Wikipedia:Teahouse

RudolfRed, 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

Company page Sadas

Hello, I would like to create a company page for Sadas, Italian multinational computer technology company. I created a trial page in my sandbox: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Giuseppe_Ardolino/sandbox and I kindly ask some feedback before the publications in order to respect Wikipedia best practices. Thank you for collaboration -- 109.115.149.72 (talk) 07:54, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

I started skimreading this from its start. I skimread nine paragraphs without noticing a single reference. This means that you give the reader no reason to believe anything that the article says in its first nine paragraphs. Everything must come with a reliable, published source; and for anything that could be interpreted as an achievement of Sadas, the source must not be Sadas itself.

Another matter. You, Giuseppe_Ardolino, are a new editor. It is, of course, commendable that you are starting out ambitiously; but experience tells me that when somebody starts out by creating a draft about a present-day company, it's because they are in one way or another working for that company. If you are related to Sadas, please read Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide. Thank you. -- Hoary (talk) 12:48, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Hoary (talk) for your advice and answer. I read the guidelines for conflicts of interest and I declare, as suggested, in my profile my collaboration and role with the company but also my willingness to follow all Wikipedia guidelines. Regards your advice on references, I wrote some references starting with the "industrial sectors" section, Do you suggest to insert other references before? In history's paragraph? Thank you for collaboration and support, really appreciated -- Giuseppe Ardolino (talk) 17:40, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, Giuseppe_Ardolino, every paragraph needs at least one reference. -- Hoary (talk) 22:51, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Hoary (talk), I am collecting/adding new references for each paragraph as you suggested and, at the same time, I am updating the page on my Sandbox.Thanks a lot Giuseppe Ardolino (talk) 11:37, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Where can I find a list of deprecated sources

I tried to put a reference, but I got a filter hit. I soon found an appropriate source, and I don't want to make the same mistake. Can anyone link me to the list of sites that cannot be used for references? TechnocraticCat 12:05, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello TechnocraticCat! See WP:DEPSOURCES and perhaps WP:BLACKLIST. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:25, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Gråbergs Gråa Sång! I still have to familiarize myself with a lot of the "WP" links. I appreciate your help! TechnocraticCat 11:55, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Article Publishing Timeline

Hello,

I've recently created a page for a professor Cassie Mogilner-Holmes. This is my first contribution to Wikipedia.

It's been a few weeks now since I first published the page, but I noticed that it's still not showing up in regular search results.

Could you advise on how to check if I published it correctly and how to check when it may be reviewed and available to be viewed by the general public?

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Pkarundel/sandbox/Cassie_Mogilner_Holmes&oldid=965117311

Thanks!

User:Pkarundel/sandbox/Cassie Mogilner Holmes P.K.A. (talk) 15:42, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

You haven't yet submitted it for review. To do so, add {{subst:submit}} to the top of your draft. --David Biddulph (talk) 15:53, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your help, David. I submitted it now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pkarundel (talk • contribs) 15:58, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

@Pkarundel: It appears possible that you might have a close professional connection with Cassie Mogilner Holmes, perhaps even being paid to create this article? If so, do please follow this link to read how to declare any Conflict of Interest if you do know this person. In addition, should you be employed by her, whether directly or indirectly, you would also have to follow our obligatory requirement of declaring any WP:PAID editing. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 16:10, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

The review time for drafts is days to months (it is not a queue). In the future, do not ask the same question at Teahouse and Help, as that waste editors' time. David notMD (talk) 00:50, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Reviewed and accepted per WP:NACADEMIC, the subject is a professor appointed to a named (endowed) chair at a major university. Issues have been tagged for attention. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:00, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

{{lang}} inside a Wiktionary link?

At Taro#Names and etymology, I used {{lang}} inside of an interwiki link to Wiktionary; the confusing part is that it renders different in different places...

It shows up alright on the 'Show preview' (before submitting an edit), in my sandbox, and on the mobile app. But it doesn't make an interwiki link and displays that string as plaintext on both the desktop (outside of the previw page) and mobile websites:

[[wikt:talo#Samoan|talo]]

The code I used is:

[[wikt:talo#Samoan|{{lang|sm|talo}}]]

— I'llbeyourbeach (talk) 18:21, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello, I'llbeyourbeach. I haven't tried it, but it looks as if {{wikt-lang}} will do what you want. --ColinFine (talk) 20:36, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

I tried this, @ColinFine:, and the rendering seems to be fixed on the mobile site for me (can’t check desktop rn). Thenks so much~ this is likely taken of. —I'llbeyourbeach (talk) 18:33, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Please review my draft

Please review my draft - Draft:Atif Afzal (music composer). I need help in expanding/editing it as per Wikipedia rules. I have created it in AFC as was suggested by members on Teahouse. I have also provided details on the talk page. Thanks. AAComposer (talk) 00:31, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

AAcomposer I see that you are attempting to write about yourself- this is strongly discouraged per the autobiography policy- although submitting a draft is the correct way to go about doing so, if you truly feel that you can write about yourself with a neutral point of view. The vast majority of people cannot. In order for you to be successful, you essentially need to forget everything you know about yourself and only write based on the content of independent sources. I would observe that most of the sources you have offered seem to be comments by you/interviews with you, or brief mentions; these do not establish notability. Wikipedia is primarily interested in what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about you.

You have already submitted the draft for review; you will need to be patient, as the submission notice on the page notes that there are over 2800 drafts awaiting review. Volunteers review them in no particular order. 331dot (talk) 00:37, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Also note that if a reviewer approves your draft and formally places it in the encyclopedia, you won't be able to edit it directly after that; you will be limited to edit requests. An article about yourself is not necessarily desirable; there are good reasons to not want one. You cannot lock it to the text that you might prefer, or prevent others from editing it. Any information about you, good or bad, can be in an article about you as long as it appears in an independent source and is not defamatory. 331dot (talk) 00:39, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

. . . and when you write "discography", do you perhaps mean "filmography"? (There's no mention of CDs, MP3s, etc.) -- Hoary (talk) 00:44, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Pinging AAComposer. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 07:57, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Hoary - I have renamed the section as you had suggested. Could you please look into this further and let me know what more can be improved. @331dot - Thank you for the information, I have tried my best at keeping everything neutral and have only written about myself based on the content of independent sources I provided as references. That's why I have also intentionally kept the article very small. I had thought of including names of other stars and crew associated with my films who all already have a Wikipedia page, but then I didn't incorporate that I thought it might be considered promotional. --AAComposer (talk) 20:59, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Being targeted by an editor

Ok, I asked a general question earlier because another editor was being particularly aggressive towards me and then, a couple weeks later, asked me a strange question about how many accounts I have. I only have one, said so, and then asked why they asked? They are now insinuating that I control more than one account. I do not and I feel like the user is doing it because we had a legitimate content disagreement. This user even made a false claim to embellish their insinuation. Who can I ask to take a look at this? I don't want this person to be following me or making false accusations. SeminarianJohn (talk) 03:13, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Which editor is this?PNSMurthy (talk) 03:27, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Is it this user; Snooganssnoogans?PNSMurthy (talk) 03:28, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

You may ask an administrator, or go to the help desk if you wish to have something done about Snooganssnoogans.PNSMurthy (talk) 03:29, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, as a matter of fact. For months now, I've been accused of multiple different, and sometimes contradictory, conspiracies. This one is just too far. I have edited in English, Spanish, and Romanian and that uniqueness, plus my writing style, is more than enough to show that this is my only account. Any help with how to report this would be appreciated. It's just besmirching to go to my Talk Page ask a question and then start implying I'm doing something I am not.SeminarianJohn (talk) 03:44, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

I've never actually gone to the help desk, you should ask someone more enlightened then me. I'm actually much newer than you too WP, so...PNSMurthy (talk) 03:52, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

In your place I'd ask Snooganssnoogans to stop asking questions here and there and invite them instead to initiate a proper "sockpuppet" investigation. This way it would be Snoogansnoogans wasting (investing?) their time, not both him and me wasting (investing?) ours. This investigation would never be started, or it would fail, or it would find you innocent. (I mean, assuming that you are innocent. I haven't even started to consider the matter, and don't intend to.) -- Hoary (talk) 04:39, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the advice. I think that is a solid approach. I think will pursue that avenue.SeminarianJohn (talk) 04:40, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

@SeminarianJohn: You might wish to use the Editor Interaction tool to assess which pages you have both edited, and how far apart those edits were (see here). It shows nothing of who edited first, or why. But it does allow you to focus in on individual pages where you have both edited. My very brief look at your latest interaction appeared to be quite polite and reasonable. But too many polite challenges can easily become, or be perceived as harassment - or they could be justified. We have so many editors here who care deeply about improving the encyclopaedia, and that can spill over into wondering about or questioning the motives of the other well-meaning editor. Like Hoary, I offer no judgement, but WP:ANI is certainly a place to raise concerns about another editor's behaviour, where both people's edits do get looked at. (Note: our Help Desk is not the right place to raise those concerns.) Should you ever choose to go down the ANI route, it helps to provide diffs for others to see what interactions, or their frequency have taken place. Best wishes, Nick Moyes (talk) 09:51, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, Nick. The editor in question also submitted an investigation for being a sockpuppet based on only one piece of (non) evidence. Another editor back in 2018 changed the date on my "About me" on my userpage. I am assuming that editor did so to be polite because I had not changed 2017 to 2018, but they did so without my permission. I had not idea until snooganssnoogans started claiming that I am a sockpuppet and, somehow, am misusing an account that has not even been an active user in two years. It's bizarre because 1) it is not my account and I'm sure clerks have a way of seeing that and 2) that user has not edited in two years so snooganssnoogans is accusing me of what, not misusing accounts? I am glad I raised my concern here well before snoogansnoogans went after me. It serves as documentation that even then I was concerned about their manner of interaction with me.SeminarianJohn (talk) 19:15, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-Protection

Is their a way of nominating an article for semi-protection. There is an article (the Andromeda Galaxy) that is undergoing constant vandalism unceasingly. I would like to know is I could nominate it for semi-protection.PNSMurthy (talk) 03:26, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

@PNSMurthy: You may manually add a request at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Alternatively, Twinkle will do it for you under TW -> RPP. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 03:43, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, will do when have time.PNSMurthy (talk) 03:57, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

This should put an end to the Horrible and Nonsesical Vandalism happening there. --THE COLOSSAL GALAXY NAMED IC1101 (talk) 08:20, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

@THE COLOSSAL GALAXY NAMED IC1101: You may have seen that I semi-protected the page for a couple of weeks, but with hindsight reduced it to three days as the disruption actually appeared to be from just one individual using multiple IPv6 addresses. I left some advice as to what to do if this happens again at Talk:Andromeda Galaxy. Nick Moyes (talk) 15:12, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Bruh. I'm not Black after all That guy likes to Disrupt Wikipedia. There is another IP Address That does not like Images to stay on the List of largest exoplanets. I undid his edits.

My created article about a Football Club is not showing up in Google search

I have created article about a Football Club name Shirsh Bihar United Football Club 2 days ago When I search in Wikipedia about it it shows up but when I search in google Wikipedia article about it doesn't show up in the search. Can anyone help me with this ? Also a similar article about a Football page FC Bengaluru United was created 3-4 days ago is showing up in Google search. Shivsa008 (talk) 04:35, 23 July 2020 (UTC) shivsa008

Shivsa008, Shirsh Bihar United Football Club has not been reviewed; therefore Google cannot see it. Once it is reviewed, it will be able to appear on Google shortly thereafter. If 90 days pass without review, it will be visible to Google in any case. Just be patient.--Quisqualis (talk) 06:17, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Article

Is there anyway you can write your article without wizard article Bdetfehigj (talk) 08:41, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Bdetfehigj, you can also create an article in a user subspace, which will help avoid the possibility that someone tried to delete it you are done, but I'm curious about your concern with the article wizard. I think it's a great option for new editors. Did you run into problems that we should address? S Philbrick(Talk) 15:07, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Bdetfehigj There is, but unless you are very experienced in successfully creating new articles, doing so would not be advisable and would only cause you grief. If you directly create an article and it has problems, it may be proposed for deletion. If you want to avoid that, using the wizard or Articles for Creation to create and submit a draft for review by another editor will help you see any problems first. 331dot (talk) 08:44, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Federal Constitutional Court

Unfortunately, as I did not manage to find my way through enwiki's plethora of noticeboards and associated rules and guidelines, I remain clueless as to what I should do regarding the following issue, and, therefore, write here in the hope that someone might be able to help. In the article Federal Constitutional Court, user Doubledareyou added a section yesterday that clearly violated several Wikipedia policies (article history). I reverted, they reinstated their revision, which I reverted again after messaging them on their talk page (special:diff/969013803), explaining in detail what is wrong with the edit. Today, the user performed another edit, which significantly differs from their earlier contributions. However, I would submit it is still, without any doubt, not helpful. The additions are incoherent and, to be frank, I have no clue what the editor's point is. The parts that I do understand continue to be riddled with errors. Eg the user claims that s 630e BGB "does not demand witnesses" in a court proceeding, even though in reality s 630e BGB is a provision in the German Civil Code that concerns the duties of a treating physician in obtaining their patient's consent ...

