Wikipedia:Teahouse

A lad insane, 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

Donald Trump

Would it be possible for someone else to write the bio for Donald Trump, it was obviously written by someone who is either a Democrat or someone who just Hates him !!! Could someone who is knowledgeable about how to do this and will not put in judgement like calling him a racist, a liar, accusing him of not replacing aca when pelosi stopped 3 plans and worst of all accusing him of not handling c19 properly when he did FAR more to battle this crisis than ANY president ever in american history, I mean come on the ships, the hospitals, the ppe, the ventilators, Warp speed vaccines and on and on and on. COME on the description of him doesn't give him CREDIT for anything but on the contrary does nothing but try to make him look as bad as possible. Will someone who feels neutral and will just write his bio WITHOUT injecting personal opinion please write this, if I knew how I would. If Wikipedia is going to be like the media and only allow favorable pieces to be written about Democrats then they don't deserve donations except from democrats. This should be a neutral site and only print the TRUTH not personal opinion. PLEASE someone give this the attention it deserves. Thanks; Mitchel 2601:940:4200:38F0:F414:C029:DA8:DAAD (talk) 00:57, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

If you have reliable, independent sources that say otherwise about his life, please provide them. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:59, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources state; if you don't agree with what they say, you will need to take that up with them. See WP:TRUTH. Wikipedia does not deal in truth, but in what can be verified, because truth is in the eye of the beholder. If you just want to stay in your bubble and be told what you want to hear, this isn't the place for you. 331dot (talk) 01:01, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello IP. How're you doing out there in Alabama? I'm sitting here in the UK, listening to CNN live on the internet (ever since Fox News stopped letting me watch it here a couple of weeks ago for some reason). I haven't looked at the Trump article, but right now CNN is literally calling Trump a 'liar' and a 'con man' (over his $170m appeal for donations from gullible people to fight 'election fraud' with something called a PAC, whatever that is), so I imagine there are many other good and well-respected sources saying the same thing, which Wikipedia will, in due course, report. It doesn't report unsubstantiated nonsense. But you are totally and utterly correct in one thing: You said about Covid19 "he did FAR more to battle this crisis than ANY president ever in american history" Spot on. Damn right he did. That's one statement that nobody in their right mind would argue with at this time. As you know, the virus appeared during the final 12 months of Trump's presidency, so no prior president could ever have done anything about it, as it didn't exist then. So, of course he's done more than any past president in american history! From what I'm hearing on this side of the pond, I suspect the next incoming president will be able to easily and quickly match all Trump's efforts and commitment thus far to tackle Covid-19, and I know that Wikipedia will report what other reliable sources say when those things occur. What we don't (or shouldn't) inject, is personal opinion; we base Wikipedia content on factual, verifiable, reliable sources. Thus far, a total of 6,104 different editors have contributed to the article on Donald Trump. It isn't just one person collating this information, you know! Nick Moyes (talk) 01:36, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Care to mulligan on the topic area you want to get involved in? —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Takes a strong man to deny...} 01:51, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Two comments: 1) As Nick Moyes pointed out, every article is the accrual of content added by multiple editors, so there was no "someone" who wrote the article, nor "someone else" who can place it; and 2) the Foundation accepts donations to keep the Wiki-universe operating, but that is entirely separate from the volunteer editors who create and delete and edit articles. David notMD (talk) 03:52, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Wow. Just wow. This is how the holocaust happened you know? The bigger the lie... Gobsmacking.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 05:56, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Articles here are written through the basis of credible sources on the web. We cannot change what doesn't sound right to us, otherwise that would be a "Conflict of Interest" edit. Opting to not include a detail from a credible source because it won't do the subject good is one of the many COI examples. Basically, we can remove it if it isn't backed up, if it is, it stays. Mejorasi723 (talk) 09:42, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

What is Endflatlist?

When editing (for example, the article on Friedrich Nietzsche: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Friedrich_Nietzsche&action=edit) I see the word “Endflatlist” between brackets, but the list doesn’t appear as a list in the article itself. Thanks. GümsGrammatiçus (talk) 10:48, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

@GümsGrammatiçus: its a template. See Template:endflatlist. Victor Schmidt mobil (talk) 11:05, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion that I see Template:endflatlist. So, I saw Template:endflatlist, and that page doesn't appear to explain what it is much beyond that it's a template. So I'm interested in knowing what it does? Or Why would it exist in an article? Or why would editors bother with an Endflatlist template? It doesn't seem to contribute to the general reader of Wikipedia, but it must have some purpose. Thanks.GümsGrammatiçus (talk) 04:59, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

