (talk) 13:39, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Correction to Karl Friedrich Schinkel

Italic text 142.129.114.219 (talk) 13:48, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse! If you have a suggestion for making a correction to the Karl Friedrich Schinkel article, you can go to the article's talk page - Talk:Karl Friedrich Schinkel - and add your suggestion there. Please include a reliable source for the correction, so editors can confirm your correction. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 14:50, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

connemara marble

I would like to write an article about connemara marble, but currently that article is a redirect to "verds antiques", how should I go about this? thanks in advance! --Licks-rocks (talk) 15:48, 10 May 2020 (UTC) Licks-rocks (talk) 15:48, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

I recommend that you create Draft:Connemara marble, and once you've got it into a state such that it's acceptable as an article, you submit it for review. If the reviewer accepts it, it'll be their job to replace the existing redirect. Maproom (talk) 16:11, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hello, Licks-rocks: Welcome to Wikipedia, and to the Teahouse. While it is technically possible to edit redirect into an article, I would always advised inexperienced users to use the articles for creation mechanism, whereby you create and work on a draft, and when you think it is ready for publication as part of the main encyclopaedia, you submit it for review. If the reviewer doesn't think it is ready, then they will give you some pointers to what needs changing; once a reviewer accepts it, they will sort out any issues of existing redirects, or disambiguation needed.

Having said that, I also advise new editors to spend some time (weeks at least, and probably months) improving existing articles, while they learn how Wikipedia works, before embarking on the very very difficult task of creating an acceptable new article. (I sometimes liken plunging straight in on a new article as trying to play a piano concerto at your first music lesson).

I'm guessing that you don't agree that "Connemara marble" is simply another name for Verd antique? Even so, please consider whether it calls for a separate article, rather than a new section in that article (or somewhere else).

Whenever you decide to go ahead with it, please make sure you start by reading your first article, and WP:referencing for beginners. Happy editing! --ColinFine (talk) 16:13, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

I do indeed not agree. some quick research has led me to the conclusion that, unlike the other entries, it is not a serpentine breccia or opicalcite. it is in fact a "true" marble. The reason I want to write this entry is because I was trying to do some research on the topic and the verts antiques article was... less than helpful. --Licks-rocks (talk) 16:23, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

These web sites 1 2 persuade me that Connemara marble is generally formed of serpentine, not marble. Maproom (talk) 17:06, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

FYI: both of those lead to a 404 error. --Licks-rocks (talk) 18:15, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

There was a minor formatting error in the links – they work now. --bonadea contributions talk 18:24, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

EDIT: got both of your links working. Both refer to the marble as being abundant in serpentine minerals, rather than it actually being [serpentinite]. A subtle difference, but an important one.--Licks-rocks (talk) 18:29, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

@Licks-rocks: The way of linking to a Wikipedia article is [[serpentinite]], which renders as serpentinite, rather than using a full URL like [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serpentinite serpentinite]]. You'll find more information at WP:Wikilinks. --David Biddulph (talk) 18:36, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

thank you! I'm new to the english wiki, so everything works ever so subtly different to what I am used to,—Just enough to throw me off.Licks-rocks (talk) 18:39, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

@Licks-rocks: Hi, I've seen this by chance; I happen to have done some work on the verde antica article and I too thought the Connemara marble seemed rather out of place! (I hadn't heard of it before.) I support the creation of a new article for the Irish stone, since the verd antique generally refers to products of one or two ancient Graeco-Roman quarry workings in Greece and Connemara is visibly different from them. "Serpentino" seems a fairly loose category for green stones like these in art history and archaeology and the often used label of "serpentine" doesn't seem to correspond between geology's understanding of the subject - I for one would like to know more about this area! GPinkerton (talk) 18:51, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi @GPinkerton:! I'm glad to see such an encouraging response! I've begun writing a draft yesterday, but it may take me a while before it starts resembling something publishable.Licks-rocks (talk) 20:33, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Wrong Interwikilink for en:Meloneras, how to correct?

Hi guys, en:Meloneras (which is a beach avenue in Gran Canaria) has an Interwiki Link to es:Bryonia_dioica which is a plant, so totally wrong... can someone delete this? I have no idea how to do this. Thanks! CommanderWaterford (talk) 16:16, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

@CommanderWaterford: The error probably comes from es:Meloneras being a redirect to es:Bryonia dioica. --CiaPan (talk) 16:52, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

@CommanderWaterford: Well, after checking the enwiki article I must say I didn't find any interwiki links in it. --CiaPan (talk) 17:09, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

@CiaPan: yes, of course, because I cannot link it to the correct spanish article... but I already asked the spanish sysops to correct the forwarding lemma, thanks so far for your help CommanderWaterford (talk) 17:13, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

To which page on the Spanish Wikipedia are you trying to link the enwiki article? es:Maspalomas has a redlink to es:Meloneras_(Maspalomas). --David Biddulph (talk) 17:30, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @CommanderWaterford: An interwiki link usually means a link under "Languages" in the left pane of an article. Meloneras has no interwiki link. Interwiki links should not be affected by redirects at other wikis. I don't know Spanish. Where is the Spanish article about the place? If the problem is that you are trying to create a Spanish article then you can do so at the redirect or any other title. See Wikipedia:Redirect#How to edit a redirect or convert it into an article. Wikipedia languages are edited independently and often don't have the same articles. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:39, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

@PrimeHunter: That's exactly what I was looking for, thanks! CommanderWaterford (talk) 17:46, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Spotted Hyenas

I've added some info on the spotted hyena from Hyena Project. I wonder if this info will be useful, since Hyena Project are a reliable source? Redstoneprime (talk) 16:43, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

@Redstoneprime: hello, this may be better discussed on the talk page for the article. Jcoolbro (talk) (c) 16:48, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

@Jcoolbro: I've added that to the articles talk page yesterday letting people know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Redstoneprime (talk • contribs) 16:51, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Reliable sources

Can we create articles for subjects if there are no reliable sources for them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Redstoneprime (talk • contribs) 17:08, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

No. See WP:Notability and WP:Verifiability. --David Biddulph (talk) 17:33, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I imagine subjects with no reliable sources would be those that aren't well-known, anyway? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Redstoneprime (talk • contribs) 17:38, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

@Redstoneprime: Exactly. They aren't notable enough to be in an encyclopedia. Hillelfrei ^talk 17:42, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

That's true. For the first article I made (which is still pending review), I made sure to cite all my sources (such as news articles from CNN). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Redstoneprime (talk • contribs) 17:46, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

@Redstoneprime: Just to clarify, something can be "well-known" and still not be Wikipedia notable (e.g., neologisms, new companies, and breaking news). (Please also take note of WP:INDENT and WP:SIGN with regard to discussion pages. Thanks.) —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 22:53, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Untitled

FYI

 – Added heading Hillelfrei ^talk 18:30, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

 66.169.103.20 (talk) 17:57, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi IP. Did you have a question? Hillelfrei ^talk 18:30, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Can WikiProjects be based on associates?

Hi, so I have been on Wikipedia for a while. Given the current state of affairs in the world, friends of mine were going to join it as the summer months start to have something to work on. I am familiar with WikiProjects but those are usually based on common goals (Like history) and not preexisting connections. What is Wikipedia´s policy on this? 22mikpau (talk) 18:28, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

@22mikpau: From reading Wikipedia:WikiProject and Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide, it appears that WikiProjects are based on common interests or goals, not based on pre-existing conditions. However, you could all work together on improving articles. GoingBatty (talk) 18:50, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Further, 22mikpau, it seems to me perfectly legitimate for you to create a page in your user space, say User:22mikpau/collaboration2020, and you and your friends use it and/or its talk page to organise your collaboration. You could even model it on a WikiProject page if that was helpful. --ColinFine (talk) 20:50, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

issues with the way certain characters are displayed in google chrome

As visible in this screenshot, it seems certain characters are not displayed properly in chrome: https://i.imgur.com/5NR13kE.png

The plus sign is visible in some locations and in other locations the plus sign is partially poorly visible. I was wondering why this is. I'm viewing the page in google chrome at the default zoom level. Zooming in resolves the issue, but I reckon the page should look ok at the default zoom level. 85.148.91.183 (talk) 18:31, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Have you tried changing the way the Math extension renders? Under your Preferences, go to Appearance, scroll down to the Math section, and pick a different radio button. After saving, see if that fixes the problem. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 18:33, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of using any Math extension. Surely you don't need any extensions to view mathematical expressions on wikipedia? In the chrome Appearance settings I don't see any math section. I'm on a windows 10 computer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.148.91.183 (talk) 00:08, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

By the way, in firefox, it looks better, though it's still curious that some plus signs are rendered crisp while others are rendered fuzzy (again at the default zoom level).

https://i.imgur.com/4x8qvLG.png

I am referring to the preferences for Wikipedia. Mediawiki uses the Math extension (which incorporates LaTeX) to create the appropriate subscripts, superscripts, and other formatting. You'll notice that the font type for equations differs from that of prose. You could try rendering them as .pngs to see if that fixes your problem. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:39, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

At Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-rendering, under "Math", I have selected "MathML with SVG or PNG fallback" and the page Geometric progression renders fine for me in FFox. You need to create an account in order to set the preferences. If I go to that page in Chrome, while not logged in, it is also rendered fine though. Make sure are not changing the magnification (press control-zero), though that doesn't break the rendering for me either. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 04:18, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't have an account at wikipedia, but I reckon the math should also render ok for people who are just casually consulting wikipedia without having an account. I did pay attention to the zoom settings to ensure they are at 100% since I know that bigger or smaller zoomlevels can create issues with properly displaying the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.148.91.183 (talk) 09:36, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