Since I do not wish to get/remain involved in an "edit war", lack the time and willingness to engage in further conversation with the user, but still feel that the article is in a substantially worse state now as a result of these additions, I would appreciate if someone more experienced could do something about it. Taking this to the talk page seems inappropriate in light of the obvious deficiencies of the additions. Best, — Pajz (talk) 09:57, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

I know absolute nothing about the Federal court in Germany. However, I reverted the most recent addition to the article made by Doubledareyou on grounds that it tried to use hyperlinks and examples as evidence. I left comments on DDY's Talk page, noting that in addition to this article, DDY (who registered as an editor yesterday), was reverted on a different article for adding content without a reference. My hope is that good intentions exist, and experience will help. David notMD (talk) 11:09, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree with the revert. I am less concerned by the failure to adhere to Wikipedia content guidelines (such as no external links in articles, no POV language etc.) than by the use of a "Nazi times" hashtag in this talk page rant. However, said rant might have been a genuine (if wrong-headed) attempt at initiating a discussion.

I will also ping them (Doubledareyou) so that they are aware of this discussion. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 11:36, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a community project. If you delete valuable information e.g. Broken Subsid. or allow the english title of a book (source) and forbid the german title of the same book (unsourced) you spit on the spirit of Wikipedia and Nazizeit (word used by Prof. Dr. Andreas Voßkuhle) has begun. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doubledareyou (talk • contribs) 11:58, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

DDY has reverted my revert to the article with the Edit summary "Illegal revision and nonsense." That and the comment immediately above make clear that we have an extremely argumentative new-to-Wikipedia editor. David notMD (talk) 12:02, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Doubledareyou, you have not given any coherent explanation what "broken subsidiarity" even is (I shall note that I am familiar with German constitutional law), let alone provided any source for that criticism. If there is a source--no matter the language--and if you can explain it in a way that people can understand it, it can be included in the article. What is "broken"? And who says it is "broken"? But, please: Make your case on the talk page first. In their current form, your additions are not valuable contributions to the article, I'm afraid, and you reverting everyone else who restores the previous state of the article is not helpful in any way. — Pajz (talk) 12:18, 23 July 2020 (UTC) (David notMD and Tigraan, thanks for taking the time to look into this.)

Similar obdurate stubbornness going on at Sabine Hossenfelder. David notMD (talk) 12:23, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

I've reverted their edits once again and given them a warning for disruptive editing. — Yours, Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 12:31, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Blunt opinion required.........

I'm new-ish and currently trying to write my first article. I'm not asking for someone to review it - I know the Teahouse doesn't work like that - but I wondered if someone would be prepared to give it a really quick glance and tell me if I'm heading in the right direction, or not? It's nowhere near finished, but I'm now pondering whether I'm including too much detail and rambling on too much. Would it be best to cut it right down before I spend time adding all the sources?

The Pottery Cottage murders Thank you. DSQ (talk) 12:54, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi DSQ, and welcome to Wikipedia! You can move the page onto the WP:DRAFT namespace, where it can be reviewed by other editors about whether it is ready to go live (to the article namespace). Let me know if you need help with any of that. Happy editing! El_C 12:58, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

I would be happy to accept your draft should you submit. Theroadislong (talk) 13:07, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

DSQ, yes, I would trim it, singificantly. Especially the biographical sections. The part about the victims can probably be redacted entirely. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, so an encyclopedia entry is what we are aiming at. See for example the Moors murders as an example of a high quality crime article. El_C 13:10, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

El_C & Theroadislong I had a feeling I was getting carried away, it was turning into a novel! I'll cut it right down before I try and move it to draft. Thank you both for your help. DSQ (talk) 13:26, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Curt Landry

Have you researched this evangelical pastor? 2600:6C55:7880:49:61A0:8683:E672:25C4 (talk) 14:22, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello, IP editor. Welcome to the Teahouse. This is really a forum for helping people who encounter difficulties in editing, rather than picking up suggestions of pages to create. But if someone does think this person genuinely meets our Notability criteria, and is more than just a publicity seeking self-promoter and nutty Trump supporter (which at first sight their Google results seem to suggest to me that they might be), then they might well choose to start a page about him via our article creation wizard. But it would require sound, independent reliable sources that speak about him in great depth. It would attract both the positive and the negative reports about him, of course. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 14:55, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

"...more than just a publicity seeking self-promoter and nutty Trump supporter" ... Really? This is Teahouse appropriate? Maineartists (talk) 15:14, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

I apologise - that might have been too POV a comment from me. But having briefly found a source showing he was advocating people to ignore medical advice and listen to Trump's nonsense instead, and having lost acquaintances to Covid-19 myself, and seen too many idiots deny the severity of this virus, I probably jumped to stating an unfair opinion here. I have struck my observation, and will let any sources speak for themselves, as indeed they should. Sorry all. Nick Moyes (talk) 15:22, 23 July 2020 (UTC).

I think Nick's original description was more or less accurate. Anyway, the subject is not notable. Adequate sourcing is not available, other than a couple of links where he says nutty things like this and this. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 19:42, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

new and confused

Hi everyone, I'm brand new to Wikipedia and I have no idea what the community or etiquette is like quite yet, so apologize if I'm breaking any unspoken rules. I know this question might seem obvious, but what is a "user sandbox" and how does one use it? Does it create a new Wikipedia page about your specific username? Or is it just a place to store drafts? Sorry if this question is dumb, this is all a little over my head. Atomic.madness (talk) 16:34, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Atomic.madness: welcome to the Teahouse and to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is a huge beast with lots of parts, and lots of policies, and lots of acronyms, so don't worry if you feel a bit lost. I recommend starting with The Wikipedia Adventure. Your user sandbox is a page inside user space, on which you may experiment, and (in particular) start building an article, if you wish. It's special only in that there is a link at the top of the page (if you are using a browser): you can have as many user sandboxes as you like, called things like User:Atomic.madness/Sandbox1 or User:Atomic.madness/My title here. You can't put absolutely anything on them - it must be somehow connected with the work you are doing or intending to do as a Wikpedia editor, and you mustn't copy copyright material there, or write personal attacks - but you're fairly free in what you can use them for.

As for writing "about your specific username": there is a certain amount of leeway, as I say, on your user page or any user subpage (such as those sandbox titles I suggested above) but from your username I wonder if you might be here to stand on a soapbox or to right great wrongs: if you are, then I must suggest that you find somewhere other than Wikipedia to do that. On the other hand, if your user name is just something that you like the sound of, that's fine. If you mean "Write an article about your username", then I would advise that autobiography is strongly discouraged. Please come back and ask if you have further questions. --ColinFine (talk) 16:50, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Oh, I think I may have worded my question wrong. I'm not here to be grandiose or anything. I love Wikipedia, and I'm just interested in learning about the site, how it works, whatever I can do to help, and the community in general. What I meant by "an article about my username" is my user page. I originally thought that the sandbox and the user page were one and the same. I've seen people display things called ″barnstars″ on their user pages and post introductions about themselves. I think I've figured it out though and figured out how to edit mine. I'm trying to get the hang of manipulating my own page before I try anything else. I don't want to accidentally mess someone's article up. Thanks so much for the help and introduction to the community!--Atomic.madness (talk) 17:05, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Deleting a sample page

Hello again, Does anyone know how to delete a sample page? I accidentally created one trying to learn the ropes of wikipedia ( User:Atomic.madness/Sample page ) and now can't figure out how to get rid of it. Any help is much appreciated --Atomic.madness (talk) 17:39, 23 July 2020 (UTC) Atomic.madness (talk) 17:39, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

@Atomic.madness: Only administrators can delete pages, for specific reasons. Your request is one of the valid reasons, so I put the db-author deletion tag on it, so an administrator should delete it in the next day or so. You can see the list of speedy deletion tags here. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 17:50, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Oops, I should have marked that db-u1 as it is in userspace. Anyway, all taken care of now.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 06:23, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your help!--Atomic.madness (talk) 17:53, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Talk Page Topic - Hijacking/Derailing - Is That Actually Appropriate?

Hello, Thanks in advance for any help. I started a "Talk Page" topic, and it's gotten "hijacked" to another discussion. I addressed a few of the editors specifically using both the words, "derail" and "hijack" and even after this, it was basically ignored. The first editor apologized and I forgave him, and things seemed okay, but then eventually ignored the topic anyway. Actually not entirely ignored. One third user actually left a "warning" on my talk page, after I admonished another editor, asking that my topic not be derailed. So now I have about five or more editors on this topic in the talk page, totally ignoring the topic that I've set up. I keep reminding the other editors what the topic is. It does not seem to be making a difference.

1) Am I really so bad? Am I actually doing something wrong, to have started a topic, and to try to get the participants to focus on the topic, or to ask them, to start another topic, if that what they actually wanted to discuss instead of my particular topic?

2) Now that my topic has gone so badly off track (in one day no less), can I just either rename the topic to reflect the discussion and start another topic that is appropriate to my original intention? Or simply start another topic?

3) Are there any other options? I hope you won't tell me to give up, because that would not be a great idea.

So, basically, is this appropriate of the other editors to run ramshackle and roughshod over me, even when I keep reminding them about what the discussion is to be focused on?

Thanks and Keep up the good work. בס״ד 172.250.237.36 (talk) 19:08, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

You may actually want to give up, at least on that article. I haven't read much of the underlying discussion at Talk:Killing of George Floyd, but if so many other editors are ignoring you, you are probably not being a constructive participant here. I would advise you to cut your teeth on less controversial articles until you understand more about how Wikipedia works. Then in a couple months go back to the George Floyd article with some experience in how to interact here. Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:17, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

In my opinion, if you complain that other editors are hijacking or derailing the discussion, that in itself derails the discussion into become a meta-discussion of the complaint about derailing. So don't complain about the derailing or hijacking of the discussion. It is better to start a new thread and see if that one fares any better. Also, if you were asking a question that is in the FAQ, or were arguing with the FAQ, that has already been discussed and there is consensus to ignore further comments. Those are my thoughts for now. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:59, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Question About Deletion

I got my page deleted why? Ninjagokristian (talk) 19:49, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Ninjagokristian, I presume you are talking about Draft:Minecraft: The Movie. It has been rejected because no improvements were done as per the review. Also the reviewer has explained very broadly the reasons. The main point is that :

This draft is a request to spin off an article. Proposals to spin out a topic from an article into another stand-alone article should be discussed at the talk page of the existing article, unless the draft satisfies a special notability guide. If the draft satisfies a special notability guide, please identify the notability criterion with a reliable source. ~ Amkgp 💬 20:10, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Ninjagokristian I recommend you add some of your info to Minecraft#Films and turn the article into a redirect, for now. When and if the movie comes out, you can fork it into an article. Save what you have now. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:57, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Draft talk:Kawal Rhode

Hello again,

An article I wrote (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft_talk:Kawal_Rhode) was rejected which reason that "Subject fails WP:NPROF and WP:GNG. Stuff the subject wrote doesn't count for notability. Websites from the subject's employer don't count. Most people are never notable, and those that become notable aren't written about until after they die."

When I tried to discuss with the reviewer and mentioned the that the points mentioned in the criteria are met as the Subject has published in Lancet journal with 200/300 independent citations, the reviewer got annoyed and asked me not to contact him again as I am not willing to take a "no" for it.