@GümsGrammatiçus: Are you not seeing the several pages of documentation? The examples at Template:Flatlist/doc#Examples should answer your question. Many templates have two versions: one in which all the values are given directly to the template (the {{Flatlist|...}} example); and another in which there is a starting and ending template with the values in between (the {{Startflatlist}} ... {{Endflatlist}} example). —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 02:09, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you AlanM1, I am indeed seeing the example lists (Dog, horse... etc.) But I'm looking for a definition of a device or template with the word “Endflatlist” between brackets -- a list that doesn’t appear as a list in the article itself. What does it do? Why would an editor include such a thing that is invisible to the general reader? If you want to make a list there are many ways to do that, why do editors use this particular device or template? What would be the criteria for including items in such lists?GümsGrammatiçus (talk) 04:08, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

I have explored a bit, and I believe I have found the answer to my own question: “A flatlist or endflatlist (placed between curly brackets) can be defined as an editing device that is used to create a list of words or proper nouns, that will appear in an article horizontally — running from the left margin to the right margin, as opposed to stacking the words vertically. Using another template or device, the content of a list can be hidden, and then caused to appear after a reader clicks on the word ‘show’.” I think that might be a fair definition. It strikes me that if a definition like that does not exist on Wikipedia (as appears to be the case), there might be a need for a general “Glossary for Wikipedia Editors” — other glossaries exist here. It could use some Teahouse questions as a source — I see candidate entries on this Teahouse page. Thanks to all for considering my questions. -- GümsGrammatiçus (talk) 13:12, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

@GümsGrammatiçus: Keep in mind that we are all volunteers here. Expecting every template to have precise formal documentation, or to fit within a totally consistent master-desiged grammar, is a bit much to expect from a bunch of loosely-organized volunteers with real lives and day jobs.

Why use {{Endflatlist}} is explained by way of the examples – it's a required/necessary part of the syntax of a {{Startflatlist}}–{{Endflatlist}} pair, in the same way that </ref> is a required part of a <ref> ... </ref> reference. It doesn't display anything to the reader itself, but leaving it out causes the software to render the page incorrectly.

If you look at the end of the doc, there is a (default collapsed) "navbox", entitled "HTML lists", which shows a number of templates that are used to create different types of lists. A more general short reference can be found at WP:CHEATSHEET, which has examples of basic Wikitext and other things, with many links to more detailed docs. I hope this helps. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 22:10, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

@AlanM1: Thank you very much for the good suggestions, and for the helpful links you provided. GümsGrammatiçus (talk) 11:04, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

faulty encyclopedia reference

My sandbox is flummoxed by a failed effort to refer to a section of an encyclopedia article, as distinct from reference to page or chapter. My section on Duhem; Stanford encyclopedia section 1.2 in article by Psillos. Thanks.TBR-qed (talk) 12:43, 2 December 2020 (UTC) TBR-qed (talk) 12:43, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello, TBR-qed, and welcxome to the Teahouse. Your question was a bit hard to comprehend, but I did find two duff references at User:TBR-qed/sandbox which I fixed with this edit. (You had some spurious characters present in two of the references, and some curly brackets used in the wrong places.) Hope that helps? I am a bit concerned that you appear to be writing an incredibly long-winded essay on a topic about which we appear to already have an article (Problem of induction). Is there a reason for this? Striking final question as I've just found this. It also looks like you're beginning to appreciate that we don't write opinion pages about topics in this encyclopaedia, but report what other reliable sources have written about them, and in in a neutral, non-interpretative manner, which is very different from the style encouraged in academia. Regards,  Nick Moyes (talk) 13:34, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your corrections and revision warning. I hope soon to finish my sandbox revision demonstrating that the existing Problem of induction is indeed obsolete, and that massive replacement is justified.TBR-qed (talk) 14:53, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Duplicate articles

I just found two articles on the exact same thing, just with different titles (Anthologise and Anthologise Poetry Competition), what should I do about this? Omniscientmoose42 (talk) 03:18, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

I WP:BOLDly redirected the slighly-newer version to the slightly-older version.[1] They were created by the same editor years ago. They started out identical or nearly so. As of earlier today, they were still almost identical. Thanks for shining light on this duplicate article.