'Wuhan CDC' in 'COVID-19 pandemic in mainland China'

Paragraph 1 of this page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_pandemic_in_mainland_China

Could someone link 'Wuhan CDC' as it's unclear what this is referencing? Is this part of the US CDC or a Chinese national office not connected to the US CDC? Clarification somehow would be most welcome. Thanks for the fantastic article by the way. Regards Peter Edit Now logged-in to Wikipedia  86.153.108.143 (talk) 19:49, 10 May 2020 (UTC) @86.153.108.143: It is probably mentioning the chinese CDC. Since the chinese CDC isn't mentioned prior in the artcle, I linked it. Jcoolbro (talk) (c) 19:55, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello, IP editor. The best place to raise this issue is Talk:COVID-19 pandemic in mainland China because that is where editors working on that particular article discuss its content. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:57, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for linking and explaining - much appreciated. Regards Peter — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pavessey (talk • contribs) 20:18, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Visual editor gone

Visual editor access

I was using the visual editor but now it is not appearing on article pages. Only source editing. 76.120.101.53 (talk) 19:57, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello 76...! I only just now tried editing as an IP, so I can't speak on what it's usually like. But, right now, I am getting one "Edit" button which when I click takes me to source editing and no option for switching to visual is immediately apparent. I tried changing the last part of the url of the editing page from "&action=edit" to "&veaction=edit" and it did switch to visual editing. So, perhaps try that workaround for the time being? I am getting both options as a logged in editor. According to one discussion at www.mediawiki.org/wiki/VisualEditor/Feedback, visual editor is not available to IPs on desktop; so I am wondering if you used to edit logged in until recently. Best, Usedtobecool ☎️ 21:38, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi IP editor, I actually encountered a similar problem that got resolved at this discussion here. Can you try switching skins and see if that works? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:54, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

mixed up my formatting - help please

Hi, dear people, I need help, i did mix up my user page on Thomas Kellner, and i don't understand what i did wrong. I do have sections "Life", "Photographic technique", "Works in Collections (Selection)", "Solo Exhibitions (Selection)", "Group Exhibitions (Selection)", "References" and "Further reading" and "External links" - and most of it already formatted, but when i look at "show preview" it shows this: "In 2010 he designed a photo project together with pupils of the Gesamtschule Gießen-Ost, which theme was the Telecommunications bunker in Gießen. The project was financially supported by the city of Giessen as part of the competition Stadt der jungen Forscher (City of young researchers). Rochester, New York, United States

   Museum of Fine Arts, Houston,[10] Houston, Texas, United States
   Sammlung Schupmann. Fotografie in Deutschland nach 1945,[11] Bad Hersfeld, Germany
   Art Institute of Chicago: Collection of Photography,[12] Chicago, Illinois, United States
   Worcester Art Museum,[13]Worcester, Massachusetts, United States
   Fox Talbot Museum, Lacock Abbey,[14] Lacock, England
   Library of Congress,[15] Washington D.C., United States

I just don't understand what i did wrong, could someone help me please, i don't want to have to do all the formatting over and over again, i'm stuck. PLEASE... --Gyanda (talk) 20:50, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, Gyanda, I don't understand what the problem is with User:Gyanda/Thomas Kellner, but if you got something wrong in your last edit, it's very easy to undo it: pick "History", and then "Undo" next to the last edit. --ColinFine (talk) 20:56, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

There must be something in the way of my text. I did undo, but it didn't undo the problem. Up to here is my text: "In 2010 he designed a photo project together with pupils of the Gesamtschule Gießen-Ost, which theme was the Telecommunications bunker in Gießen. The project was financially supported by the city of Giessen as part of the competition Stadt der jungen Forscher (City of young researchers)." - and then suddenly the works in collections come in, and i just don't get why, i'm so desperate now, i just don't know, how to fix this.. oh my god, this is terrible... --Gyanda (talk) 21:03, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Wow, did you do this? It's all there again? Was the mistake really that i had forgotten to put the "/" at <ref> - wow, i'm so thankful, i thought i would have to do all the work again. Oh, what a relief. THANKS! --Gyanda (talk) 21:13, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, yes, and yes. Glad everything worked out. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 21:17, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Dear Gyanda, I noticed one ref-formatting error in your sandbox and I've fixed that. You had used (( before Cite while {{ is used. Best. Aaqib Anjum Aafī (^talk) 19:13, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Dear AaqubAnjum, thank you very much, yes i got pretty mixed up yesterday, but today i understood it better :-). It's quite a job to keep all the formatting right. Thanks for your help! Kind regards, --Gyanda (talk) 19:19, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Question on Formatting

Hi, kind people, now all is okay again with the formatting of the article. But now i have another difficult question. I have a formatting in German:

• <ref>{{Literatur |Autor=Anja Mohr |Titel=Mit Kunst Geschichte entdecken. Ein Fernmeldebunker im Blickfeld außerschulischen Lernens |Hrsg=Justus-Liebig-Universität Giessen |Sammelwerk=Spiegel der Wissenschaft |Nummer=28 (2011) | Ort=Gießen |Datum=2011-05-04 |Seiten=57-65 |Fundstelle=S.57}}</ref>

and i try to transform it into the English formatting:

• <ref>{{cite journal |last=Mohr |first=Anja |date=2011-05-04 |title=Mit Kunst Geschichte entdecken. Ein Fernmeldebunker im Blickfeld außerschulischen Lernens |trans-title=Discover history with art. A telecommunications bunker in the field of extracurricular learning |url= http://geb.uni-giessen.de/geb/volltexte/2011/8121/pdf/SdF_2011_01_56_65.pdf |journal=Spiegel der Wissenschaft |language=German |volume=28 |page=57 |access-date=2020-05-10}}<ref>

would this be correct? I find it quite complicated to use the right formatting in different languages, sorry for causing you work. Kind regards, --Gyanda (talk) 21:24, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Gyanda, I don't know German. What I can tell is the closing ref is missing the slash. "page=57" should probably be "pages=57–65", and I usually add "format=pdf" when the url ends with ".pdf". That should work. Why not try it in the sandbox and see what it does? Usually, when you hit the "Preview" button, it generates a bunch of errors if there is something wrong with the citation template; that could help too. Best, Usedtobecool ☎️ 21:48, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

@Usedtobecool: Since the URL ends in .pdf, you don't need to add |format=pdf per Help:Citation Style 1#External links:

{{cite journal|title=Title|journal=Journal|url= http://geb.uni-giessen.de/geb/volltexte/2011/8121/pdf/SdF_2011_01_56_65.pdf |format=pdf}} → "Title" (pdf). Journal.

{{cite journal|title=Title|journal=Journal|url= http://geb.uni-giessen.de/geb/volltexte/2011/8121/pdf/SdF_2011_01_56_65.pdf}} → "Title" (PDF). Journal.

GoingBatty (talk) 22:05, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

One could argue that it is more "future-proof" to include the |format=PDF for when someone changes the URL because of a site re-organization, the new URL doesn't end in PDF, and the updating editor (or bot) doesn't notice to add the format parm. Not a big deal, but the issue has been discussed in the past somewhere, IIRC. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 23:06, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your answers. I could add the "pdf" - this is not complicated. page 57 refers to the quotation, it's not the whole article i'm referring to, just this one quotation and it is on page 57. I do not really understand what is meant with "sandbox" - i tried the preview on my page, it looked okay, but i just felt unsecure, whether the formatting is all correct. So much to learn still... i wished i was smarter and wouldn't have to bother you all. Very kind of you all to answer me so quickly. Thanks! --Gyanda (talk) 23:50, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

@Gyanda: When you are referencing a source, you have to mention all the pages it is found in the journal. If you want to specify which page it is from, you can use a template like {{Rp}} or {{Sfn}} to do so. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:06, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Tenryuu, some while ago i asked specifically on this and i was told that in the english wikipedia they don't mention all the pages, but only the referencepage of the quote... i store all info i get here in my "vademecum" for formatting and so i thought, i do it the right way as it was told me so. So now i start again

@Gyanda: Journals are different in that an issue has many articles per publication. To help readers find the specific article its page range is required. You can see a breakdown of what a journal citation looks like here. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 01:12, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Tenryuu you are mistaken. The documentation for {{cite Journal}} says: page: The number of a single page in the source that supports the content. Use either} If a 40-page journal article (pp 120-160) is being cited for a single fact, which appears on the 15th page of the article (p 135) the citation should include "page=135" not "pages=120-160". The point is to tell the reader exactly where in the article the fact is supported. If the reader must check the entire article, there is little point i8n providing any page numbers, and the citation is of limited value,l if any. That is no different for a journal than for any other paginated text source. @Gyanda: DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 03:15, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

@DESiegel: The earliest examples given provide the entirety of the articles in journals. The section of the documentation you're referring to is in the section labelled "in-source locations". {{Sfn}} or {{rp}} work. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 04:14, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

• Tenryuu "in-source locations" is the standard term for metadata that tells one where in the soured the information being cited is located. It includes the page parameter for a book por a printed newspaper, for example, and the time parameter for a video. It is in no way limited to the use of {{Sfn}} or {{rp}} . Those are most often used when there are multiple citations to different locations in the same source work. If there isw only a single citation to a given source in an article, there is surely no reason to use RP, but every reason to specify exactly where in the source the supporting information can be found. However, I think I should take this to a page about {{cite journal}}, not in this Teahouse thread. I will pink you there. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 12:57, 11 May 2020 (UTC) @Tenryuu: DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 12:59, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