I also started another discussion on another page, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(academics)#Quantifiable_metric_for_WP:NACADEMIC, where we had some misunderstanding as he assumed that I have a COI with the subject, which I do not. The reviewer does not believe professors are worth notable, so I feel that he may be a nit biased?

WP:Prof also says, "For scholars in humanities the existing citation indices and GoogleScholar often provide inadequate and incomplete information. In these cases one can also look at how widely the person's books are held in various academic libraries (this information is available in Worldcat) when evaluating whether Criterion 1 is satisfied." I check this https://www.worldcat.org/search?qt=worldcat_org_all&q=Kawal+Rhode and got 1,105 results for this Subjejct. Therefore, on what basis should I accept that criteria 1 is not satisfied?

I am not sure why should I take no for it, when it seems that the subject meets the notability criteria? Earthianyogi (talk) 21:06, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree 100% with the reviewer, who was more than patient in trying to explain to you that the metrics by which an academic career is measured (journal articles, grants, patents, books) have littel-to-nothing to do with how notability is determined for Wikipedia. What counts is what other people have written about the person, high profile awards and honors, and so on. A description of a person's accomplishments on the website of the university they work at can be used as a reference to support factual statements, but contributes nothing to notability. David notMD (talk) 21:31, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

If you also agree, then may be I am missing something. I thought that criteria-1 was my best bet of showing that person has a number of citations on his published work. How is the criteria-1 satisfied then for an academic and how can I understand it in a better way (as I though I was following the criteria)? Earthianyogi (talk) 21:38, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

not citations of his published work. "Reliable independent sources" means that people have been publishing about him. David notMD (talk) 21:45, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Oh! so citations are not important, I misunderstood that as the main criteria. What you mean is that the independent sources like newspaper or webpage, etc, should talk about the person, not his work! Earthianyogi (talk) 21:56, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes. Selected publications (journal articles, books...) can be listed, but ideally need at least three publications about him - at length - not just name-mentions. David notMD (talk) 22:07, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

But, what is the primary criteria, "elected publications (journal articles, books...)" or "at least three publications about him - at length - not just name-mentions" - The former criteria for this subject is met, but not the latter, and therefore, it is concluded that the subject is not notable - Am I correct?

On the contrary WP:PROF reads, "The most typical way of satisfying Criterion 1 is to show that the academic has been an author of highly cited academic work – either several extremely highly cited scholarly publications or a substantial number of scholarly publications with significant citation rates. Reviews of the person's work, published in selective academic publications, can be considered together with ordinary citations here. Differences in typical citation and publication rates and in publication conventions between different academic disciplines should be taken into account. ". - So we need a consensus on how many citation are acceptable for notability?

Earthianyogi (talk) 22:11, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Updating the existing class for an article

Hello, I have done quite a bit of work adding content and editing this article Rhopalosiphum rufiabdominale and believe it is no longer at a start class level. Am I allowed to upgrade it myself, based on the criteria for the upgraded class? Based on what I have read, it should be at a C minimum but I believe it meets the requirements of B. Any advice? Thanks LSBryce (talk) 21:18, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

@LSBryce: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Yes you can rate the pages yourself. What I use is an automated program called Rater, whcih you can add to your common.js page. It will rate pages for you, based on the ORES criteria. I ran it and, true to your prediction, it is B class.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 21:29, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

I would have agreed that B-class fits it fine. Nice job. Nick Moyes (talk) 22:00, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Question

Hello Fiddle Faddle and thanks for your input, but I have one question how do I change the title of my Draft from Basketball to the Origins Of Basketball? Simple sports (talk) 23:50, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

The article Basketball has a history section, and there is also History of Basketball. I do not see a need for another article on the topic. David notMD (talk) 01:15, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Simple sports, Most of what is in your sandbox is already in the article History of basketball. One exception is that you state that professional basketball started in 1896. You have a published reliable source for that? If so it might be a nice addition to the article. S Philbrick(Talk) 14:15, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Images

It seems, that, whenever I get an image relevant to any topic, the image is protected and cannot be used. Why is this happening?PNSMurthy (talk) 00:39, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse PNSMurthy. Your question is not very clear, but I’m guessing you might have been trying to upload images that were copyright and not your own. We do not permit such images to be used here unless published under a licence explicitly permitting commercial re-use. See Wikipedia:Image use policy for further information. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:54, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Ah, thank you Nick Moyes. I understand. To clarify, I meant that, every time I chose an image, a notification came up telling the image is protected and can't be used. But anyway, I will resort to where you, Nick Moyes, have guided me. Thanks, PNSMurthy (talk) 00:57, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

@PNSMurthy: Would you mind giving me a link to such an image? I can't say I've ever experienced the kind of message you allude to, or the situation where that might happen. Nick Moyes (talk) 07:43, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi, PNSMurthy. I'm guessing that you might mean images in Wikipedia articles that you want to reuse, but find that they are non-free? Yes, that is a problem. One of Wikipedia's fundamental goals is that all its content be licensed in such a way that anybody can reuse it for any purpose. Unfortunately, if we stuck to that for images, many articles would not have any at all, and the result would be less attractive and in some cases less useful. (I believe that some of the other language Wikipedias do stick to that policy). So the compromise is that we allow non-free material (nearly always images) to be used, provided the image and its use meet all the criteria in the Non-free content criteria. It sounds as if, for some reason, the topics you are looking at often have non-free images. There's not really any solution to this, as far as I know. --ColinFine (talk) 09:09, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

about my article

why my article got rejected this is my first time using wikipedia i dont whats going on. jaspreet kaur Aulakh (talk) 02:28, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

@Ms.kaur23: As stated on User:Ms.kaur23/sandbox and your talk page, your draft was rejected and deleted because the topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. This has a link to Wikipedia:Notability, which details the inclusion criteria used to determine if a topic merits an article in Wikipedia. GoingBatty (talk) 02:44, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Ms.kaur23, and welcome to the Teahouse and Wikipedia. It is unfortunate that so many new editors try to start by creating a new article. I compare this to trying to play a piano concerto after your first music lesson: creating an article is one of the hardest tasks there is in editing Wikipedia. My advice it to spend a few weeks or months improving existing articles (we have thousands and thousands which would benefit from some attention) and learning how Wikipedia works, before you try it. --ColinFine (talk) 09:12, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Drafts Away!

Hi WikiMates,

I would like to work on a second and new Draft while my current submission, Draft:Mark Gillespie, is up for review. Is it possible to sandbox multiple articles so I can keep churning out my research and citing? Bouncecouncil (talk) 06:33, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi Bouncecouncil, I have cleaned out your sandbox, it is ready for your next draft. You can create multiple drafts in your userspace simply by giving each a unique name. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:41, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Dear Roger (Dodger67), I have never seen a sandbox so clear! Then again, I have never been to Whitehaven Beach. Thank you for the educated insight and for going ahead and making way for my next draft. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bouncecouncil (talk • contribs) 08:06, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Adding a new Article about an open source software (FlaUI)

Hello all I'd like to ask here if it would be valid to add an article about FlaUI. As this is pretty much the only complete, maintained free/oss solution for Windows Desktop Automation, it could help have that in the wiki and also extend the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_GUI_testing_tools with a link to it. Would that be a valid article or would that be dismissed? Thanks for your help. Roman Roemeeeer (talk) 06:39, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Roemeeeer, and welcome to the Teahouse. In considering a new article, the very first question (and sometimes the only question) is: has the subject been covered in enough independent reliably-published sources to base an article on? Or, in Wikipedia's language, "Is the subject notable? Wikipedia is basically not interested in what a subject says about themselves, but only in what independent sources say about them. So your first task would be to find several places where people who have no connection with FlaUI have written about it - and been published in places with a reputation for editorial control and fact checking, such as books from reputable publishers, or well-regarded magazines. Only if you have found such sources is it worth spending any time at all on such an article.

But I have another concern: creating a new article is one of the hardest tasks there is in editing Wikipedia, and editors who try it before they have spent significant time learning how Wikipedia works, often have a frustrating and disappointing time - they spend a lot of time on their article without understanding what is really needed, and then understandably get upset when their attempt is rejected. (I liken this to trying to play a piano concerto after one music lesson). So my advice would be to put this project on the back-burner and work on improving existing articles. But in any case, it's worth reading Your first article. --ColinFine (talk) 09:21, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Where To Sit My Tea?

Hi Fellow Wikipediamights,

According to tutorial Wikipedia:So_you_made_a_userspace_draft#Ready!, one submits their article to the AFC by placing {{subst:AFC submission/submit}} "at the top of your article". Where exactly does this mean one should sit the actual code?

A) At the very "very" top? B) Above my submitted text, but below "EDIT BELOW THIS LINE"? C) Neither. I simply submit draft and find that a "Review waiting, please be patient." tutorial message is auto-generated.

I query this because it seems the recommended placing of {{subst:AFC submission/submit}} within Draft:Mark Gillespie has resulted in the duplication of an AFC auto tutorial. Bouncecouncil (talk) 07:11, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi Bouncecouncil I've fixed it, the draft is now correctly in Draft-space at Draft:Mark Gillespie (music manager) awaiting its next review. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:28, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi Roger (Dodger67), Thank you so much for the educated insight as well as the sandbox updates. I have never seen sand so clear. Then again, I have yet to venture Whitehaven Beach. Is it a wiki faux pas to move the sourced draft myself to the live article section?

You're allowed to do it, Bouncecouncil. But if you do, you are essentially saying "I take full responsibility that this draft is up to the standard required for a Wikipedia article". It will still probably get reviewed by the New page patrol, and if they decide that it is not up to scratch, and especially if they see that your draft was twice declined before you unilaterally decided to move it, they may not be kind to you. If they notice that you have also edit warred with Dodger67 over the title of the draft, they may conclude that you are editing disruptively. I have just spent time looking at all 9 of the citations in your draft, and I might have said "wasted time". Please look at common sourcing mistakes and do not move or resubmit the draft until you find at least three sources which meet the requirements. --ColinFine (talk) 12:01, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Submitting a draft and getting it declined includes recommendations about what is missing. Converting a draft to an article can result in an Articles for Deletion process, which is much less forgiving. David notMD (talk) 14:38, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

I tried to review it in draft-space but conflicted when it was moved to mainspace. So I gave up on reviewing and then just fixed the title (twice) and a cite template error. As AFC review has been stopped by the move to mainspace the article will now live or die according the NPP process. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:22, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

regarding deletion of page

what is the procedure to publish page on Wikipedia Skantpulmed (talk) 08:02, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

@Skantpulmed: In general, see the section "How to write articles that won't be rejected or deleted" in this guide I wrote for new users. However, you should also read WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY, WP:COI, and WP:NOTPROMO. Ian.thomson (talk) 08:09, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Skantpulmed Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Based on what you had posted to your user page(which is not article space), I think that you have a common misconception of Wikipedia in that it is not a place such as social media for people to tell the world about themselves. This is an encyclopedia, where articles must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage say about a person, showing how they meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable person. Wikipedia is not interested in what a person wants to say about themselves or in their resume(which is essentially what you posted). If you just want to tell the world about yourself, you should use actual social media.

Successfully writing a new article is the absolute hardest task to perform on Wikipedia. It's even harder when attempting to write about yourself, which while not forbidden, is strongly discouraged per the autobiography policy. This is in part because people naturally write favorably about themselves. In order to be successful in writing about yourself, you in essence would need to forget everything you know about yourself and only write based on the content of independent sources with significant coverage(not interviews with you, brief mentions, promotional bios, resumes, etc.). Most people cannot do that, even though it is technically possible. If you truly feel that is something that you are able to do, and you feel that you meet the definition of a notable person, you can attempt to create and submit a draft using Articles for Creation, though I do not advise you doing so. If you do, you should read Your First Article first. Also note that a Wikipedia article is not necessarily desirable. 331dot (talk) 08:09, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Regarding political edits made to China/ Hong Kong

What are the standard procedures we have to follow, like do we have to make edits according to what the Chinese government says? What is a citable source in these situations? Recently I had an edit reverted in anti communism in Hong Kong which said election results do not reflect the will of the people, I don't understand this, thanks 221.126.147.189 (talk) 08:16, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure which edit you are referring to, but Wikipedia is not interested in what the Chinese government says insofar as Wikipedia is primarily interested in what independent reliable sources say. If those sources report the views of the Chinese government, such information can be in the article in that context with an appropriately neutral point of view. The same goes for those opposed to the Chinese government. 331dot (talk) 08:23, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Reliable source for websitesWordleys (talk) 08:33, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I came a cross a source in wikipedia that list websites that are approved by Wikipedia for use as reference and those that are not. Can someone please show me where I can find this, or perhaps there are a few pages? Thanks Wordleys (talk) 08:33, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Wordleys Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. It sounds like you are referring to the list of perennial reliable sources. They haven't been "approved by Wikipedia" per se as Wikipedia does not have a body which grants or denies approval, but editors have come to a consensus as to the views on the sources listed there. The list is not exhaustive and a reliable source does not have to be listed there to be considered reliable. 331dot (talk) 08:46, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

feedback on url changes to Sodomy laws in the United States

I am looking for some feedback on changes to a couple of urls in a recent edit of Sodomy laws in the United States. I am particularly concerned with the updated Oklahoma url, which returns an rtf file.