Had WP:CSD#A10 applied, I would've used it instead. A10 only applies to Recently created article that duplicates an existing topic though, and these were both created years ago. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 03:33, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

davidwr Thanks, what should I do if I see this again? Omniscientmoose42 (talk) 03:39, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

@Omniscientmoose42: A10s are pretty obvious. For non-A10s, it's always going to be a case by case situation. Had these been just two articles on the same topic with different text, I probably would've either boldly merged the contents on the spot and then redirected one to the other, or slapped {{merge}} templates on them and started a merge discussion. Since there wasn't anything worth merging, I just went ahead and did the redirect. The only reason I didn't nominate one for deletion is that I didn't take the time to go through the histories of both looking for things to merge OR evidence that content had been copied from one to the other. When in doubt about the need to preserve attribution history, err on the side of caution and don't delete it. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 04:43, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

@Davidwr: Ok thanks Omniscientmoose42 (talk) 13:34, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

George Harrison photo

Hi. I was looking up George Harrison on Bing.

I see the photograph that accompanies the Wikipedia link is not of George Harrison, but Paul McCartney!

Is there any way to change it?

It seems a bit disrespectful, but also a fairly basic error on a extremely well-known subject. Rickylee369 (talk) 18:02, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Rickylee360. Wikipedia's article about George Harrison has a picture of him. If Bing is substituting the wrong picture from somewhere else, you need to complain to Bing, not to Wikipedia. --ColinFine (talk) 18:06, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Rickylee369: Providing the imagery at the Wikipedia article about George Harrison is correct, this will be an algorithm error by Bing, and absolutely nothing to do with Wikipedia. It is, however, a reflection that Google and Bing both regard Wikipedia content so highly (but never contribute financially to our work) that they take it, mash it up, and serve it back to you on their pages. (Our licences do permit this, of course, but the error is wholly theirs.) I know Google has a 'report this image' button, so maybe Bing does too? Nick Moyes (talk) 18:10, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Rickylee369: This is Bing being Bing. What they mistakenly grab and display from Wikipedia and how they label it has nothing to do with us. At the bottom you can click to suggest an edit and then click on Paul's picture and let them know. I just did as well. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:11, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Worth pointing out is that George Harrison is a Featured article, an example of Wikipedia's very best work. Any reader who takes the time to read the entire article, as I did a few years back, will have a much deeper understanding of that talented man. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:32, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Sandbox

How can I transfer a page from my Sandbox to the real Wikipedia? Diaz Benson (talk) 01:36, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Submit it for review with {{subst:submit}}. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Takes a strong man to deny...} 01:44, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. Diaz Benson (talk) 01:51, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Which do you prefer, what's in your sandbox, or Draft:Oxford University L'Chaim Society (also your creation)? -- Hoary (talk) 01:49, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes. It is the same. Diaz Benson (talk) 01:51, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Two comments:

1. Maintaining rival versions of the same proposed article is a bad idea. There are many ways it can cause confusion, and no obvious benefit.
2. (This is not a criticism, it's a question directed at those who understand "reliable sources"): is Alamy, cited for the sixth reference, a reliable source? Maproom (talk) 08:01, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Creating article based on a list

 Courtesy link: Draft: Leiden Manifesto(incomplete)

Hello everyone, I am a new editor who is trying to make their first article. For reference, this is the main reference of the article I am creating:leiden manifesto

Since the source is a list, how should the article be created? Should I insert the list verbatim? I was thinking of having "synopsis", and "reception" headings. Redactedentity (talk) 03:34, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

If this is your main reference, you have a problem. Anyone may create a list of requests, assertions or demands (or in this case, "principles") and call the result a "manifesto". Not anyone, it's true, but a lot of people can get material published in Nature. The question you should be asking yourself as prospective creator of an article on this "manifesto" is: What notice has been paid to it by people whose opinions matter and did not contribute to writing it? What reliable, independent sources say about the manifesto should be what your article is primarily based on. And if there isn't much, then the manifesto probably doesn't merit an article. -- Hoary (talk) 05:34, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello, thanks for the reply. The Leiden Manifesto was a list of guidelines to facilitate less biased reviewing of scientific research through better use of Scientometrics. It has been cited in journals several times, as well as endorsed by members of the scientific community, similar to the way the DORA was. I had the introduction reviewed by User:Andrew nyr, their response was that more substantial written content would most likely be sufficient to publish this article. I welcome you to research the article, and its implications on the bibliometrics community. This is my draft so far (the further dialogue with User:Andrew nyr took place on their talk page)Draft:Leiden Manifesto. Any critique is welcome, it helps to further my skills as a good NPOV writer.--Redactedentity (talk) 05:43, 4 December 2020 (UTC)]