• ref>{{cite journal |last=Mohr |first=Anja |date=2011-05-04 |title=Mit Kunst Geschichte entdecken. Ein Fernmeldebunker im Blickfeld außerschulischen Lernens |trans-title=Discover history with art. A telecommunications bunker in the field of extracurricular learning |url= http://geb.uni-giessen.de/geb/volltexte/2011/8121/pdf/SdF_2011_01_56_65.pdf |journal=Spiegel der Wissenschaft |language=German |volume=28 |pages=57-65 |p=57 |format=PDF|access-date=2020-05-10}}<ref>

would that be okay? Kind regards, --Gyanda (talk) 00:53, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

• Aside from the unclosed <ref> tag at the beginning, you aren't closing the reference itself with </ref> (you are missing a forward slash). —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 01:12, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, i corrected this! --Gyanda (talk) 11:15, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Tenryuu, i tried to insert this as above and it says " More than one of |pages= and |p= specified (help)<ref>" as this is getting way too complicated for me to understand, i will now follow DES' advice and only name the page of the specific quote. Kind regards, --Gyanda (talk)

I agree with DES – the more specific page(s) are better. I don't see a benefit from knowing that the article covers pages 120–160 when only page 135 is being cited. {{Rp}} citations can be confusing^[12]:3[4] for readers to parse (though they serve a purpose when necessary). It seems analogous to a magazine or newspaper article, where we don't cite all the pages of the article either. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 06:46, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Dear people, i'm very thankful that you all have taken the time to answer me and show me the different aspects, which have to be taken into account. This was very kind of you. Now i know, how to format it right and will put this in my vademecum so that i hopefully will never make it wrong again. Thank you very much! Kind regards, --Gyanda (talk) 11:15, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Chichester High School page

Hello I hope someone can help. Chichester High School for Boys and Chichester High School for Girls have had Wikipedia pages for many years.

The two schools merged in 2016 and became Chichester High School. They had to take one of the DfE numbers and decided to take the CHSG number.

I had tried to set a new Chichester High School page but I have limited knowledge on how to do this.

I have recently noticed that someone has converted the Chichester High School for Girls page into a Chichester High School one - wiping out all the history of Chichester High School for Girls which is really sad.

Can anyone help with this?

Ideally, both CHSG and CHSB pages should have been suspended?? and a new CHS page created.

Thank you TJW713 (talk) 21:10, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

@TJW713: I'm glad you posted on the article talk page at Talk:Chichester High School, because that's the best place to discuss the edits to this article. You can still see all the history by going to Chichester High School and clicking "View history". If you think a previous version of the article had better wording than the current version, you can edit the article (presuming you do not have a conflict of interest) or make specific suggestions at the talk page. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 21:57, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Notability

I am wondering if I can write an article on the subject of Poetic Apologetics as an emerging form of religious apologetics? My hesitation is that it is a very new form of apologetics. My main source would be from this website: https://poeticapologetics.com/ As well as some other articles about apologetics in general terms, as well as poetry in general terms. Cdrauscher (talk) 22:12, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Cdrauscher, this sounds like a neologism, which is normally to be avoided, especially if you have any connection to that site. Guy (help!) 22:16, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Cdrauscher: The guideline Wikipedia:Notability has the answers you're looking for. "Information on Wikipedia must be verifiable; if no reliable, independent sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article." and "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article." Since it's very new, it might be too soon to have an article here - see the essay Wikipedia:Too soon. GoingBatty (talk) 22:18, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Creating a new page

I am trying to create a page for a friend of mine. His name currently exists as a red line entry (Craig Blackwell). I selected his name to begin creation, but I have a feeling I did it incorrectly.

The page is currently in my sandbox https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Rentonrc/sandbox&oldid=955998633

What do I need to do to publish it under his name? Rentonrc (talk) 00:25, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Rentonrc Hello. I have put an important message on your user talk page, please review it. 331dot (talk) 00:34, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Rentonrc blocked (not by me) for undisclosed paid editing - please see WP:PAID for how to disclose paid edits. dibbydib ^boop or _snoop 04:58, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Table Elements Math

Perform Excel-like math operations on groups of existing tabular columns (or rows), and record values into additional tabular columns (or rows). I found "https://tools.wmflabs.org/excel2wiki/index.php", which would seem to do the hardwired coding (thank you - very handy and useful!), but there is no visible mechanism for the underlying math interdependence of columns (as could be pointed to in an Excel sheet. Hardwired, yes, but no tabular element is addressable for further operations. I suspect a solution might be a dedicated Template, but I can't find succinct rules for build such, or even a simple (for) example, like: multiply column A by column B, then add column C and write in column D, then write column A divided by column B and write into column E. (I found a very specific Template where a row by another row division was performed - but offered no extensible logic to other ops.) Is there a comprehensive "how to" document for creating and modifying Wikipedia articles and their diverse contents? Dan Arthur Gross (talk) 01:07, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

@Dan Arthur Gross: Is this for an existing article? Can you provide some more detail on what the columns are and what calculation you want to do? I say this because, if you found an example of a template being used to do division, you already have the general concept, so I need to understand more specifically what you need to do in order to know where to point you. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 01:55, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

@Dan Arthur Gross: Perhaps it's about {{COVID-19 pandemic data/United States medical cases by state}}? If so, the issue may be more complicated than the technical calculation. Maybe discuss it at Template talk:COVID-19 pandemic data/United States medical cases by state#New columns that add in each jurisdiction's cases per 100,000 people? —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 02:00, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

i wanna make a page but...

I really want to make a page for Kienan Robert, aka Poofesure, but there are no sources for him besides his twitter and his YouTube wiki, of which I have been told are "unreliable sources" even though he himself wrote them. He is pretty famous... hes got around 1.5 million subscribers on YouTube and has about 100 000 on Twitch.

Draft:Poofesure

here's the draft I made.

this document probably didnt work and im gonna get banned but, whatever. Nolanisntfunny (talk) 02:32, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

@Nolanisntfunny: Welcome to the Teahouse! People who are popular on social media do not necessarily meet Wikipedia's standards for inclusion, called "notability". The guideline for people is at Wikipedia:Notability (people). Wikipedia articles summarize what independent sources say about the person, so if there are no independent sources, maybe it's just too soon to create an article. GoingBatty (talk) 02:48, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

@Nolanisntfunny: "Even though he himself wrote them" is exactly what's wrong. That's called a primary source and cannot be used for anything except to cite the most mundane facts – things about which the subject/writer would not be expected to fabricate or embellish. They do not contribute to the notability requirement at all. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 03:38, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

@Nolanisntfunny: If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list. dibbydib ^boop or _snoop

aight, i think im gonna wait a little while until he's a bit more famous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nolanisntfunny (talk • contribs) 16:23, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Longshaw

Previous discussion: Wikipedia:Teahouse#William Longshaw Jr

I have two uploads that I have of my cousin's birth. He is my 4th cousin, 4 times removed. His name is Dr. William Longshaw. He was born in Russell Street, Manchester, Lancashire England on April 1836 and emigrated to the United States of America with his parents (William and Margaret from the Port of Liverpool, Lancashire England to New work arriving March 31, 1842 on board the ship 'Siberia) see Census England, Passenger List Arrival at New York March 31 1842, 1850 and 1860. U.S. Federal Census and U.S. State Census for Lowell,Massachusetts. I have photocopies of the census from Manchester, England 1841. William senior was 30 years old, Margaret 25 years old. William was 5 year old.

I do have written proof of Dr. William Longshaw place of birth. Manchester, England How do I upload this proof. Longshaw (talk) 04:13, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

@Longshaw: Please see the response you were given earlier at Wikipedia:Teahouse#William Longshaw Jr and discuss this at Talk:William Longshaw Jr.. GoingBatty (talk) 04:21, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

New skin care cosmetic brand and their botulinum ingredient.

Yes frankly I'm an employee. I realized how reckless my attempt to list was with my first article whether I declared conflict of interest or not. Thanks for everyone reviewed and gave comments.

I've been thinking scientific or patent documents about this new cosmetic ingredient derived from Botulinum Toxin are too difficult to understand. (Methionyl r-Clostridium Polypeptide-1 Hexapeptide-40)

So, simply thought explaining about ingredient development back ground, process and results would be helpful to understand as well as spreading knowledge of Gene recombinant protein.

I made a mistake to approach telling the company and brand which using this ingredient with my first article.

Can anyone advice me whether this subject is appropriate for Wikipedia, and the good way to deal with this topic.

Thanks in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joonki7 (talk • contribs) 04:30, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

@Joonki7: Welcome to the Teahouse! It sounds like you're aware of the Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide. The answer to your question is at Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria. Someone writing a good draft will find what the independent reliable sources have to say about the company/brand and then summarize it in boring encyclopedic terms. GoingBatty (talk) 04:38, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

You appear to be asking if it is possible to write an article about the ingredient (topically applied botulinum-derived polypeptide) as a skin wrinkle treatment without naming the one company in the world that is making and selling the ingredient. Is there science literature, i.e., review article(s) about multiple clinical trials? — Preceding unsigned comment added by David notMD (talk • contribs) 11:14, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Frustrated

user:Robert McClenon suggested I discuss my frustrations here. I’m very disappointed and depressed with all the users trying to redirect all the articles I have created and spent days researching... Oh well... whatever... never mind... DarklyShadows (talk) 05:26, 11 May 2020 (UTC) DarklyShadows (talk) 05:26, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Comments on One of the Debates

This is a type of dispute that is common in the music area. In some of the general areas, there are said to inclusionist and deletionist editors. In music, there are inclusionist and redirectionist editors. Inclusionists take an expansive view of how many articles the encyclopedia should have. In other areas, deletionists favor deleting articles that they do not consider to be notable or encyclopedic. In the music area, the restrictive view is that of redirectionists, who prefer to redirect songs to albums, and sometimes to redirect albums to artists. Disputes also arise concerning performers known as members of a particular group or band, and inclusionists support separate articles, while redirectionists prefer to redirect to the articles on the group or band. The basic issue is usually one of different philosophies of the encyclopedia with regard to how fine a level of granularity is in order for articles as opposed to redirect entries.