However, it looks like the updated Lexis-Nexis links may not be working either. I am requesting input on any of the "changed" links listed below:

Florida

• old 800.02
• new 800.02

Georgia

• old 16-6-2
• new 16-6-2

Idaho

• old 18-6605
• new 18-6605

Mississippi

• old 97-29-59
• new 97-29-59

Oklahoma

• old 21-886
• new 21-886

Tks! Fabrickator (talk) 16:16, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

@Fabrickator:

• Florida is a link to an identical, working page (the only diff is the capitalization of a letter in the URL).
• Both the old and new Lexis links are bad pages (Georgia and Mississippi).
• The old Idaho link is bad and the new one works.
• The old Oklahoma link is to 21 OS 886, a specific section, while the new link is to the entirety of title 21 (as an RTF), which is not ideal.

I'd discuss it with the editor and others that may be interested at Talk:Sodomy laws in the United States. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 03:24, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Article for Creation: Eric Rosen

Hello,

The page for Eric Rosen, a popular online chess player and International Master, was deleted in November 2019 due to lack of notability. It was asserted that IMs don't generally deserve their own Wikipedia pages, which makes sense. This assessment was confirmed in June 2020, when a submission to reinstate the article was rejected.

I'm a little confused by this, though. There are several pages about IMs or FMs whose online viewership is less. For example, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexandra_Botez is a WFM with 95k subscribers on YouTube, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiona_Steil-Antoni is a WIM with about 10k subscribers on Twitch, and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Rensch is an IM with 17k subscribers on the platform. Rosen currently has about 107k subscribers. Under WP:BIO, "Has a large fan base or a significant 'cult' following" is a valid criterion for notability. Of course, "large" is pretty subjective.

How should this page's notability be decided, and at what point of popularity should the article be created? Or is there a different test for notability that applies here?

Sincerely, Ovinus (talk) 10:16, 24 July 2020 (UTC) 

@Ovinus Real: Could I just ask you to expand on the acronyms, as they may mean little to most people (i.e. me!) Nick Moyes (talk) 11:15, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Of course, IM = International Master, FM = FIDE Master, WIM = Woman International Master, WFM = Woman FIDE Master. They are all various official chess titles. Ovinus (talk) 11:43, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

OK (you missed one: I discovered that FIDE is an international chess federation.) Without me having to look at any of these articles, I can say that (for anyone) Wikipedia doesn't really care how many followers any person has got on any social media platform. The quote you gave does seem to relate to entertainers, actors and models, and in today's times I agree that 'large' is very subjective, but 100k might not be that significant. We really only base NOTABILITY on whether or not independent, reliable sources have written about that person in detail and in depth, or whether they have won certain national or international awards or accolades. We have an essay called "Wikipedia:Other stuff exists which might interest you. Often, when someone says "oy, you deleted person A, but not person B" someone will then take a look at person B and consider whether or not that person also meets our current notability criteria, or not. Of course, media coverage changes. So a person previously not notable can become notable once circumstances and sources describing them also change. You might get more specific chess-related advice by asking at Wikipedia:WikiProject Chess. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 12:24, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Ovinus Real. Among the millions of articles in English Wikipedia, there are thousands (probably tens of thousands) which are not satisfactory, and would not be accepted if they were submitted for review now. Ideally they would all be fixed or deleted, but for some unaccountable reason not many editors want to spend their time rooting through the spoil heap (I include myself in that criticism, obviously). If you find an article which you think is substandard, you are welcome to fix it or tag it appropriately. If you think that the subject does not meet Wikipedia's standards for notability, you are encouraged to nominate if for deletion - though you should carry out the process in WP:BEFORE first. Please also see other stuff exists. --ColinFine (talk) 12:10, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello Ovinus Real! We do not have specific notability guidelines for chess players. So, notability has to be decided on WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO or WP:ENT. Even most of the GMs don't meet our notability guidelines; we keep them anyway because WP:WikiProject Chess advises that we do and at least some of them are likely to. So, it is extremely unlikely any non-GM is notable. I don't think any of the other people you've linked meet our notability guidelines either. Daniel Rensch in particular seems to have been written for promotional purposes, possilbly by WP:COI or WP:PAID editors. Please look at WP:NCHESS, which is not a community guideline on notability but is a good rule of thumb for which articles are likely to be kept in a deletion discussion, and which articles the chess-topics editors are likely to approve of. For example, Fiona Steil-Antoni apparently won a medal at women's chess olympiad (pass of NCHESS and more importantly, arguably good enough for ANYBIO) and the article content isn't itself hugely problematic, so that article is fine by me. If I had the time, I would investigate Danny Rensch's article thoroughly to see whether it should be trimmed or deleted. Botez is probably not notable either (women notability bar is lower) except she might have got some coverage because of how well known the Botez gambit has become as a meme (I don't know). To summarise, GNG is the gold standard, article may otherwise be kept if good arguments can be made at a deletion discussion that the subject meets NCHESS or ANYBIO. If articles exist that don't meet this standard (assuming you didn't miss something in your analysis), it's more likely that those need to be deleted, not new ones of similar notability created. On a personal note, no, I don't think Rosen is any less notable than Rensch or Botez; it is more likely that all three are not notable (Rosen has an article on the German Wikipedia, and based on brief perusal, someone seems to be trying to promote Rosen with weak sources, as with Rensch, NOT GOOD; I never support keeping any article created for promotional purposes, we are an encyclopedia afterall). Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 08:30, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

AfD Nominating

I am nominating the article about 270towin.com for deletion, as there is no significant coverage of it anywhere. I have added the template to the page but I am unable to start the deletion discussion for it. Can someone create the discussion? My rationale is as follows:

• Subject has no significant coverage in the news, articles on it have mere mentions and Google has no results showing newspapers writing about this in detail.

45.251.33.42 (talk) 11:16, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Here is one path to starting the AfD: "Unregistered users placing this tag on an article cannot complete the deletion nomination and should leave detailed reasons for deletion on Talk:270towin.com and then post a message at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion requesting that someone else complete the process. If the nomination is not completed and no message is left on the talkpage, this tag may be removed." David notMD (talk) 11:27, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Positive tone in Hitler article?

Hello,

I have noticed that Introduction to Adolf Hitler's Macedonian article ends using positive tone. My translation of the final sentence is as follows: "Nevertheless, he was a vegetarian, he loved his children, he loved animals, he did not smoke or drink, but he used amphetamines and to the bitter end remained faithful to his lover, Eva Braun."

I am not sure if this breaches Wikipedia's policy on tone, and what should be done about this, in particular this aspect: "Even where a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinions, inappropriate tone can be introduced through the way in which facts are selected, presented, or organized". How relevant is the fact that he was a vegetarian, or that he loved animals, or that he remained faithful, when the Introduction does not even include a reference to the Holocaust? The last sentence of the Introduction therefore inappropriately humanises him. It could also contribute to readers developing a more positive conception of him due to the recency effect.

Full disclosure: I deleted the ending sentence on 27 March 2020, but the change was quickly reverted. I only recently noticed this, but was unsure how to proceed, which is why I am looking for advice. 82.5.13.62 (talk) 12:36, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Pretty much the only thing you can do is to try to discuss this somewhere at the Macedonian WP. The policy you linked is en-WP specific, and may look different on other WP:s. I'd start with the talkpage, then look around for pages like this. There is also something called Wikipedia:Meta. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:39, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse. Unfortunately, different language Wikipedias operate very differently, and we cannot offer much assistance in editing the Macedonian Wikipedia, especially as it's not likely anyone here speaks the language. Instead, you could bring this up on the talk page over there and ask for comments from other involved editors. If this sentence was in the English Wikipeida, however, that sentence would probably be moved somewhere else, most likely to the "Personal life" section. It would also have to be reliable sourced and more specific (which animals? did he drink on fancy occasions only or does he never drink?) ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 13:42, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Semya earthquake, feb 1975

Hoping for a list of people hurt. My people?? Thanks 2601:406:C201:46A0:491F:5DCB:B229:2C59 (talk) 13:01, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse. Unfortunately, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, meaning that long lists of injured people should not be included. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 13:36, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

I have been unable to confirm the existence of any place called (just) Semya (which seemingly is the Russian for "family"). However, I suspect the OP meant Shemya Island, with the relevant event being the 2 February 1975 Near Islands earthquake, in which 15 people were reported as being injured, though none killed.

As Ganbaruby explained above, Wikipedia does not normally include a full list of casualties for such events, and I myself have been unable to find a list via the article's references or by general websearching.

For anyone else wanting to look, note that the quake occurred at 08:43 UTC on February 2, which was still February 1 locally – this might be relevant to search strategies and results. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.199.211.254 (talk) 19:16, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

A Proposed GAN

Hi,

I want to nominate Helena, Montana for GA status, but I'm not sure if I have made enough edits. Could someone help? Also, please give any other suggestions if you have them. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 13:36, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi P,TO 19104, and welcome to the Teahouse. There's no requirment for having "enough edits" to nominate an article for GA; in fact, anyone could do it. Seeing that you have 34.6% authorship of the article, you seem very familiar with the subject, which will make the review process easier. The instructions on how to nominate an article are at Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Instructions. Good luck! ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 13:48, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

P,TO 19104 One specific thing about the article: [1], and the two city-data.com references are three sources that shouldn't be used as they're highly questionable sources as per WP:RSPSOURCES. NNDB doesn't have good fact checking, and so may be inaccurate, and city-data.com looks to be a site that copies from other sites without attributions (and is now on our spam blacklist, so cannot be added anymore). If you could find better sources to replace those three sources, that would be good (it'll likely be something picked up in a GA review). Joseph2302 (talk) 13:55, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

P,TO 19104, one thing I will add to the above is that, before you proceed, you ought to propose and discuss this with other significant contributors to the article who are still actively editing on Wikipedia, if any. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 08:37, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Adding "citation needed"?

Hi! I'm wondering how to add a "citation needed" note in an article? I chose to edit an article from the "Popular low quality articles" list, and landed on Brooklyn Beckham. There are several claims in this article that don't seem to be substantiated clearly from a reliable source, at least online (for example, that Elizabeth Hurley is his godmother), but they're not entirely without credibility (one tabloid article in the Daily Mail does mention this in passing, and there are several photos published of Hurley with Beckham's parents), so I think it might help to give someone a chance to add a citation. What should I do? Cisternet (talk) 14:13, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

@Cisternet: To insert the citation needed template, insert {{citation needed}} at the end of the sentence, after the period. Keep in mind that the Daily Mail is considered a deprecated source; that is, the Wikipedia community reached the consensus that its generally unreliable and shouldn't be used as a source. If you find a dubious claim, you are allowed to outright remove the claim itself, especially if it's a biography of a living person. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 15:09, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Reporting

Good Afternoon, how would I report a disruptive editor for repeated vandalism?-Thanks ReedBlower (talk) 14:15, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

@ReedBlower: Welcome to Wikipedia. Wikipedia:Vandalism has info on how to warn vandals, and if that does not work, there is a link there to the noticeboard for reporting them. RudolfRed (talk) 14:37, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

This is where you report vandals: Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism RudolfRed (talk) 14:38, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

I want to work as a paid editor

I want to create a page for a company. It has several independent references on the internet. What should I do? or how can I start? Please help Thank you Seedlesslime (talk) 14:16, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

@Seedlesslime: Welcome to Wikipedia, and thanks for stating that you are a paid editor. You must follow WP:PAID required disclosures. Tp create an article, you can follow the steps at WP:YFA, and there is a wizard there you can use to create a draft for review. RudolfRed (talk) 14:34, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

@Seedlesslime:, the way I interpret your comment is that you would like to be paid to edit. Wikipedia does not pay editors. While you are free to offer your services to others off wiki as a paid editor, Wikipedia is primarily edited by volunteers working on their own time because they believe in the value of this project. As noted, if you choose to edit for people that hire you to do so, you must comply with the relevant policies. 331dot (talk) 14:39, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Be aware that the company you are thinking of may not want to be the subject of a Wikipedia article. Once an article (not a 'page') is created, anyone can add to it as long as they provide valid references. Has the company ever lost a lawsuit? Been the subject of government regulatory action? All that could end up in the article. David notMD (talk) 14:56, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

@Seedlesslime: There's an essay about that at WP:PROUD. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 06:33, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

When is the specific guideline about multiple sources combining to show notability used?