As Hoary has said, the manifesto alone is not notable unless you examine the many, many online sources which discuss it and its impact. It appears to have been taken seriously in publishing and perhaps elsewhere. There are a ton of articles to go through and winnow to find the most solid sources to demonstrate the obvious notability of the manifesto. You have your work cut out for you. I'm very surprised that nobody has tackled this subject thus far. Good luck.--Quisqualis (talk) 05:41, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I have begun research on the manifesto and have drafted the "initial motivations" section so far. Here it is: Draft:Leiden Manifesto. I am still unsure though how I would format the "synopsis" section. Should it be a bulleted list? Or should I summarize similar to the way done in The Communist Manifesto?--Redactedentity (talk) 05:51, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

A bulleted list of the ten points would work, as most are self-explanatory. I noticed that #3 and #8 may need slight clarification beyond their one-sentence summations, though. To introduce the bulleted list, you might describe several meta-points which the ten points tend to imply, such as quality over quantity and perverse incentives, which I hope your sources will discuss.--Quisqualis (talk) 06:53, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Help editing an article for re-Submission

 Courtesy link: Draft:Gilles J Guillemin

Hello,

I have received a rejection for my Submission for Draft: Gilles J Guillemin for not being encyclopaedic enough/too many peacock words/terms.

I have reviewed it myself and edited as much as I can see, as well as adding some more citations. However, I would love if someone could take a look over it before I re-submit to make sure I have understood the reason it was rejected and made the appropriate changes.

This is my first submission, so I am still working out how to make a good article.

Many thanks :) Rom0011 (talk) 05:31, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi Rom0011, and welcome to the Teahouse. Your draft has been declined (which is different from being rejected—the subject is not suitable to be on Wikipedia). Taking a brief look at the article it reads like ad copy. It currently serves to promote him more than to inform readers about him. I'll let the declining reviewer give thoughts as to particularly problematic spots, but take care to format the article properly, such as references going at the end of terminating punctuation and words should only be emboldened in certain cases. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 06:16, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi, Rom0011. I cleaned up the first two paragraphs of Draft:Gilles J Guillemin, which had too much resume-type detail. I then examined your references and find that your sources consist of:

1. connected sources, which cannot be assumed to be neutral
2. papers the Guillernin team has published
3. journal board pages for whom Guillermin is an editor
4. a vey local newspaper story
5. Legion d'Honneur
6. a charity event page which did not mention Guillermin at all

Wikipedia notability doesn't come from an enumeration of facts about a subject. Significant coverage in independent, published sources which discuss the subject in depth are what an international encyclopedia needs; Employers and HR professionals are not Wikipedia's target audience. With respect to the biobank, surely there should be something more than a PR notice on line. Neuroscientists all over Oceania must have been excited to have it. Find coverage of that in reliable sources. If you are not familiar with Guillermin's research, be sure to familiarize yourself so you can find (we hope) mentions of its significance to his field of study. Good luck; you have a lot of shovel work ahead of you. Beyond the two paragraphs I edited, I went no further, but some of the remainder of the article needs to be cut, plus find more evidence of significance. For instance, did the Legion go into any detail on the importance of his research? What did the speeches at his award ceremony say, if anything? Etc, etc.--Quisqualis (talk) 06:34, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

• I would not put much weight on the Ordre national du Mérite recognition - it is a watered-down version of the Légion d'Honneur, and even the latter is not very selective at the "knight" rank. I am not sure fellowship of the Royal Society of New South Wales is highly significant (from the wp article I gather distinguished fellowship would be). So a WP:NACADEMIC pass based on criterion #2 or #3 seems unlikely, although #1 is possible if there are more sources. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 16:26, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

How I can improve article

First of all, I would like to say that I am honored to have a chance to contribute at Teahouse space. Well, I have a query that I just submitted a page for review and it was declined for being read as an advertisement. How I can make that article read less like an advertisement? Should I update the content again with proper external sources? Looking forward to replies.

Thanks Kanwalhafeez (talk) 07:18, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello Kanwalhafeez. You are talking about Draft:Piramal Realty. An acceptable Wikipedia article summarizes what reliable sources that are entirely independent of the topic. You have three references, all to Piramal's own website. That's not acceptable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:19, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

If this is about Draft:Piramal Realty, it was not declined (meaning that the draft is not up to Wikipedia's standard), it was rejected (meaning that the subject does not merit a Wikipedia article, regardless of what you do about it). So, in the reviewer's opinion, you will be wasting your time if you do more work on it. Maproom (talk) 08:12, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

@Kanwalhafeez, To answer your question, you may want to read WP:YFA, WP:NPOV, WP:ORG & WP:RS. In summary if an article on an organization possesses in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the organization then it merits a Wikipedia article. You need to provide at least three solid sources. I hope I have been of help. Furthermore if you are an employee of the organization or you are to receive payment for creating the article, then to be honest, it’s best to just abandon the article. It isn’t worth the severe stress you’d invariably face. Celestina007 (talk) 11:33, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