Often the interaction between inclusionists and either deletionists or redirectionists can be productive. Sometimes it becomes unpleasant and disruptive.

Some editors like to rely almost entirely on the general notability guideline. Other editors, typically inclusionists, prefer to rely primarily on special notability guidelines, and to write the special notability guidelines broadly to permit as much coverage as possible. There are also questions as to whether the special notability guidelines should be interpreted expansively to call for inclusion or only permissively to allow inclusion. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:58, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

More Comments

That is what I commented in an AFD discussion. As noted, I think that the interaction between different viewpoints can be productive as long as it is civil, and it is unfortunate that it sometimes becomes heated. User:DarklyShadows is an enthusiastic inclusionist who contributes a great deal of information about songs, which is sometimes kept and sometimes merged. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:58, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Rejected article for unclear reason [Draft:Vibease]

Draft:Vibease Hi there, My recent draft was rejected by User_talk:Sulfurboy because the article accused to be an advertisement. The article just stated the basic facts about the company. Please let me know which section does it look like an advertisement? It's frustrating to see other pages blatant advertising their product and get away with it. i.e. MysteryVibe lovense Thank you Paul Handri (talk) 05:44, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

(Paul Handri) I see, I am very sorry for any inconvenience I will review your request again. --Victoria & Landmarks (talk) 05:54, 11 May 2020 (UTC) 

@Victoria & Landmarks: Kindly do not pretend to be a reviewer who has reviewed the draft. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 06:04, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Paul - other stuff exists is not a valid argument (it often leads to the examples raised being deleted!). Each article has to stand on its own merits. Older articles especially were created under at-that-time lower standards. David notMD (talk) 11:31, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

I have cleaned up MysteryVibe. I am assuming its notability was checked when it was reviewed by WP:NPP. I also trimmed out the product listing from lovense. Please note WP:Otherstuffexists though. Usedtobecool ☎️ 12:22, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

@Paul Handri: On Draft:Vibease, I don't see any references for the first paragraph in the Background section or for most of the items in the Products section. While writing the draft, you should be summarizing what the independent reliable sources state. Hope this helps! GoingBatty (talk) 15:15, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi all, :@Tenryuu: :@Usedtobecool:  :@David notMD: :@GoingBatty: Thanks for all your feedback. I'm new and I learn a lot.

@GoingBatty: I have added references as suggested.

Infobox after the lead paragraph on mobile

Hello! I was wondering how I can put the Infobox after the lead paragraph on mobile devices without changing the way it looks on the desktop version. Any help is appreciated. Thanks! Lara Vichnezka (talk) 06:19, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Also asked at the Help Desk. Lara Vichnezka, please don't post the same question in multiple places.--ColinFine (talk) 08:49, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Removed content from the page Arctic

Hello Guys,

I am new here trying to make some contributions where I can. I noticed that at the top of Arctic page someone added "Georgia is on google! Yay! The Arctic is an amazing place. It’s surrounded by countries such as Afghanistan and Russia". It did not seem relevant content to me so I edited it out, but then I got negative points. do you think it was a mistake? Should I avoid it in future?

Any learnings and suggestions are welcome.

additional info: also received this warning like message after this removal -

https://i.imgur.com/OYWQMGT.png — Preceding unsigned comment added by Globalnitish (talk • contribs) 06:59, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks in advance!

Regards, Nitish Globalnitish (talk) 06:45, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

@Globalnitish: Welcome to the Teahouse and thanks for removing that bit of vandalism. The negative count that you see is the change in article size (measured in bytes). If you remove content it is negative; if you add content it is positive. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 06:54, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

@Globalnitish: It appears you were the one who blanked the page and inserted that bit. Kindly follow Nyook's demand and refrain from vandalism. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 07:02, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

@Tenryuu: I don't understand how you get to that :( Here is a list of all my contributions so far: https://i.imgur.com/2V4wQra.png, at #3 you can see a removal not any addition — Preceding unsigned comment added by Globalnitish (talk • contribs) 07:11, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

@Globalnitish:, This [1] is your edit, it removed the lead-section. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:28, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

@Globalnitish:, to clarify Gråbergs Gråa Sång's diff, not only did you remove the lead, but you also added the nonsense bit as shown on the right. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 07:31, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

@Tenryuu: I am sorry something is messed up. Look at this clearly this user materialscientist is the one doing this nasty thing and somehow I am getting blamed even though I was the one trying to correct it: His contributions: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2001:8004:1241:671B:9C02:8CCA:6ED8:DFF3 The page where he added the content I removed: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Arctic&oldid=956026888 how can you blame me for this? nonsense. Sorry I was trying to do something in free time but I guess this is not the place for me. very disappointed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Globalnitish (talk • contribs) 08:01, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

@Globalnitish: At 2020-05-11T06:39:14 UTC, as shown in your contributions list, you published this edit, which replaced the entire lead paragraph of Arctic and several images with "Georgia is on google! Yay! The Arctic is an amazing place. It’s surrounded by countries such as Afghanistan and Russia.", a net removal of 2709 bytes.

Earlier, at 2020-05-11T03:47:28 UTC, and then again at 03:50:14, a logged-out user with the now-blocked Victoria IP address 2001:8004:1241:671B:9C02:8CCA:6ED8:DFF3 made an almost identical edit (and their vandalism was quickly reverted both times by other editors). You need to understand that everything is logged here, including IP addresses of logged-in users, accessible to a small number of special administrators for the purpose of protecting the project from those who are not here to help build an encyclopedia. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 08:59, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

@AlanM1: thanks for clarifying, I see what I did there, somehow I posted the same thing back again instead of cutting it out..or maybe it happened because I was trying to edit it at the same time when it was being reverted. I'm a novice at this probably I should take some time to learn before doing any edits again. Thanks for taking time to clarify things. Please know it wasn't intentional and that's why it made me angry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Globalnitish (talk • contribs) 09:15, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

@Globalnitish: One thing that is useful is the "Show preview" button – that gives you a chance to see what the page will look like after you have clicked "Publish changes". ("Show changes" will show exactly how the code will change with your edit. Don't be afraid to click those two "Show" buttons to see what happens, because they don't save any changes you've made. That also means that you have to remember to click "Publish" as well, if you do want to save the changes you've previewed.) I don't always remember to use Preview though I try to do so, and from time to time I realise I made an error I would have caught if I'd used it! That always feels a little silly. Another good habit to get into is to look at the page after you have edited it and published your changes. (Again, something I don't always remember to do...) --bonadea contributions talk 10:40, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Basic questions - remove draft from page title.

Hello,

I am a new wiki user - I have created this page but I am unsure if it is published or still a draft. Is it possible to remove the draft reference or have I created it incorrectly?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Future_Ticketing

Please and thanks :) Annmarieguinan (talk) 09:18, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Annmarieguinan Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. New users cannot directly create articles immediately, they must submit them for review using Articles for Creation. As successfully creating a new article is the most difficult task to perform on Wikipedia, it is a good idea to submit drafts even if you technically are able to create new articles, at least until you are very experienced in article creation. In your case, your draft was rejected because it has no independent reliable sources to support its content. A Wikipedia article should only summarize what such sources say about a subject, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of notability, in this case, the definition of a notable company. Please review Your First Article for more information.

If you work for this company, you need to review and formally comply with the conflict of interest and paid editing policies. 331dot (talk) 09:34, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Trouble with sandbox

Hello,

When I click edit source on my sandbox it shows the article contains more content than when the sandbox article is published. For my specific article I have a section on Voters, Parties and politicians and Examples of valence issues when you view the being edited. yet when it is published the section on Parties and politicians and Examples of valence issues is removed and there is only a shorted section on voters, why is that and how do I fix it?