WP:BASIC says that:

If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability.

I don't understand how it doesn't contradict the guidelines which talk about in-depth coverage. Thanks! Hmanburg (talk) 14:24, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Hmanburg, and welcome to the Teahouse. My interpretation of that is that we don't absolutely have to just two or three really in-depth articles about someone for them to meet our notability criteria, but equally we don't accept numerous short, trivial mentions of them, either. (if we did, I could show you my press cuttings box file from the last 40 years and prove that that I deserved a Wikipedia page here; I don't!) But, somewhere in between lies an acceptance that there can be quite a few articles of mid-depth which, taken together, contribute to demonstrate a person's notability. Other might disagree, but that's how I see it. Nick Moyes (talk) 20:30, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the response Nick Moyes! I was thinking along the lines that depth and triviality are two different things. For eg., A trivial mention would be a phone book entry. While a non-trivial but with low depth might be something relevant about the subject but not much more.

How to create

Hi! How to create an article? Eswnav (talk) 14:36, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

@Eswnav: There is a lot of good information at WP:Your first article. GoingBatty (talk) 00:05, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

@Eswnav: ... and in the post on your talk page at User talk:Eswnav#Welcome!, left just before you posted here. Keep in mind that creating an acceptable article from scratch is a substantial amount of work, requiring familiarity with what Wikipedia is not (a promotional or social media platform), Wikipedia's notability and reliable source requirements, Wiki markup language, citing references properly, article layout, etc., and must be written in a professional, encyclopedic tone. Those who try to do so without having spent some time editing existing articles to "learn the ropes" will often have a difficult experience. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 06:44, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Rekha Krishnappa

Anybody is free move this page Draft:Rekha Krishnappa to Rekha Krishnappa Thanks and I don't know to move this file. Eswnav (talk) 14:39, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Eswnav, and welcome to the Teahouse. I have added a header to your draft which will allow you to submit it for review when it is ready. At present, in my judgment, it is not ready, as it has no substantial independent sources about Krishnappa. Please see WP:CSMN. --ColinFine (talk) 16:33, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Can you expand this article? Eswnav (talk) 16:35, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Teahouse volunteers answer questions about how to do stuff at Wikipedia, not to help write articles (although sometimes some do, mostly by removing stuff that harms the drafts' chances of being approved). David notMD (talk) 17:50, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Infobox

Information entered under parameters 'fields' and 'education' doesn't show in the saved version. Warning says inbox needs to be updated. How is that done? I've also added parameters, but entries do not show. CPDeLisi (talk) 15:06, 24 July 2020 (UTC) CPDeLisi (talk) 15:06, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello, CPDeLisi, and welcome to the Teahouse. Which article are you talking about? If it is Charles DeLisi, then the infobox in question is {{infobox academic}}, which does not have a parameter 'fields', and is called in that article without the 'education' parameter. But of significantly greater concern is that you would appear to be editing Wikipedia's article about yourself, which is strongly deprecated. Please read about conflict of interest and autobiography, and henceforward suggest edits to the article using the edit request mechanism, rather than making them yourself. --ColinFine (talk) 17:05, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Requested Article- Shamsher Singh (Indian journalist)

Hello editors, I have placed a request for creation of an article Shamsher Singh (Indian journalist) on the requested articles page with 21 references for helping the editor but I haven′t got any response. I cannot directly edit the article due to COI. I hope any of you will help in creating the article
Thanks!-- SinghPurnima72 (talk) 15:21, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

This was literally just deleted at AFD no less than 3 days ago. Praxidicae (talk) 15:32, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi SinghPurnima72. As pointed out by Praxidicae, this article was deleted by the consensus established at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shamsher Singh (journalist). You participated in that discussion and weren’t able to convince the community that the article should be kept. So, unless you have drastically rewritten the article and have addressed all of the concerns about its appropriateness for Wikipedia, any attempt to recreate the article is only likely going to lead to it being deleted again per WP:G4. If there’s something about the AFD close you don’t understand, you can post a message on the closing administrator’s user talk page and ask for clarification. — Marchjuly (talk) 15:49, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

achieving consensus

Hello everyone - I have been working on the article on Charlotte Latin School in an attempt to improve it (it is currently in stub/low importance status). One of my edits was reversed by another very experienced editor for being "unencyclopedic, promotional, and unsourced." The edit in question was noting that the school is a member of the Cum Laude Society - I would note this organization has their own Wikipedia article, which I think would sort of make it encyclopedic dic and notable by definition(?) I also included a citation, in this case a link to a primary source, the list provided by the society itself of members.

I started a discussion in the Charlotte_Latin_School talk page to attempt to form a consensus. It has been several days and no one else has opined. It looks like the editor who reverted/deleted this insertion is now on an "indefinite block" as well. I'm not totally sure what this means, but he is a very experinced editor and I don't wish to edit war with him without achieving consensus...but that's hard to do given the lack of replies from him or anyone else.

I would appreciate any feedback on how to proceed.

Best Jiffy.morton (talk) 15:35, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

John had a temper tantrum, and is indefinitely blocked until he stops threatening to hold his breath until he turns blue, and apologies. So you are not going to hear why he reverted your content. David notMD (talk) 18:03, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Seeing as this, should he be removed from wikipedia:teahouse/Host landing? He said on his talk page he isn't planning on coming back. Ghinga7 (talk) 21:22, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

The content you added about SAT scores and what colleges graduates went to were referenced to the Charlotte Latin School website. The Cum Laude Society ref was the cumlaudesociety website. These are primary, not secondary sources, and hence not to be used. (My own website says I am tall, dark and handsome, whereas the truth may be closer to wide, bald and interesting looking.) David notMD (talk) 18:09, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

@David notMD: What I coincidence - I resemble that remark too! For a small fee, I'd be happy to publish on my website that you are extremely tall, dark and handsome, so you can use it in your WP:AUTO.  :-) GoingBatty (talk) 00:14, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Understood. I was asking specifically about the cum laude society. My understanding of the rules around primary sources was they are acceptable when used simply to establish a fact. I am making no claims about he cum laude society other than the fact that the school is a member. Isn't just an actual link to the membership a great way to do that?

Jiffy.morton (talk) 19:02, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Jiffy.morton, I concur with circumspect and sparing use of primary sources where the fact is not susceptible to challenge, but prefer reliable sources in all possible instances. I use primary as a last resort, and ony after considering whether the fact is important Fiddle Faddle 19:07, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Timtren Thanks. That makes sense. I was able to find a secondary source (newspaper article) that establishes membership as well...I think the sentence in question is now very thoroughly cited! Jiffy.morton (talk) 19:22, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Query regarding submitting article for AfC

Greetings Teahouse!

I am new to Wikipedia and have an article that I wrote about a living artist, [William Woodward]. I do know this artist which is what led me to create this page, because there is a deceased artist by the same name [William Woodward] and I understand that this has been causing confusion when people (patrons, galleries, museums, etc) while searching for him online. I wish to have the article about the living artist published to provide disambiguation regarding these two artists. I understand that since I am an acquaintance of the artist that this may cause the article to be denied for conflict of interest ... I then found the section for [Article for Creation] and I believe that this would be the place I should submit my article.   So, finally, here is my question: how can I submit my article to the [AfC]?   And also wondering if anyone might be able to briefly review my article and provide suggestions for improvement?   Thank you for your time! I appreciate the help! EArvaWeb (talk) 15:39, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

EArvaWeb, there are many essays such as this one that suggest how you might create a half decent article. Broadly, start with a pile of references and craft the article around what the references say.

Submitting to WP:AFC is as simple as going to that page and scrolling down a little so that the big blue button comes into view. Follow the guidance the wizard gives you.

A pre-review is usually pointless. Gird up your loins and have a crack at it. Once you think "This looks ready" submit for review. We'll get to it, though the queue is more like an amorphous blob than a linear queue.

Once submitted continue to enhance it. Or start another draft.

A note of caution. I knew the late Keith White (yachtsman). When I created the article I only knew him. At a point we became friends. At that point I stopped editing the article and declared my conflictt of interest. Fiddle Faddle 19:14, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Rejection of new article: John David Garcia

Rich1vanwinkle (talk) 16:45, 24 July 2020 (UTC) Re: Articles for creation: John David Garcia (July 23) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:John_David_Garcia)

Hi all! I have written an article to replace one previously removed regarding John David Garcia. It was rejected at “Articles for Creation” because:

1. It is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. Needs more external news sources.
2. This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject can be established.
3. This reads like a hagiography of the person. Needs more external news sources.
4. It seems to be copied from some other biography articles, especially with dangling sources.
5. Whole sections go into his outlines of his theories.

The sources used for the article were: 1. http://dictionnaire.sensagent.leparisien.fr 2. https://economictimes.indiatimes.com 3. https://patents.google.com 4. https://patents.justia.com 5. http://richwritings.com 6. https://psychology.wikia.org 7. https://archive.org 8. https://www.amazon.com (Undertow by Warren-Adler to show book dedication) 9. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=HUMBERTO_FERNANDEZ-MORAN 10. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/220393527 11. https://www.see.org 12. https://medicalarchives.jhmi.edu

All are independent, reliable, and verifiable… although the see.org cite is a Garcia “memorial site” used merely as the source for one of his writings. Regarding the lack of “news” sources (and the “notoriety” standard): People who seek notoriety may find themselves in the news and many people in the news are undeserving of “fame”. I would think that the concern of Wikipedia is that subject persons be “widely known” (as an aspect of “notoriety”) as opposed to “She gained notoriety when nude photographs of her appeared in a magazine.” (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/notoriety). A “news” story is only as reliable as its sources – which is more reliable or verifiable, a news story about a patent or the patent itself? Wikipedia should not ignore important people who make meaningful contributions to humankind just because they don’t seek notoriety or do things that newspapers believe will sell newspapers.

If I had a “neutral point of view” about Garcia’s importance, I wouldn’t have bothered to create this article. I have attempted to offer an explanatory exposition which accurately reflects the views of others regarding Garcia’s importance and Garcia’s own content about his work (which was often self-critical). The reality is that my personal views are often in conflict with Garcia’s and I am pleased that such doesn’t show in the article. My views of John’s ideas are unimportant. I made an attempt to find and offer “a range of independent, reliable, published sources” relating to Garcia’s work. The materials “produced by the creator of the subject being discussed” were derived from and were consistent with those sources.

“This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia”. An “advertisement” “tries to persuade you to buy something” (https://www.thefreedictionary.com/advertisement) or is “the action of making generally known” (https://www.dictionary.com/browse/advertisement). I suppose this is meant to mean the former; my intent was the later. I would welcome specifics on what is being sold here.

“This reads like a hagiography of the person.” Garcia was certainly no saint, but since he is not able to refute this content, it would be unfair to make it hyper-critical. Instead, I chose to use Garcia’s self-criticism where known. My own critical opinions were not included as being both irrelevant and unfair. If that makes the content seem adulatory, so be it. (I admire many of Garcia’s ideas, but I suspect some would find this article overly negative – e.g. I “hint” of his adultery). It “seems to be copied from some other biography articles”. I copied from MY previous work which was removed from Wikipedia but remains on psychology.wikia.org. Because both writings state the same facts from the same sources, it may appear as “plagiarized”. If that content appears elsewhere, it should have been credited to me. You need to be specific about the “dangling sources” mentioned.

“Whole sections go into his outlines of his theories.” Yes, his and others. I modeled those parts upon: “Philosophy: Substance, attributes, and modes” in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baruch_Spinoza. His patents and scientific work were noteworthy only because they demonstrate his creativity (and practical contributions) and were not, therefore” worthy of elaboration. Garcia’s “notoriety” arises from the importance and uniqueness of his “theories” (or philosophy, substance, attributes, and modes). The cited content for those “outlines” were either notable figures or publisher created “sleeve” content for his books (to which Garcia may have contributed).

In sum, I believe this “rejection” to be unfounded, improper, and reflective of misunderstanding or misrepresentation of the content. In addition, the response was seemingly biased, too vague, and in itself lacking “references” (details) that would make it useful. Please tell me I'm wrong (and why). Thanks, RVW — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rich1vanwinkle (talk • contribs) 16:45, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

You're wrong. The draft goes on and on and on. The purpose of an encyclopedia is to provide a concise description of the topic, not, as in this instance, reproduce everything Garcia ever said, wrote or thought. I cut some, but strongly recommend you cut this be more than half before considering resubmitting. Leave what people have written about Garcia, not what Garcia has written. David notMD (talk) 22:03, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

How do I start as a contributor for Wikipedia

What tips and tricks do you have for me, how do I find vandalism, because it seems like there is barely any, and what is a good way to start getting some edits in. AydenBear (talk) 17:29, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Aydenbear, you can start at Help:Introduction. You do have multiple warnings on your user talk for unconstructive editing, including some that appear to be deliberate vandalism, so looking for vandalism may not be a good place to start. I would recommend you instead start by making small constructive edits to articles you have an interest in, and always include an edit summary explaining why you think the edit you're making is an improvement. —valereee (talk) 18:27, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

... and Special:RecentChanges, Aydenbear. Usedtobecool ☎️ 08:43, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Konutka

Can someone please give some advice to Konutka, which will first involve determining or at least guessing whether their first language is Russian? This editor is submitting biographies of academics from the Udmurt Republic, which appears to be a region in the Russian Federation. There are several problems with the submissions. First, they are being submitted as last name comma first name patronymic rather than first name patronymic last name. This is obviously meant to be helpful to us, but is not helpful. Second, they are submitting two copies of each biography, one in draft space via AFC, and one in article space. This is problematic. Third, they are resubmitting the drafts after they are declined as 'exists' because of the articles. Fourth, the English is both clearly non-native and not in an encyclopedic style. They probably can't help that, but the other problems compound the fact that the writing needs help.

Can someone please give this editor advice in their first language, which is probably Russian (and is almost certainly an East Slavic language)?

Robert McClenon (talk) 17:31, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Robert McClenon, I'd post at WT:RUSSIA for more visibility. Wish I could help! Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:26, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

User:Calliopejen1 - That probably did help. Thank you. Maybe someone can give them advice in Russian. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:45, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Article declined

hello friends, I have submitted an article yesterday, and it's been declined, really it was very disappointing because I spent so much time by writing and completing it, so please help if there is any problem, or tell me if there are any guidelines to follow Cambuul (talk) 19:27, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to The Teahouse, your draft User:Cambuul/sandbox/cambuul was declined as a test edit because it has no content. Theroadislong (talk) 19:38, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Updated please check it again. Cambuul (talk) 19:45, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Is this about User:Cambuul/sandbox/cambuul? It's not clear whether that is about a person or a subclan. If a person, when did he live? In any case, it fails to establish its subject as notable enough for a Wikipedia article, because neither of the cited sources (both maps) even mentions the subject, let alone discussing him/it in depth. Maproom (talk) 22:09, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Graph

How do you reverse the x-axis so that the highest number shows first using the Wikipedia template? DMBanks1 (talk) 19:51, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, DMBanks1. Whilst I have never used the Graph template to which I assume you're referring, if you search the documentation for xAxisMin at Template:Graph:Chart you'll see a description which states: "xAxisMin, xAxisMax, yAxisMin, and yAxisMax: minimum and maximum values of the x and y axes (not yet supported for bar charts). These parameters can be used to invert the scale of a numeric axis by setting the lowest value to the Max and highest value to the Min." Maybe this might be of some help? But avoid bar chart format!. Nick Moyes (talk) 20:13, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

I tried but cannot figure out how to do it. Also, can a notation be shown with the numerical value on the x-axis, or alternatively within the body of the line graph? DMBanks1 (talk) 20:20, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

@DMBanks1: May I make a suggestion? Copy the source code of whatever it is you are trying to work on and paste it into your sandbox (which you've not yet created - see red link at very top of any page). That way we can see what it is, and try to help you. I'm no expert, but I do like toying around with things like that, as it's a great opportunity to learn new things myself. I just need to see what it is you currently have, and what it is you're trying to achieve. Nick Moyes (talk) 21:49, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

@DMBanks1: I've had a little play around with the sample graphs at Template:Graph:Chart.

version 1 - normal x and y axes

version 2 (below) - X axis reversed by inserting the parameters xAxisMin=8 and xAxisMax=1

This chart is an uploaded image, but the two legend lines can be edited here.

  % Cups of tea served by Teahouse hosts (estimated)

  % cups of coffee served by Teahouse hosts

I assume this was the kind of thing you wanted to achieve? I'm not quite sure what you meant by your second question about notation. You might need to explain that a bit further (maths and graphs were never my strong point!) Nick Moyes (talk) 22:34, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for various advice. My next query is how do I add two verticle lines that enclose a section into which can be added a comment? DMBanks1 (talk) 23:27, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

@DMBanks1: From looking at the template documentation I linked to above, I doubt that's possible, but it's certainly beyond my abilities to fathom. Do you have any urls that might demonstrate the type of thing you want to achieve? Nick Moyes (talk) 23:53, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Something like the pale blue section of the first chart on Recession of 1937–1938.DMBanks1 (talk) 01:08, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

@DMBanks1: The graph used in Recession of 1937–1938 (and reproduced here with modifications) is an image file, not a live, editable Wikipedia chart. You would have to make that image in another programme, such as Excel, and then upload the jpg/png file. Nick Moyes (talk) 10:21, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

When can I consider myself a member of a WikiProject?

I've only participated in a few discussions in WP:BLM, but I already put up a userbox on my page. Is this too early? When can I put it up and call myself a member? Bowler the Carmine (talk) 20:17, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello, talk and welcome to the Teahosue. For most WikiProjects, any editor in good standing may become a member simply by declaring him- or herself to be a member. Simply adding oneself to the list on the project page is enough. Placing the user box on one's talk page is not needed, but is a way to let others know of one's involvement in the project. There is no exam to pass nor do other project members havbe to approve a new member. Welcome to the project. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 20:32, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Bowler the Carmine, What DES said!

You can join or leave pretty much any project at pretty much any tine. A few require a track record. A good example of that is Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation where experience begets expertise and is very much required. Fiddle Faddle 20:41, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Academic and expert reference being disputed

Hi Wiki Editors,

I'm currently having a debate about whether the following references would merit inclusion in the body of an article (note, I'm not trying to start a new article here!) and would truly appreciate your views. The change references a controversy connected to the initial article:

a) One of the references is self-published in the form of a letter, signed by a subject-expert (someone who's won a number of awards in their field and had their work nominated for the top global honour). They've been both academically and professionally published on a number of occasions.

b) Another reference is in the form of a link and reference to a lecture on the controversy, which has been published directly from a respected university website's news page.

c) The controversy has garnered significant public support (videos about it have been seen over 40,000 times, and a petition made in outrage of the controversy has been signed 1,500 times).

However, as of yet the references haven't been cited or used in the mainstream, commercial media.

Given that the article is about a high value product, owned by a corporation who would naturally want to protect it, I have been told that none of the above are strong enough references to merit inclusion of the controversy in the body of an article. I totally disagree, given Wiki's guidelines (I have noted these differ, depending on whether editing an article or starting one).

My opinion is that the article is clearly not neutral without a reference to the controversy in question, and I am concerned that those who are arguing against me may have ulterior motives.

I would therefore really appreciate the thoughts and a fair debate with the wider Wiki community (i.e. with those not connected to the article in question).

Thanks. 78.144.198.67 (talk) 20:39, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

You might find reading WP:ACADEME will answer an element of your question. Experts and Academics have a different view of the world from Wikipedia editors. Fiddle Faddle 20:43, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Timtrent. I've gone through article with interest. The issue here, though, isn't that the person wanting to make an edit is an academic (I used to be!), but rather that I want to cite academic sources and subject-experts on the matter, who have in turn published information about this controversy independently.

I have used this as a reason for doing so: 'with regards to Self-published expert sources (they) may be considered reliable (for inclusion in an article) when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications' WP:SPS. But it's being ignored.

Given that the controversy is already in the public domain (with the video views and signatures of support), alongside the above academic/subject-expert references, is there any other reason why this shouldn't be mentioned in the article?

Help and advice truly appreciated, Thanks! 78.144.198.67 (talk) 20:59, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

I haven't read the huge discussion at that talk page in full, but I think it is correct to exclude this content. Robin Mukherjee (writer) may be an expert in certain things, but he certainly is not a recognized expert in who created the TV series Britannia. (Disputed edit for reference.) He is just a person who claims first-hand knowledge of this fact. So WP:SPS doesn't apply. Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:21, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Three comments:

The lead section of an article ought to summarise the rest of the content. There is no mention of any dispute in the body of Britannia (TV series).

The clause which you added leaves it unclear what the dispute is about. Does Krushkoff claim that it was not the Butterworths who wrote Brittania? Who does he claim really wrote it?

You refer to "number of ... sources", but the only source you cited is a private letter, not a reliable independent published source such as Wikipedia requires. Maproom (talk) 22:24, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

"Editing a page or adding information cant get the format cite right with the arrows Please help I dont know where to put the summary nor the citation"

This is how I entered it: "Andrew Tisch" was an exec of Lorillard Tobacco Co. He appeared and testified before Congress in 1994 where all 7 execs said tobacco was not addictive.[2] Bloopersbetty (talk) 21:21, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Bloopersbetty and welcome to the Teahosue. It seems that you put the information into the edit summary and only adde3d an empty pair of <ref>...</ref> tags to the article Andrew Tisch However, the information you wanted to add, using the exact same source, is already in the article at the end of the "Career" section. Did you want to ? DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 21:53, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

For the future, please read Referencing for Beginners. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 21:53, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

How to disable this text being added in my Contributions log?

Hi there! In all of my recent contributions, a line appears afterwards saying:

Tag: 2017 wikitext editor

I have no idea where this came from! And I don't know how to disable it. Can I disable it? I imagine it is probably some setting that I modified in Preferences, but I can't figure out which one. Thanks in advance. Nickgray (talk) 22:00, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Nickgray and welcome to the Teahouse.

There is nothing to worry about. Wikipedia supports (at least) three different editors. There is the classic wikitext editor, which is what I use, and i think is still the default for new accounts. There i9s the 2017 wikitext editor, which is a somewhat minor change from the classic editor. And there is the visual editor. (I think the editor for the mobile version is again slightly different.) The tag in the history is just to tell any reader which editor you used. (That can be set in your preferences, yes.) That isnt because any of these are wrong to use. It is just that some functions are easier on one editor than another, so it is helpful to know which o9ne an editor used, so areas that are harder with that editor can be more carefully checked. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 22:11, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Welcome to the Teahouse, Nickgray. I assume you mean why are all your edits ending with "(Tag: 2017 source edit)". That's because you have 2017 wikitext editor enabled in the 'Beta' Tab in your Preferences (see here). I have been using it continuously for the last few weeks, but have just turned it off again as it singularly fails to work on my mobile in desktop view. If you look at my user contributions, you'll see the tag disappeared late last night after I gave up in sheer frustration at not being able to view anything correctly on my phone screen. Does that make sense? (It's a pleasure to return to real source code editing, not this half-way house of source editing inside the Visual Editor's layout.) See Wikipedia:Tags for more information. Nick Moyes (talk) 22:13, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

That fixed it, thank you so much Nick Moyes and DES! I really appreciate your support and this TeaHouse space to ask questions. Nickgray (talk) 12:24, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Why doesn't my edit box include a "cite" menu?