ThanksWikiNicholasUvA (talk) 09:47, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi WikiNicholasUvA, welcome to the Teahouse. A starting <ref> must be ended with </ref>. Fixed in [2]. There was an error message Cite error: A <ref> tag is missing the closing </ref> at the first occurrence. If you fixed that and previewed then an eror message for the next showed up. PrimeHunter (talk) 09:59, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you so much PrimeHunter, I'll keep track of that now, it's for a university project so I thought my work had vanished.WikiNicholasUvA (talk) 10:05, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @WikiNicholasUvA:. Looking at User:WikiNicholasUvA/sandbox I can also see that you have reinserted the almost identical reference time and time again. That is perhaps another reason it appears to be bloated when you use WP:Source Editor. If you look at the published sandbox page you can see those references at the bottom, many by Donald Stokes looking almost exactly the same except for different page numbers. This is very inelegant, but there is a very elegant way around this, whereby you give an easy-to-remember name to each reference, and then 'call it up' on all subsequent occasions. So, for example, your first use of the reference by Stokes could be named <ref name = Stokes> followed by the citation details (except page number). The next need for it is simply written like this <ref name = Stokes/>. Note the closing slash "/" character, and leave out all the rest of the citation detail. That command calls up the detail from the full reference, meaning your reference section now only has one entry for the Stokes publication, but many ticks by it to show home many times it is cited in the page, and where. Then simply use the reference page template( {{rp}}) to add the page number(s) immediately after the reference, like this reference{{rp|370–71}} and then maybe this: reference{{rp|372}}. For more guidance read WP:REFNAME, and let us know if this has helped ... or confused you! Nick Moyes (talk) 10:11, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

FYI

 – added <nowiki>...</nowiki> tags to stop page from breaking GoingBatty (talk) 17:46, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Help with announcing I am a paid contributor

Hi,

I hope you are all well. I have made amendments to announce that I paid contributor for a client on my user page and talk page. Is there anything I am missing? Any help would be appreciated. Thanks

Loisspencertracey (talk) 11:37, 11 May 2020 (UTC) Loisspencertracey (talk) 11:37, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Loisspencertracey, no, not it all. On your userpage, please use the {{Paid}} template to disclose employer, client and affected article for each such article you edit, as instructed at WP:PAID. Please review the documentation at Template:Paid for how to do it right. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 12:33, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

@Loisspencertracey: I should also add that for each person whose article you attempt to edit, you should include their individual names in your declaration, not just the name of any intermediate agency. I'm sure you know that only content sourced to independent, reliably published sources may be added, and no attempt should be made to remove properly sourced content that you or your client happens not to like (unless, of course, it contravenes our WP:BLP policy). As a general principle we expect anyone undertaking paid editing here to invest the time and effort themselves to learn how we operate, rather than expect our volunteers to hand-hold and guide them through every step of the editing. I'm sure you can appreciate why, though you have approached this in the best way - thank you. Do, of course, read WP:NARTIST to satisfy yourself that Lhouette (Ciaron Robinson) is likely to meet our notability criteria, or you could simply be wasting your time and his money in trying to promote him here. Nick Moyes (talk) 13:32, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your help! ☎️

I have amended my talk and user pages again - Can you let me know if it is correct - I just want it to be right before I start my new page.

Many thanks!

Loisspencertracey (talk) 13:17, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Nick! I will have a look at the Nartist page and also add in Lhouette into my declaration. I appreciate the help. Loisspencertracey (talk) 13:50, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Moving pictures from Wikimedia to a Wikipedia page

Have a cup of tea and enjoy seeing Commons images on Wikipedia

Does anyone know how I move a file from Wikimedia to a Wikipedia article? Redstoneprime (talk) 12:02, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

@Redstoneprime: Actually, you don't move any image from Wikimedia Commons to Wikipedia (though the other way around is occasionally be done). Instead, you simply insert a link to the image that exists on Commons into the relevant Wikipedia page. Here is an explanation for you:

I am assuming you have already found an image image you want to use on Wikimedia Commons? If not, go to this main page and type a keyword in the search box (it's at the top right in desktop view). If you find an image you like, but it's not quite the right one, you could click one or more of the "Categories" listed at the very bottom of the page. This helps keep related images together and helps you find others.

It could be like this one of a cup of tea that you want to use. Using an exisiting one is easier that a brand new image of your own that you would first have to upload from scratch. So, click on the link in the previous sentence, or click the photograph you see here - you're taken to the same place - and look just above the picture, and beneath the filename where you'll see a line of five small links. Look for the link with the tiny Wikipedia 'W' logo and the words "Use this file". Click that link and select the text offered to "Use this file on a Wiki as a Thumbnail". (The convention is always to add an image as a thumbnail, no matter how much you'd love to make it larger.) Copy the link to your clipboard and then go to the Wikipedia page you want to add it to (let's assume we want to add it to the page we're on now). Edit the page (ie click the tab labelled Edit Source). Scroll down to the section you'd like to add it to, and paste in the text you copied at the very top of that section. By default, this adds the thumbnail picture and its caption on the right hand side of the page, as you see here. To change the caption text, just edit the text to the right of the vertical bar - or 'pipe'. Don't change the filename.jpg text itself or the image link will be broken. There are some useful links on this help page: Wikipedia:Images with further guidance and tweaks, or detailed layout possibilities at Wikipedia:Picture tutorial.

Of course, if you are using the alternative Visual Editor (which is a bit more WYSIWYG), the process is slightly different. You once again navigate to the section where the image is needed, then, in the editing toolbar, click Insert > Media. At the search bar in the popup that then appears, type the keyword to search for certain image types, or just type in the filename of your image you've already chosen from Wikimedia Commons. Select the image and then click 'Use this image'. Before inserting it you'll be prompted to add a caption. Captions can include hyperlinks, but that's probably best left for another time. I hope this helps.

If you need advice on actually uploading your own image first, that requires a slightly different answer and a mention of copyright issues. Let us know if you need further help on that. Regards from the UK. Nick Moyes (talk) 13:39, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Handling alternative spellings

Good Afternoon,

I am writing an article which mentions a High Sheriff of Somerset - A Robert Fitzpain (no article on Wikipedia - yet). Some sources spell his surname that way but many others spell it as Fitzpaine and even Fitzpayne. Even primary sources spell it in many different ways. Should I just pick a variation and stick with it, or should I mention there are a number of ways of spelling his name (which I would really like to do)? I would really appreciate some advice on the best way to go.

Thank you very much for any advice, Richard (I am sorry if I chose the wrong place for help - I am still quite new and I promise I did look at the help pages! Gricharduk (talk) 12:41, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Gricharduk, welcome! And this is a good place to ask. I think I prefer what you prefer, either as an ordinary parenthesis or like in David (with a so-called Template:Efn). Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:04, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Perfect - I love the use of the end footnote as well! Thank you so much for the advice (and the welcome) Gråbergs Gråa Sång and for replying so quickly. You are a star! Have a great day. Gricharduk (talk) 13:18, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Question

I want to add fewline with draft name Lakhahi Raj Preetikasingh (talk) 13:48, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Your question isn't clear. If you are trying to check whether you have resubmitted your draft for another review, the answer is yes, as indicated by the brown box at the foot of the draft. As it says there: "Review waiting, please be patient. This may take 8 weeks or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 1,346 pending submissions waiting for review.". --David Biddulph (talk) 14:19, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

First kindly tell that reference for draft are sufficient or not Second I want to rename the draft Lakhahi Raj as Lakhahi Raj (Lakhahi Estate) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Preetikasingh (talk • contribs) 14:29, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello again, Preetikasingh. The cited sources in Draft:Lakhahi Raj are currently far from sufficient.

1. The first goes to a search page. Cited sources should go to a specific source, not a place where a user can search for sources
2. the second, https://www.jagran.com/lite/home.html is currently not working.
3. The third, https://www.thehouseoflakhahi.blogspot.com/ is apparently a blog. Blogs are normally not reliable sources in addition, my browser reports some sort of security threat at this site.

Moreover, the section "GENEALOGY" is just a list of people, presumably rulers. It does not give their dates, nor any information on how they are related to each other, so there is no actual Geneology provided. Also section titles should not be in all caps. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 14:41, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

And the last one — Preceding unsigned comment added by Preetikasingh (talk • contribs) 14:48, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Adding one more unpublished reference and resubmitting for yet another review is liable to be regarded as tendentious editing, continuation of which could be liable to get the draft rejected, rather than merely declined, and could get you blocked from editing. You have been given links to the page: WP:reliable sources; it would be wise for you to read it. --David Biddulph (talk) 14:51, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Creation of new Article

I am a new autoconfirm user at Wikipedia and an engineering student from India. I wish to submit my first article of creation, on Diamond Industry which is witnessing an enormous change and evolution. I came across several references who are engaged in this change so wanted to ask if I Can create an article on the company which has done notable work in this field? P D Agrawal (talk) 13:55, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello, P D Agrawa, and welcome to the Teahouse. If the company is itself notable, as defined by WP:NCORP, Wikipedia can have an article on it. (note that just becausew a company is working in an important and expanding field does not automatically make it individually notable.) As an autoconfirmed user, you may create such an article directly, but I would strongly urge you to create and refine it in Draft fist, and to strongly consider asking for a review through the narticles for Creation process. This will take some time, but make it less likely that the article will be deleted soon after its creation, and may improve the eventual article.

Also, if you have any connection to the company, you should declare it as described in WP:COI before doing any work on such an article. If you are being, or expect to be compensated in any way for creating the article, or if it is part of your job function, you must declare as described in WP:PAID. In either of these cases use of a draft and of AfC becomes much more strongly advised. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 14:11, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you so DESiegel let me submit a draft to AFC and go that route. Appreciate the help --P D Agrawal (talk) 20:20, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

---

Definition of Civility and personal attacks on fellow editors

Non-mobile link: Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Hizbul Mujahideen

I want a clarification. Does calling a fellow editor "trout OP" and speculating about them/accusing them of something by making false claims using alphabets in their username amount to personal attack ? I am attaching below some comments made by a fellow editor against me on dispute Resolution forum. The comments are signed by username Kashmiri and can be found under the Heading 'Hizbul Mujahideen'. Please help!!

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Hizbul_Mujahideen AnadiDoD — Preceding unsigned comment added by AnadiDoD (talk • contribs) 15:02, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know you did something silly.