I am new to serious editing of Wikipedia. All the instruction pages I see (e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Referencing_for_beginners) explain that citations are really easy because there's a "cite" menu in the edit box. Why doesn't my edit box have this?? I see "Advanced," then "Special characters," then "Help," and that's it. Do I need to activate the "cite" menu somehow? Or does it work only in certain browsers or only on Macs (I have a PC)? Thanks for any help folks can offer. Grn1749 (talk) 22:08, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

@Grn1749: That's really weird. It definitely works on my PC, and I don't think I had to activate it. Have you tried editing in the visual editor rather than the code editor? The visual editor has even better tools for making citations than the code editor does. I rarely work with citations in the code editor these days. Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:14, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

If you are using the wiki-source editor, Grn1749, you need to enable the RefToolbar This is done in the Gadgets tab of the Preference page, in the Editing section. If you do that you will see the "cite" option toi the right of "Advancd", "Special characters", and "Help". The visual editor uses a quite different interface for a similar purpose. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 22:19, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

@DESiegel:Ah, perfect! That fixed it! Thank you so much. Might I suggest somebody update all the how-to pages to add that instruction? I found it super frustrating to keep seeing references to this toolbar as though it were an automatic part of the editing menu! Grn1749 (talk) 22:40, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I Have just updated Help:Referencing_for_beginners, Grn1749 to mention this. I would add that you should never trust the output when you use RefToolbar's "search":con next to the URL. It often gets most of the fields correct, but it sometimes makes significant errors. It has a nasty tendency to stuff the site name into the title of the page being cited, after {{!}}. This is simply wrong, and you should always check for it and move the name into the "website" or "newspaper" field. It sometimes gives the title in all-caps, which is also wrong. It quite often fails to pick up publication dates and the name of the author of the page/article being cited, if they are in slightly non-standard locations. And it never wiki-links the author or the work (website, journal, or newspaper), which should be done when there is a relevant article. It is a sizable help, but it isn't magic, indeed it isn't as good as a human. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 22:43, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

@Grn1749 and DESiegel: To be quite frank with you both, I had thought it was a default function, myself! I've long felt that every page in Preferences should clearly show what the default setting normally is for each tick box. Those of us who've been around a while tend to forget how the settings were when they first started! Nick Moyes (talk) 22:46, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

@DESiegel, Nick Moyes, and Calliopejen1: Thank you, everyone!! Grn1749 (talk) 23:20, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

@DESiegel, Grn1749, and Calliopejen1: Interestingly, our edits to update the help guide have just been reverted by Sdkb, who quite rightly pointed out that they were unecessary as RefToolbar IS enabled by default. I have also checked with my alternative account which uses only the default settings, and can confirm they're quite correct. So maybe, Grn1749, you had at some time in the past unwittingly turned off this function without realising it, which is why you lost it. I stand by my statement that default options ought to be clearly marked in Preferences. Can anyone comment whether this is a WP:VPR issue just for en-wiki, or is one better raised at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Help_talk:Preferences. Nick Moyes (talk) 10:12, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

@DESiegel and Sdkb: Interesting. I don't believe I ever turned that default setting off, because I don't recall ever going into my Preferences tab. Although I've had a Wikipedia account for more than a decade, I haven't done much more with it than correct punctuation and typos, so haven't previously had the need or interest to venture into custom settings. Is it possible my account predates the existence of the RefToolbar, and that's why it wasn't included in my editor? Regardless of it being the default setting now, surely I can't be the only one who for whatever reason doesn't have it activated and doesn't know how to activate it. Isn't there value, then, in allowing your one-sentence explanation of how to turn it on to stay in the reference guide? Grn1749 (talk) 16:30, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Grn1749, your hypothesis is correct there — the RefToolbar was turned on by default in 2014. You might find it helpful to go into your preferences and click the "reset to default" button, in case there are any other similar things going on with other tools. Regarding the intro tutorial, we're discussing it here; my suggestion is to add a link to WP:RefToolbar to help anyone else who encounters the issue in the future. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 16:39, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Should Events at the 2013 World Games be an article?

I just noticed that @Govvy: nominated Finswimming at the 2013 World Games for deletion. (as the deletion tag is about to expire I'll remove it for this discussion) At the bottom there is a box "Events at the 2013 World Games" with a whole bunch of red links, and I don't know if fistball at the 2013 World Games is much more notable than finswimming.

Perhaps all these events (or at least the results) should be merged into Events at the 2013 World Games, redirect the existing articles and only keep articles (with a {{Main}} at the to be created "events" article) for single events that appear to be notable on their own and consist of more than a table of winners? - Alexis Jazz 22:57, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

@Alexis Jazz: I suggest asking at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sports. Good luck! Calliopejen1 (talk) 07:16, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, done. - Alexis Jazz 08:30, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Land Borders fix

Can someone please fix India's entry on this table? I am unable to figure out to wikitext to do it. Thanks! I-82-I | TALK 22:59, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

@I-82-I: I think I fixed it by adding "|Includes:|" in the table code. Let me know if this is not what you had in mind. Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:11, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

@Calliopejen1:Thank you! That fixed the problem. I-82-I | TALK 07:14, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Discouraged by added complexity of automated processes, thinking of giving up editing WP

I am not exactly a new editor for WP but I was pretty inactive for a long time due to life circumstances. Since I have started trying to engage with it again, my experience is that it has become a user hostile medium that is too complicated to be worth investing my time into.

I have just spent a long time trying to fix two non-functioning reference notes at the article on Charlotte Perkins Gilman, a "first wave" feminist thinker and writer. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Charlotte_Perkins_Gilman Notes 68 and 69.

The notes are important because it appears that pretty much the whole bibliographic section comes from the same source, to which both of the notes refer. The original notes apparently were created in 2008, and the underlying article in 1999. They now go to a revised and marketing oriented version of the website in question which has no way to get to what material may exist there relating to Gilman.

In the Talk page there is a note by the InternetArchiveBot saying it had created a web archive link for the notes to The Wayback Machine. The bot wrote:

I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20132018093800/http://www.womenwriters.net/domesticgoddess/CPGguide.html to http://www.womenwriters.net/domesticgoddess/CPGguide.html

As listed on the talk page, the archive link does work, leading to a Wayback Machine page devoted to Gilman which shows all the signs of having been created in 1999.

However, the web archive URLs in the main article are incomplete, and not the same as the one in the talk page, apparently following a truncation in the original link (?).

Gilman's works include:

See, I thought I was actually including the text from the note, but apparently the reflist formatting transfers here too.

Did the bot fail? Did it not include the complete URL because it was following an incomplete model? Did someone mess with its work?

I tried to add the missing piece of the URL from the Talk page but encountered two problems. First, it turns out that you can't check to see if a link works from inside a preview page (or if you can it requires arcane knowledge I don't possess), so I had to make actual edits to see if they worked. Then it turned out my modified links didn't work. I'm not sure why not. I think maybe it has something to do with the reflist citation method.

At first I tried just typing in the missing end of the URL(s). That produced a link to a different Wayback Machine iteration of the website than the one needed, though for the URL itself what was visible was the same as what was on the Talk page. However the Talk page did not include everything in the Template:... brackets, or in the whole . So I tried again, this time copying and pasting the whole URL from the Talk page. That produced a date mismatch somehow between July 25, 2020, which now appeared, and the November 2018 web archive date by the bot, in a way that my just typing hadn't. So I reverted it all, or at least I thought I did.

This is only one example of the kinds of complexities I find myself facing that have me questioning if the game is worth the candle.

In this case I suppose what I should do for the Gilman article is try to use my sandbox to try to build a reference from scratch that works while preserving what should be preserved from the original.

I'm an ex-academic with a Ph.D. in African History and a lot of knowledge about other history, and other work experience as a professional editor. I always thought that Africa scholars have done a pretty piss-poor job of making the knowledge created in African Studies since ca. 1950 available in a more publicly accessible way -- both circulation and writing. I have that kind of substance to contribute, including knowledge of reliable sources, as well as copy editing and proof-reading. The information democracy aspects of Wikipedia have always appealed to me.

But it seems like since I first edited around 2009 or so, Wikipedia has gone a significant way toward being really only for devoted insiders with very high barriers to entry for what ought to be fairly simple kinds of tasks.

Sorry to be so whiny, and so discursive. Cabin fever and fascistic federal agents wreaking havoc in the streets of Portland where I live, I guess. Chris Lowe (talk) 04:37, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello Cclowe. I for one hope that you will continue editing and in my personal experience with general editing for 11 years, I rarely run across such vexing technical challenges. You wrote, "In this case I suppose what I should do for the Gilman article is try to use my sandbox to try to build a reference from scratch that works while preserving what should be preserved from the original." I think that you gave yourself some excellent advice. It is less frustrating to try to solve such a problem in a sandbox than in a live article. Sorry about the heavy handed feds roaming your streets. Best to stay away from the Federal Building late at night, I guess. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:53, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Unfortunately I can't follow what I think are your main points. Some minor comments: It's normal for one reference to point somewhere and for another, later reference to point to the same place. Wikipedia makes great use of one flavour of the "Vancouver system", of which this is a result. I don't much like it. (And I'm quite mystified by the inversion of names: Why "Davis, Cynthia" instead of "Cynthia Davis" [as one example], when there's no alphabetically ordered list?) But that's what we have. Any attempt to imagine that it's a footnote system is doomed to increase confusion. There's no reason to write "Online. Internet." when it's obvious that something is a web page, which of course is on the internet and (server downtimes etc aside) is online. If a past version of a web page is superior to the current version, just link to the past version (perhaps adding a comment that will dissuade a later editor from updating the link). If some nitwit either hasn't heard of Gilman or pretends he hasn't, and writes on the talk page that nobody's heard of her, better just to ignore this (unless the comment is lengthy, offensive, or repeated). Inane comments aren't speedily deletable merely because they're inane. -- Hoary (talk) 06:51, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Cclowe, so, to take it from the top, the template {{webarchive}} uses the "date" parameter (click the linked for documentation) for the date of archival. The date of archive is also easily deduced from the archiveurl which is in the format "web.archive.org/web/[date in the format YYYYMMDDhhmmss]/[url]". As you say, the article was using the archive links from already after the url was dead, i.e. from 2018, this was reflected on the url and the date parameter of the template. I copypasted the url you gave above which redirects to one (that works) from August 2013, and also got a date mismatch error, and then fixed the date parameter of the template in line with the url, which worked. The url goes web.archive.org/web/20130812..., so the date should be August 12, 2013. You can use the preview button to see if the link works. Click on "preview" on the publish dialog window; the preview that is given works the same way as the published page.

Indeed, the compromise between functionality and accessibility is a tricky one, and the problem you said you face is not one that the regulars never do. I took months to figure out the essentials and am still figuring out new things as I have to.

Using your sandbox to figure out stuff is the best option there is. That's what it's there for. You could also have used a {{help}} template to ask another editor for help with regard to that issue. And, finally, I reckon there are a lot of topics on African History altogether missing from Wikipedia. Perhaps, you'd consider creating missing articles from scratch. WP:CITEVAR allows you to choose any citation style that you feel comfortable with, in articles you start. You could use just the styles you have been using in your academic work. This option, it seems to me, would be miles better than leaving, depriving the world of your knowledge in a topic area that is embarrassingly undercovered on Wikipedia. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 09:38, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

References

Question regarding file license

Should autopatrollers add |image has rationale=yes by themselves in the license template? -- CptViraj (talk) 06:15, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

CptViraj If a previous editor (likely the uploader) has in fact provided a rationale but failed to add the template parameter it would certainly be helpful for a patroller (or indeed any experienced editor) to correct the template. If the reasons for usign the image under fair use are in fact reasonable clear, it would even be helpful to write up and add the rationale, but that is farther than most patrollers choose to go.