@AnadiDoD: You misunderstand the situation, and I am surprised you have come here from a dispute resolution noticeboard to discuss civility. What they actually said is "trout the OP" - this is not uncivil, but suggests only that you, as the OP (original poster) acted sufficiently incorrectly that someone ought to slap you around the head (albeit playfully, but still unpleasantly) with a wet fish (see WP:TROUT). I think the rationale behind it is that you acted unreasonably swiftly in going from a talk page dispute, to a dispute resolution noticeboard. I comment not on whether that is correct. You are free to defend whether or not you acted rashly at that forum, but I see NO real incivility in the suggestion that you take one on the chin. Have another one from me, my friend! Nick Moyes (talk) 15:19, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

You are welcome to give me a trout, too, as I omitted to include the word "NO" in my original answer to you, which did, unfortunately, rather give entirely the wrong meaning in my answer. I have made the correction, and now stand by and await your fishy slap with appropriate humility and a good sense of humour! Nick Moyes (talk) 15:39, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Nick Moyes thanks for your informative and whacky response friend but I think you missed the part about insinuating something from my Username alphabets and presenting it in the forum do discredit a fellow editor? What could be the "rationale" behind it ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AnadiDoD (talk • contribs) 15:46, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

AnadiDoD we often get users whose username says or suggests that the user is affiliated in some way with a particular organization. This may mean that such users have a conflict of interest when writing about that organization or its actions. It is not unusual nor considered uncivil to ask if a username does or does not indicate such an affiliation. After all if the user did not mean to make the association public, s/he would presumably not have included it in the username, which is very public. Thus such an inquiry is not into anything which is plausibly private. As a string of characters can have many different meanings, particularly when multiple languages are involved, it is better to ask than to make assumptions, which may be wildly incorrect. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 16:08, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @AnadiDoD: Sorry - as you didn't "attach below" any diff of those comments, I overlooked that bit. The other editor wrote "By the way, I wonder whether DoD in AnadiDoD stand for the Indian Department of Defence?" That was not making false claims, nor outing, nor incivility. It was just some rather cheeky speculation on the origins of your username which is, admittedly, an unusual format. You are free to declare a connection with the Indian Department of Defence, or reject any suggestion that you work at the Indian DoD, or ignore the comment entirely. I am assuming good faith that you have not been editing in areas where you may have a conflict of interest, or are PAID to edit. So it's up to you to choose how or whether to respond. However you edit, do so transparently please, assume good faith, and declare any COI that you might have on any subject. Regards from the UK. Nick Moyes (talk) 16:19, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

But DoD in my Username was added because the part before it was not available as a user name. Rather than clearing it up ,this was used to insinuate on a forum that I belong to a particular organisation just discredit me in what sense is that civil and fair ? (pinging DES, Nick Moyes) — Preceding unsigned comment added by AnadiDoD (talk • contribs) 16:25, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

According to me it would have been civil if he/she just asked me on the talk page discussion which we were having. I would have changed it there and then as I have no such malicious intent. But if you guys think that I am the one involved in some conflict of interest debacle, I will Change my username(if possible).Nick Moyes — Preceding unsigned comment added by AnadiDoD (talk • contribs) 16:31, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Please help me on how to remove DoD from the Username so that i can prove that my editing remains unbiased and in line with the words i wrote on my userpage AnadiDoD (talk • contribs)

(pinging Nick Moyes) — Preceding unsigned comment added by AnadiDoD (talk • contribs) 16:39, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

@AnadiDoD: First off, before you go any further, please could you sign all future posts here, and elsewhere, with four keyboard tilde characters? Your failure to sign not only confuses people, it fails to send a notification to the other person that you are actually trying to communicate with them. So you simply get overlooked. See WP:PING if you don't understand this. Secondly, don't take offence so easily. Like I said, I don't think the question was uncivil, though it might have been unfairly presented to undermine you after the trout was thrown. You just have to stand up to such things and explain that the other person is not correct in their suggestion, if that is the case. You sdaid But DoD in my Username was added because the part before it was not available as a user name., but I'm afraid I don't understand what you mean. Look, DoD stands for innumerable things. (see here for a list of 66 of them). Thirdly, if you are going to take offence, simply go to your userpage and explain what your username does mean or, at least, what it does not. Fourthly, if you want to change your username you can do so. Advice on this can be found at Wikipedia:Changing username. Finally, I am not accusing you of a ""COI debacle", I am merely saying that if you are then there's a route for you to follow. If you're not, you need do nothing. Hope this helps and (Please remember to sign your posts on talk pages by typing four keyboard tildes like this: ~~~~.). Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 18:28, 11 May 2020 (UTC) 

Thanks Nick Moyes for explaining and clearing my apprehensions. I apologize for continuously pinging you and I am grateful for the efforts you have put in. I have given a request for my name change. And the signature issue arose because I though it had auto signing but I'll remember it. Please close the discussion as my apprehensions have been cleared out. Thanks again. AnM1924 01:56, 12 May 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by AnadiDoD (talk • contribs)

Submitting a new article: thoroughly confused

Hello. I am new contributor to Wikipedia, not yet confirmed.

A couple of weeks ago, I submitted a new article ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Lockdown_(novel) ). I followed the steps in the Article Wizard, and finished by clicking the "Publish" button at the foot of the page. I understand that it could take several weeks for the article to be approved. That's fine.

However, every time I go back to the article, I see a message at the top of the page:

Draft article not currently submitted for review.

This is a draft Articles for creation (AfC) submission. It is not currently pending review.

So I click the blue "Submit your draft for review" button. This takes me to an editing page, headed "(new section)". The edit box is pre-filled with some text, including:

Just press the "Publish changes" button below without changing anything! Doing so will submit your article submission for review. Once you have saved this page you will find a new yellow 'Review waiting' box at the BOTTOM of your submission page.

This is followed by a lot of lines containing down-pointing arrows. When I follow the instructions and click "Publish changes", this just takes me back to where I was before. I don't see any yellow "Review waiting" box.

If someone can tell me where I am going wrong, I would be most grateful. In particular, is the page currently waiting for review, or is it not?

Thanks in advance. Mike Marchmont (talk) 16:35, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

That's strange. I don't know why that didn't work for you, but I pressed the "Submit" button, then "Publish changes", and the yellow box showed up as expected. – Uanfala (talk) 16:59, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

...and I've now accepted the draft: that's not in my subject area, but there appear to be quite a few reviews published so far, so the the book seems to meet the notability requirements. Thank you for contributing this article! – Uanfala (talk) 17:06, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

@Mike Marchmont: That usually happens when you don't include an edit summary. For future reference, once you click the 'Publish' button, you should be directed to a source editing window. There is an editable bar on this page where you are required to add an edit summary, I usually write 'Submitting for review'. Once you've included an edit summary, go ahead and click the 'Publish changes' button. Doing this should do the trick. Hope this helps. NawJee (talk) 19:17, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

It worked for me even though I didn't use an edit summary [3]. – Uanfala (talk) 02:19, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Information sought about how to submit a new article to Wikipedia

Hi. I have been working with an author to develop a new article for Wikipedia. The article is about the hunting of a famous stag in Scotland, 'The Muckle Hart of Benmore', in 1833. It is interesting, well written and I think it conforms to the Wikipedia 'notability' requirement. It is also well referenced using authenticated sources. I am an editor of long standing (almost 35 years) and have thoroughly edited the article, in accordance with the requirements set out in the Wikipedia Manual of Style. I now wish to submit the article for publication but am unsure exactly how to go about this. In particular, do I need to insert coding or is there someone who could do this for me? Coding is something of which I have very little experience and I don't know whether the author will want to pay me for the considerable period of time this would be likely to take me. Any suggestions regarding how to proceed from this point would be greatly appreciated. Thank you. Sbrnmb (talk) 17:11, 11 May 2020 (UTC) Sbrnmb (talk) 17:11, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Sbrnmb, and welcome to the Teahouse and to Wikipedia. If you saved your draft to Wikipedia in any way, you didn't do it using this account. I presume that you have written it off-line, using some word processor on your local computer or device. In that case the thing to do is to create the page Draft:The Muckle Hart of Benmore, by clicking on the red link I just left, and paste the text you have written into it, and click "Publish changes". This saves the draft page, but it does not publish it to the main encyclopedia. (The somewhat confusing name of the button is because it does "publish" in the sense that anyone can see the content, as is true for every page on Wikipedia, draft or article or behind-the-scenes page.)

(I am leaving it to y9ou to create the page so it will be logged as your creation.)

Once you have done that, please return here and post a note in this same section (by editing it and adding text at the end) saying that you have done so. I, or another experienced Wikipedia editor, will add needed code and handle the matter. Or you can use the article wizard, which you may want to do for any future submissions of new draft articles. Once we can see the text, we may have questions or requests, depending on how well you managed to match Wikipedia's style guidelines -- few people get that entirely right the first time. (I didn't). — Preceding unsigned comment added by DESiegel (talk • contribs) 17:35, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

@Sbrnmb: First of all, there's not real coding involved in creating articles here. Don't worry! We have two editing tools Source Editor and Visual Editor, and you can switch between them at any time. The former is a bit like using Wordstar (you sound to be old enough to possibly remember that software from the pre MS-Works/Wordperfect days), whilst the latter is more WISYWYG. Both editing tools each have their own Tools menu from which you can simply select a template into which you insert your reference details.In the example that follows I simply pasted in the url, clicked the 'lookup' magnifying glass symbol, added an access date, and clicked 'Insert: The second example was a reference from Google books. Normally I would take more time and manually add author name and page number - but, again, I got this far with no effort or coding at all. Adding citations might sound difficult, but can soon be mastered by anyone. I've written a little guide for beginners to help them, so do check out WP:EASYREFBEGIN.