By the way i suppose that you mean "New Page Patroller" not "autopatroller". An autopatroller is a user who is experienced enough that his or her edits are automatically marked as patrolled, and do not need to be reveiwed by a member of the NPP. Pretty much all NPPers will have the autopatrol right, but reverse is far from true. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 15:16, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Comments

Hi there. I have a question regarding web comments and copyright. Are they copyrighted? For example, are YouTube comments copyrighted? And I were to publish a screenshot of it, what license would it be appropriate to be labeled? GeraldWL 07:11, 25 July 2020 (UTC) 

@Gerald Waldo Luis: Yes, theoretically. Why would you need to screenshot them rather than just quote them? Under the law, the result is the same, but Wikipedia treats quoted text more leniently than screenshotted images, generally speaking. It's also better for visually impaired people using screen-readers (and other readers, frankly) to just type out the text rather than using a screenshot. Calliopejen1 (talk) 07:13, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

@Gerald Waldo Luis: Can you be more specific about the case? Most comments by random users would not seem to be something we should quote or cite here. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 07:28, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

@AlanM1: Its those comments where they talk poetically about their reaction to a video, similar to of people in existential crisis. I feel like its original and that the words belongs to the author, but at the same time, comments with similar statements have been replicated, to the point where I feel like it seems cliche and ineligible for copyright. GeraldWL 07:35, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

@Gerald Waldo Luis: Which article? Which video? —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 07:47, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

@AlanM1: The article is Timelapse of the Future. The video is this. GeraldWL 08:04, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Side note, in order to have a sense on why the photo is there, I might put a caption like "An example of a triggered viewer comment. This type of comment is seen a lot of times" or something. GeraldWL 08:06, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Gerald Waldo Luis a ststement such as This type of comment is seen a lot of times would be Original research unless the conclusion was first drawn by a reliable secondary[ source which is cited in the article. This is exactly the kind of conclusion drawing that editors here should not do. Who decides what 'kind" of comment this is, or how typical that kind is? Only an RS should do so. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 15:09, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

About the publication of a new article

Hello,

When you finish and publish a new article, how long does it take to appear suggested in any search?, in Google for example. LiebeZenPeace (talk) 07:39, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

This is a frequently asked question. Not before Google cares to add it. But in practice, fairly quickly, once Wikipedia has authorized its appearance. To quote Quisqualis above: "[your article] has not been reviewed; therefore Google cannot see it. Once it is reviewed, it will be able to appear on Google shortly thereafter. If 90 days pass without review, it will be visible to Google in any case. Just be patient." -- Hoary (talk) 08:13, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Awards add

Rohan Mehra

How to add iconic and star parivaar awards And if in relible sorce infomtion is wrong about birth year then how can change it correct? Rohan Fan (talk) 07:40, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Add awards to the table in the "Awards" section, of course citing your sources. Wikipedia uses reliable sources. What makes you think that the "reliable" sources are wrong? -- Hoary (talk) 08:17, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Current Events page

I added the headline about Arizona's Democratic Party HQ being burnt down (which is significant considering that police believes that this is probably arson in an election year in a battleground state) to the Current Events page for 23 July, but I have two queries:

1. which section of the page is more appropriate for this? Politics or Crime?
2. since the fire happened overnight, should it be listed as happened on 23 July (when it started) or 24 July (when it became apparent that the attack was serious and manmade)?

45.251.33.122 (talk) 08:09, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Regarding when, take your queue from what reliable sources say. S Philbrick(Talk) 15:29, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Noted, Sphilbrick. I’ve moved the headline to the next day as the fire was reported an hour after midnight. (I am the same IP editor) 45.251.33.0 (talk) 16:04, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Adding caption to image in article, etc.

Please, I need help with Ramesseum magician's box. I did copyediting here, but the captions for the photos (from Commons) are stranded over in the text. If someone can "fix" just one of them, perhaps I will be able to see how to do the others.

Next, the image for "boy carrying a calf" is not present at all, although it has a link in the text to a museum image. Not sure what should be done here. I suspect that this is not a free image, which is why it was not posted to the article, but would like advice, etc. Perhaps I could just put the link under external links, versus in the text area? Seems best??

I don't have experience with image captions, or images, but I am willing to learn. Thanks, Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 08:16, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Your first question: Not "[[File:Ramsseum contents pic.jpg|thumb]]" but instead "[[File:Ramsseum contents pic.jpg|thumb|Whatever you'd like as a caption]]". Your second: the section "Boy carrying calf" simply doesn't ask for any image to be displayed, or anyway doesn't do so in any valid way. By "Penn Museum [https://www.penn.museum/collections/object/136702 Statuary - E13405 | Collections - Penn Museum] E13405, H 3.17cm, L 7.62cm, W 1.91cm", are you perhaps attempting to have a file hosted by penn.museum displayed? If so, this won't work: no file external to Wikimedia will be displayed. -- Hoary (talk) 08:27, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

@Hoary: Thanks for the info, very helpful, will give it a try. As for the Penn.museum, I think this must be why the original editor left it as is, since we cannot link this way, but thanks for confirming. Will move from text to external links, if I think it is appropriate. Thanks! Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 09:17, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

/* External links */

I think this external link is good because there are did not such an external link in this article please help me what is the right way Etexplain (talk) 08:57, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Etexplain I think it is because you are not allowed to link to a blog, (if this question refers the the Poison article) Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 09:32, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

There is no right way to add links to your blog. You have repeatedly asked not to attempt this. If you persist, you will be prevented from editing. -- Hoary (talk) 09:32, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Japanese actor article titles

Hi, I've been reading up a bit on the naming convention for articles pertaining to subjects or people where the name is not originally in a Latin alphabet, such as Japanese, and have a bit of query about how certain articles are currently titled. Specifically, I happen to edit a lot of articles about Japanese actors (voice actors mostly) and have noticed that most, if not all, articles currently feature the macron form of the actors names.

Most of these actors have official English romanizations of their names provided by their management agencies (eg. Sōma Saitō spells his name as Soma Saito), and these romanized names are what's predominantly used by news outlets in English when reporting/talking about these actors (not to mention is also how the actors themselves spells it on their social media/official website/merchandise/etc.). So far I've only encountered one article on Wikipedia that follows the actors own preferred spelling (Koutaro Nishiyama) and that article name change was only relatively recent.

Long story short, my question is: is it acceptable for regular editors such as myself to change the names of these articles provided there is sufficient proof of how the actor prefers to romanize their name, since by all account it follows the guidelines written here?

Thank you, Saruhikofushimis (talk) 09:28, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Saruhikofushimis, those guidelines say: "The use of modified letters (such as accents or other diacritics) in article titles is neither encouraged nor discouraged; when deciding between versions of a word which differ in the use or non-use of modified letters, follow the general usage in reliable sources that are written in the English language (including other encyclopedias and reference works)." What you should look at is this. For ambiguities or difficulties, or to propose changes, ask here. Once there's agreement for retitling, regular and irregular editors are equally authorized to carry it out. (Incidentally, "Koutaro" is a mongrel rendition, isn't it? Normally I'd expect either "Kōtarō" [Hepburn] or "Kotaro" [macrons zapped].) -- Hoary (talk) 09:45, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

@Hoary, thank you for getting back so quickly! And thank you for clearing things up and for the link; just to clarify though, I should leave a proposal or start a discussion here first before actually changing any article names, correct? (And yes, "Koutaro" is an unorthodox romanization being halfway between the Kotaro or Koutarou versions, but it seems to be his definite preference as its used consistently on his websites/social media/acting credits) Saruhikofushimis (talk) 11:27, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Saruhikofushimis do remember that Wikipedia does not automatically follow the preference of the article subject (much less that of the subject's manager) or any "official" name, but rather follows the usage in reliable English-language sources, as per WP:COMMONNAME. You should in my view start a move discussion on the article's talk page, and list it at requested moves, but you will p0-robably get more editors with a knowledge of the issues involved if you post a pointer at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Japan-related_articles (as {{|Hoary}} suggested) or at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Japan or both. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 15:00, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

About my first article

 Ja99u (talk) 15:23, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Ja99u Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Do you have a question about your first article? 331dot (talk) 15:25, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Ja99u, and welcome to the Teahouse. I am guessing that this is about The Citi Bazaar, as in User:Ja99u/sandbox. If you are contemplating the very difficult task of writing a new article, I suggest you start by reading Your first article, and then read about notability, and see whether you can find the independent reliably-published sources which are the very first step in creating an article (because if you can't, then any other work you do on the article will be wasted). If you can find such sources, then you can start writing the important part of the article, which is the text summarising what independent commentators have published about the company. Finally you can add finishing touches like images and infoboxes. --ColinFine (talk) 16:43, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Can anybody help me

Can anybody help me in creating a article about a Indian politician which have no articles about him on Wikipedia?

 Nandu M Nair (talk) 16:10, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

@Nandu M Nair: I recommend reading WP:YFA. If you have any further questions after reading that, feel free to ask them here. Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:17, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Nandu M Nair (ec) Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. This politician would need to meet the Wikipedia definition of a notable politician, as shown with significant coverage in independent reliable sources. If that's the case, you may visit Articles for Creation to create a draft article to submit for review. You may want to use the new user tutorial first. 331dot (talk) 16:21, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Removal of warning notices on page and questions regarding suitable sourcing and citation

Hi everyone.

Recently I discovered someone had created a page on my deceased mother Berrell Jensen. I do not know who created the page. The text was terrible, with multiple factual and grammatical errors so I ventured to fix, and to improve with photographs and so on. I did make a couple of changes when I first saw the page, using an IP, but nothing substantial. It was only very recently, and mostly yesterday, that I made substantial changes, knowing there were more to make.

Given the immediate responses from other editors clearly I made a huge mistake in not doing a ton of research on editing Wiki pages prior. Nevertheless I feel the way everything was approached was unnecessarily heavy handed. To be honest the good feelings I've always had about Wiki are sullied somewhat. I know I went about my editing the 'wrong' way, learning as I went, I knew there was much to fix. I believe it was the increased activity on the page that brought the page to the attention of certain bots and editors. One did write a friendly note on my talk page for which I am grateful.

And, if I had left well alone I am sure the page would have remained in its original state with multiple factual errors. I will endeavour to find citations and so on, but I suspect the page will be deleted by then.

However, I hope this is not the case.

Here are a few issues I'd like to resolve:

1. The notice on the Talk:Berrell Jensen page.

It states that "This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons".

Berrell Jensen died in 2015. How do I have this notice removed?

2. There are two warning notices on the actual page and I'd like advice on how to deal with them so they can be removed.

a) The first warning is regarding notability and that citations are needed.

There are dozens if not hundreds of newspaper articles about Jensen's work, mostly from 50-60 years ago in South Africa and so far I have found none archived online, not unless I pay for a service. Can I upload scans of the articles to wiki commons and use these as citations? I notice this has been done on other pages.

Given Jensen created 22 large scale sculptures in metal, commissions for public buildings, including for Jan Smuts International airport (as it was known then) and the Johannesburg Municipal Library (which I can in fact find a citation for but I don't know if it's suitable - https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=4pe5AAAAIAAJ&q=Berrell+Jensen&dq=Berrell+Jensen&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwizo6Xyz-jqAhXhUBUIHRp2BnQQ6AEwAnoECAYQAg) and 14 of these commissions were created at a time when most white women in apartheid South Africa were absolutely not welding, I am very surprised that such full-on interrogation and opposition has been given to this issue of notability. Some of the South African newspaper articles I have in my possession attest to how unusual her work was at that time by very language used in the article (highly sexist language).

I believe that one of the reasons behind this notability issue is the lack of recent articles about Jensen. The primary thrust of Jensen's work spanned only 13 years, from 1960 - 1973.

b) The other warning is: This article may have been created or edited in return for undisclosed payments, a violation of Wikipedia's terms of use. It may require cleanup to comply with Wikipedia's content policies. I was told by an editor that whoever originally created the page has been blocked. I presume it must have been someone paid by a man who has kept an online archive of South African Artists. He is in his 80s and I can only surmise he was unable to do such a thing himself, probably he hoped to have many artist pages on Wiki and paid someone to do so. I don't know this for a fact but given some of the citations link to his online archive, it seems likely.

Given I have nothing to do with whoever did create the page, how can I have this notice removed or prove that I, myself, am not being paid?

3. COI issues.

I am aware there are COI issues and I have stated this on my talk page and by using my name not an IP. There is no one, to my knowledge, who could update this page rather than myself. They are all over 80 or dead.

All help much appreciated regarding how to deal with the three warning notices mentioned above and if scans/pdfs of articles uploaded to wiki commons are suitable forms of citations and sourcing. Sandra Anne Jensen (talk) 16:41, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Where do i report an editor for spam?

Specifically this user: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/154.72.171.45 Disoff (talk) 17:02, 25 July 2020 (UTC)