I am a little unsure if the tale of the hunting of one massively-sized red deer is actually going to meet our notability guidelines, but I'll reserve judgement until I see your draft. It does sound from what you say that you might potentially be receiving payment for editing an article for someone else. If so, we have a simple, transparent and mandatory policy for declaring if we are receiving remuneration for our editing. See WP:PAID for more guidance on this. Good luck. Nick Moyes (talk) 19:10, 11 May 2020 (UTC).

References

How to get a page back from draft to article.

I was watching the TV show Maddysten on Danish TV. When I tried to look it and the hosts up on Wikipedia I noticed there were no pages about them. So I created some on the Danish Wiki and have also created a page on the English for Gorm Wisweh. But now it has been moved to a draft Draft:Gorm Wisweh. On other drafts I have done, there has been a submit button, but I can't find it here.
What is the process to get the draft back as a page?
Also: What can I do to avoid this happening again? Did I do anything wrong??
I think the problem might be that I have done some paid editing on other articles, but I have tried my best to declare it as stated in the rules.
This page is, however not paid work. I assume I'm still allowed to do voluntary work? I haven't found anywhere it says I'm not allowed. Anders Kaas Petersen (talk) 17:23, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

I've added the template to give you the "submit" button. You may wish to declare on the draft's talk page that it is unpaid work. -- --David Biddulph (talk) 17:46, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! I thought it was only paid editing that should be declared. But if that can solve the problem, that's fine. I'll try it. Anders Kaas Petersen (talk) 17:49, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Normally, Anders Kaas Petersen it is only paid editing (and other COI editing) that must be declared, But when there is reason for other editors to believe that editing is paid editing, declaring that it is not can be helpful. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 18:11, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi, Anders Kaas Petersen. If you look at the history of Draft:Gorm Wisweh, you'll see that GSS moved it to Draft, with the summary "GSS moved page Gorm Wisweh to Draft:Gorm Wisweh without leaving a redirect: Under and possible UPE. Vet though AfC". This is admittedly a little cryptic, but UPE is certainly undeclared paid editing. I'm not sure about "Under" (and WP:Under is not relevant!) but I'm guessing they mean "there's not yet enough of it for an article", but I don't know. I'm a little surprised they didn't notify you on your talk page to tell you they had done it. --ColinFine (talk) 18:25, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Need help referencing!!!

Ok, I am trying to reference and cite but I keep getting a message that I didn't do it right. This is how I did it: </ref><ref name="{{reflist|name=web}}" group="{{reflist|group=web}}">{{cite web |last1=/series/unfamiliar |first1=Tapas.io |title=Unfamiliar |url=https://tapas.io/series/unfamiliar |website=Tapas.io |publisher=Tapas.io |accessdate=11 May 2020 |ref=Tapas.io}}</ref> What is wrong with it? Please help!!!!

Dani Hart (Talk) 17

33, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

FYI

 – combining sections from same editor with same question GoingBatty (talk) 17:51, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello DaniHart08, and welcome to the Teahouse. I am not sure how you got that wiki-code, but it is very much not correct. The {{reflist}} template is to indicate where the lsit of references should appear, usually in a "Notes" or "References" section. It should not, normally, be used more than once in an article. the "group=" parameter is for the special and very unusual case of having more than one group of notes that are to be labeled or numbered separately. reflist should not appear inside ma <ref>...</ref> tag.

See Referencing for Beginners for more detail. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 17:53, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Oh goodness

(About the question above that I asked) It wont even show up because the referencing is wrong.....

This is how I did it. A message will probably show up because I did it wrong. '''((((((((((</ref><ref name="{{reflist|name=web}}" group="{{reflist|group=web}}">{{cite web |last1=/series/unfamiliar |first1=Tapas.io |title=Unfamiliar |url=https://tapas.io/series/unfamiliar |website=Tapas.io |publisher=Tapas.io |accessdate=11 May 2020 |ref=Tapas.io}}</ref>))))))))))))))))))))))))''' I really need help!!! (As you can see) Dani Hart (Talk) 17:37, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

See my reply in Need help referencing!!!|the section above. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 17:53, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @DaniHart08: Try this: <ref>{{cite web |title=Unfamiliar |url=https://tapas.io/series/unfamiliar |website=Tapas.io |accessdate=11 May 2020}}</ref>

The {{reflist}} template goes at the end of the article in the References section.

Note that you won't use the <code>...</code> and <nowiki>...</nowiki> tags that you will see if you edit this page. I just added those to help display the code here without actually creating a reference.

For more information about creating references, see Help:Referencing for beginners. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 17:58, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Is this what you wanted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by David notMD (talk • contribs) 18:13, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

References

Reliable Resource query

Hi, I have been reviewing the Wikipedia guidelines for reliable resources for an article I am writing. I have come across theminoritymindset.com and am unsure if it si considered reliable or not. Could an experienced editor please give me a yes/no answer?--HK2267 (talk) 18:34, 11 May 2020 (UTC) HK2267 (talk) 18:34, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

@HK2267: https://theminoritymindset.com looks very iffy to me, with no obvious editorial panel. It looks rather like a one-man band website to me, with shiny graphics and little substance to anything - and a large section for merchandise. I'd suggest staying well clear, and looking for content from proper news outlets. Whenever in doubt, you can always ask at WP:RSN. Nick Moyes (talk) 18:48, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

The website has a section for a blog, press releases, and on-demand interviews. The news sections doesn't look like it is vetted or edited by expert editors, either. It is probably a paid-to-publish website. I agree with Nick Moyes on staying away from this source and other similar platforms. NawJee (talk) 18:57, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Are research groups considered a reliable source?

I've been told that Hyena-Project.com isn't a reliable source, despite them researching the animals. This has me thinking whether or not research groups are considered as "reliable sources". Or does the subject need to be studied by more than one research group? Redstoneprime (talk) 18:38, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

WP:NOR is probably the most relevant. Praxidicae (talk) 18:39, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

So, it's a case of: if you want to include the information, make sure it has been researched more than once? Redstoneprime (talk) 18:45, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

A research group isn't really a source in the sense that that term is understood on Wikipedia, Redstoneprime. A paper published by the group would be a source. If that paper was published in a reputable journal, for instance, then it would be considered reliable. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:01, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

@Redstoneprime: Research articles/journals may be used as a reliable source if they are not the primary source of information, not directly connected to the subject of the article, or if they themselves are not the subject of an article. Ideally, it would be useful if somebody has written about the research, as well. The reliability of the journal(s) in which the research is published must also be considered here. The Hyena Project is a part of the Leibniz Institute for Zoo and Wildlife Research in Berlin , and I believe it is a reliable source of information. I would be wary about sourcing information from their blog, but properly sourced content from their research on articles about hyenas shouldn't be a problem. Hope this helps. NawJee (talk) 19:11, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

@NawJee: some other users also seem to be quite "skeptical" of Hyena-Project. (Not sure why they would be skeptical, considering Hyena-Project studies the animals). Redstoneprime (talk) 06:53, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

How to create a Wikipedia page through red links?

I want to create a Wikipedia page through a red link. Whenever I click on that, I am not redirected to the edit box. What shall I do? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meet Jagtap (talk • contribs) 20:21, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

@Meet Jagtap: Instead of creating a new article that way, I suggest you follow the advice at Help:Your first article. (Please remember to sign your posts on talk pages by typing four keyboard tildes like this: ~~~~. Or, you can use the [ reply ] button, which automatically signs posts.) GoingBatty (talk) 20:24, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Meet Jagtap Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Without knowing what link you are attempting to use, it sounds like the article(not just a "page") you want to create may be what we call "salted", or protected from creation. If that's the case, you can use Articles for Creation to create and submit a draft article for review. Even if you could directly create the article, it's a good idea to submit a draft anyway, as successfully creating a new article is the absolute hardest thing to do on Wikipedia, so it's good to get advice before anything you write is formally placed in the encyclopedia. 331dot (talk) 20:25, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

@Meet Jagtap: If you could please provide the name of the redlinked page, we could give you a more accurate answer. GoingBatty (talk) 20:38, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Cite personal information

Hello everyone! I was writing an article about a scientific researcher, I have cited all my info from published interviews, journals etc. However, I decided to ask some personal facts about his individual. He emailed me some of his hobbies and his most relevant influencers during his career. How can I cite those facts?. I heard that if he posts those facts on his university profile or somewhere like that, I could use that link to cite it, but he has no access no the university page. Is there another way to do it or should I just remove the info?

Thanks LJimenez2004 (talk) 20:36, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

@LJimenez2004: Welcome to the Teahouse. Everything in the article should be based on what is printed in independent reliable sources. You should not be performing any original research, such as conducting interviews. Please also refer to WP:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 20:40, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hello, LJimenez2004 and welcome to the Teahouse. Unpublished sources or personal communications cannot be used as sources on Wikipedia, and so information derived only from such communications should not be included. However, if the subject cares to post such info on a personal web page, that can be cited. under WP:ABOUTSELF such sources cannot be sued for controversial statements, or statements about another person, but the sort of routine info you mention can be sourced in that way. GoingBatty, not all sources need to be independent, although there must be enough independent sources to establish notability. Basic facts about a company are routinely cited to the company web page, for example. Nor isa there anythign wrong with talking to the subject of an article to get background and identify sources. However, such an 'interview", unless separately published, should not be cited as a source, even a non-independent source, here. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 20:45, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

@LJimenez2004: Of course DESiegel is correct. I should have said that I suggest you focus on summarizing what is printed in independent reliable sources to demonstrate his notability for inclusion into Wikipedia, instead of trivia such as his hobbies. Good luck with your article! GoingBatty (talk) 21:05, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

I fully agree with that comment. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 21:55, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

DESiegel Aren't self-published sources, even for trivial information, frowned upon? I have seen editors removing self-published sources or company websites from references for things such as the date of formation of a company. NawJee (talk) 22:35, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

No they are not, NawJee read the page WP:ABOUTSELF where it says that Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the self-published source requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as: ... followed by a list of five criteria that must apply. I(n some cases a self-published source (SPS) is the best possible source for certain information. Of course, there are cases where a self-published source is not appropriate, or where it might be acceptable but a better independent source is available. Without looking at the specific edits I cannot comment on those edits, but if the editors removed the sources simply because they were SPSs, then they were mistaken. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 23:00, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

How many thanks given and received?

Hi, is there any way to get a counter script or anything similar which display on my user page how many thanks I gave and how many thanks I have received? Just being curious. Thanks in advance and take good care of you, CommanderWaterford (talk) 20:46, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Hey CommanderWaterford, I'm unaware of an automatic script to display thanks statistics. You can do it automatically by posting the number from your statistics and updating it every once in a while. Alternatively, you can post {{UserStatistics|CommanderWaterford}} on your userpage and it will display a link to your statistics where your thanks statistics can be found. Hillelfrei ^talk 21:18, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Rejection of post (3 years ago) and rebuke by a wiki volunteer. I didn't understand and was put off. Now I'd like to add something to another article but am fearful of same rejection

 NMdeuce (talk) 21:10, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

@NMdeuce: Hey there, it looks like your edit in the past was an example of original research. While that observation might be more suited for a blog or a status on social media, it's not really in line with content one might expect from an encyclopedia. If you'd like to add something to another article, you'll want to make sure it's not a personal observation, but something that you can back up using reliable sources, like a book from an established publisher or an article from a news agency. If it's something you can reference, be bold and add it in! If you're still not sure, maybe you can describe what you'd like to add here in this thread and we can give you some advice about it. bibliomaniac15 21:17, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

@NMdeuce: Another option is to use the article talk page to share your suggestion. That would give you the opportunity to discuss it with other interested editors and come to a consensus. GoingBatty (talk) 22:57, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Cannot add pages to a wikiproject

Hello, I tried to add Bloomberg Commodity Index to Wikipedia:WikiProject Finance & Investment by putting the wikiproject tags in the talk page of the article. The banners display correctly in the talk page, but I can't find the page at all from the wikiproject page. Do I need to do anything else to have the page included in the wikiproject or do I need some sort of privilege? Eric.c.zhang (talk) 21:57, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Eric.c.zhang, and welcome to the Teahouse. The article lists under "Finance & Investment articles by quality and importance" (and similar lists for other projects) are supposed to be updated regularly by an automated process, aka a "bot" (short for robot). However, according to Wikipedia_talk:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Index#Bot_not_updating that particular bot is not doing those updates at the moment. Once this is fixed, all articles with proper banners should be added to the proper lists. In the mean time, the banner will serve most of the useful purpose in any case. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 22:08, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

@Eric.c.zhang: While you're waiting for the WikiProject list to be updated, you will be able to see the page listed in Category:WikiProject Finance & Investment articles. GoingBatty (talk) 22:59, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

I uploaded a logo today to a sandbox for the org. that I work for. When will someone add it to the Wiki page for American Himalayan Foundation?

 KrisKimBell (talk) 01:18, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

I uploaded the image to the page. However, note that the copyright has to be correct, and if it is really your own work you have to release it using a creative commons licence or something similar. Zoozaz1 (talk) 01:39, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

@KrisKimBell and Zoozaz1: I moved the image inside the infobox on American Himalayan Foundation. GoingBatty (talk) 01:50, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Trying to add a file/scan of receipt

I'm new here and having trouble editing, I've been trying to add a file/scan to SS Himalaya it's a copy of a receipt but i'm not sure if i did it correctly??????Can anyone explain it simply please Triumph Banjo (talk) 02:36, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

@Triumph Banjo: I can see you uploaded File:Passage receipt paid on Board Ship to Captain of Himalaya by Stow-away in 1974.pdf. GoingBatty (talk) 03:44, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Centering Photo in Info Box

Hello. I've linked a photo to the info box of actor Chris Kerson's page. The photo sits in the box right of center. How may this be adjusted? Thank you! Major Major 26 (talk) 03:25, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

@Major Major 26:  Fixed the Chris Kerson article by removing "thumb". GoingBatty (talk) 03:47, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Owned Image targeted for deletion

Hello! I uploaded a personally owned image and it has been targeted for deletion. I thought I made the necessary copyright claims on the image's file page. Apparently I didn't do enough. It is File:General H.H. Arnold High School Crest.png. I appreciate any guidance. Thank you! Major Major 26 (talk) 03:32, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

@Major Major 26: On File:General H.H. Arnold High School Crest.png, in the red box it says "Reason for the nomination: COM:DW of tile mosaic". It's common for Wikipedians to add links with cryptic abbreviations. Click that link and it will explain that the photo was nominated for being a derivative work. GoingBatty (talk) 03:55, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

@Major Major 26: When you use the "Ask a question" button on this page, you don't need to do anything to sign it – it's automatic. If you edit an existing section, simply end your post with ~~~~ (don't type your name after or before). It's a good idea to use the Preview function to see what your post looks like before publishing it. Thanks. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 05:19, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

My article was declined

my article on the topic angel samuda was declined. I would love to get necessary information why it was deleted so It would help me improve on next content Kingmichael22 (talk) 03:54, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

@Kingmichael22: There is a note on your talk page and on User:Kingmichael22/sandbox in a gray box explaining why is was declined (not deleted): "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)." Each one of those blue links will take you to another page that explains the concepts in further detail. For your draft, reference #2 appears to be self-published, and the other references are not from major news sources. GoingBatty (talk) 04:04, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

how to write

how to write in centre,left and right on page, please told me so i can design page as i want KhanQadriRazvi (talk) 04:26, 12 May 2020 (UTC) KhanQadriRazvi (talk) 04:26, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

@KhanQadriRazvi: The Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout shows that most text in an article is on the left side of the page, although you can use tables when needed - see Help:Introduction to tables with Wiki Markup. Hope this helps! GoingBatty (talk) 05:25, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

You have a very large amount of content on your User page - table, logos, etc. What is the purpose? Is this content for an article or details about your career? David notMD (talk) 09:05, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Rewrite of page?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Belle_Retouch I kept it as unbiased and neutral as I could. I also put on article page and my user page that it was COI. Is there anything I can do to improve? I am new here and have no idea what I am doing. I am very overwhelmed haha. BelleRetouch (talk) 05:51, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

What information CAN I add without looking like I am promoting. Thats the last thing I am trying to do here. I have a lot of clients and I believe it is time for a Wikipedia page for my business as I have seen other retouchers do on here. ```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by BelleRetouch (talk • contribs) 05:57, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

You can't really add any information without it looking like you are trying to promote your business, because you are clearly trying to promote your business, whether you think you are or not. At the end of the day, both your draft and your comments above show that your purpose here is not to improve the encyclopedia but to make sure that an article about your business is included. I will be frank; I have done a few moments research and it appears that your company does not come anywhere near meeting Wikipedia's inclusion requirements, so we do not need an article about it. You should also be aware that your username is a violation of our username policy.

If you would like to contribute to Wikipedia on toics unrelated to your business, then you should request a new username and feel free to continue editing. However, if your reason for being here is, as I suspecte, to try and ensure that an article about Belle Retouch is included in Wikipedia, then you are going to be disappointed, and should consider looking elsewhere. Yunshui ^雲_水 06:19, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

@BelleRetouch: To add on to what Yunshui, it is noticeably very hard to write an article neutrally about yourself (WP:AUTO goes into this further). —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 06:40, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Adding a down loaded file as a citation SS Himalaya

New here forgive me but I've apparently successfully up loaded a file as i was requested for (citation required) SS Himalaya I have no idea where it went or if its on the SS Himalaya page? I can't see it anywhere??HELP Triumph Banjo (talk) 07:10, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi @Triumph Banjo: and welcome back to the TeaHouse! I looked at your logs and it appears you are attempting to upload a receipt to use as a citation. I was able to find it on MediaWiki and you can access it here. [[File:Passage_receipt_paid_on_Board_Ship_to_Captain_of_Himalaya_by_Stow-away_in_1974.pdf]]. I hope this helps. Have a great day! Galendalia _{CVU Member} \ ^{Chat Me Up} 07:18, 12 May 2020 (UTC).

(edit conflict) @Triumph Banjo: Welcome to the Teahouse. From what I can see from your logs, your file is titled File:Passage receipt paid on Board Ship to Captain of Himalaya by Stow-away in 1974.pdf. It does not appear to be on SS Himalaya (1948). —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )

Confused about infobox which shows more info than exists in the code

Hi all. On Esperanto language page about Lesotho, the country infobox shows information like capital city, official languages, etc., but when you view the code, the only fields filled out for the country infobox ("informkesto lando") is Name in local language ("nomenlokalingvo") and Esperanto name ("eonomo").

I'm confused about how this works... where is the infobox getting the data from? Gaodifan (talk) 09:23, 12 May 2020 (UTC)