User boxes

I've always wanted to put them on my page, but they are so confusing. Is there a list of all of them? TrevortniDesserpedx (talk) 07:29, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

You can find some information about user boxes in WP:USERBOX. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:48, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Regarding a new Wikipedia page

Hi, I write to you on behalf of Ripu Daman, an Indian Plogger and fitness motivator. Ripu is a seasoned Indian runner and an ambassador of the country's Fit India Movement programme. I would like to know how can I create his page on the website Wikipedia. It would also be great if you could point me towards the person in-charge of the website in India.

Regards Rohit Paniker 2402:3A80:9DB:BB2:17D2:D297:A593:7285 (talk) 07:32, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi Rohit Paniker (IP 2402:3A80:9DB:BB2:17D2:D297:A593:7285). Probably the best place for you to start would be by taking a look at Wikipedia:The answer to life, the universe, and everything and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not for some general information about what Wikipedia is and what Wikipedia isn't. Then, you might want to take a look at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest is the person you want to create an article (Wikipedia has encyclopedic articles about subjects, and these are not really "pages" per se) about someone you may somehow be connected to (e.g. a friend, family member, client). Finally, there's no one person in-charge of a Wikipedia website or article as explained here. If you'd like to find editors who work on topics related to India, you can try Wikipedia:WikiProject India. If you want to find someone to help you at Hindi Wikipedia, try looking here. Just for reference, there are many Wikipedia projects in many different languages. All of these project are operated by the Wikimedia Foundation, but they each have their own community of editors and there own policies and guidelines. Sometimes these various project do things quite differently for each other; so, we can try and answer you questions about English Wikipedia here at the Teahouse, but you may need to ask for help on Hindi Wikipedia if you have questions related to it. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:58, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Another question

2021 is coming up, is there a way I could archive all of my talk page messages from 2020? Trevortnidesserpedx (talk) 07:41, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi Trevortnidesserpedx. You can found more about how to archive a talk page at WP:ARCHIVE. There are various ways to archive a page which involve a WP:BOT, but you can also manually archive a page as well if you want. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:47, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Article creation

How do I request for a television show article to be created? RJ Jai (talk) 08:54, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

RJ Jai Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. You may request the creation of any article at Requested Articles, but there are tens of thousands of requests there, with few volunteers to act on them. and your request might not be acted on for awhile, if ever. The best way for it to be created is for you to do it yourself- though it is admittedly the hardest thing to do on Wikipedia. If you take some time to learn about Wikipedia by editing existing articles in areas that interest you, you will get a feel for the process and what is expected of article content. You can then use Articles for Creation to create and submit a draft. You may also find it helpful to use the new user tutorial. 331dot (talk) 09:32, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

László Heltay

Hello, I submitted this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:L%C3%A1szl%C3%B3_Heltay for review, but it was rejected; the reason given was "All sources appear to be about his death." Given that these sources were, in the main, obituaries in world-renowned newspapers, or entries in authoritative works of reference (e.g. Who's Who) I do not understand what the issue is, nor can I see what else I have to do to get this article approved. Can anyone advise me? Thanks! simontcope (talk) 09:55, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Slim cop, The best place for you to discuss the decline of Draft:László Heltay is the talk page of the reviewer, 4thfile4thrank. I will say that I disagree with his reasoning. The sources aren't "about his death", they are obituaries. Obituaries in sources such as The Guardian, The Telegraph and The Times are well-researched, reliable, and authoritative, and provide excellent sources. Maproom (talk) 10:15, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

@Slim cop:. At first sight, this looks to be a seriously flawed decline rationale, as there are a number of national media obituaries upon which this article is based upon. I would be happy to move it to mainspace myself. It's fair to say this decline was made by a brand new reviewer, so I'm pinging Primefac just so that they're aware of any guidance that might need to be given. Nick Moyes (talk) 12:50, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Update: Noting that concerns have just been expressed that the draft did contain serious copyright violations which do need addressing. Nick Moyes (talk) 13:24, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Glad to see that the issues have been resolved. Original reviewer has been placed on our "probationary status", meaning if such declines continue they will be removed from the project (either contact me on my talk or at WT:AFC to indicate this needs to happen (if you're not an admin, in which case just do it). Keep in mind this is not retroactive, so please don't go trawling through their past declines. Primefac (talk) 19:42, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Life Story

Can you change my life story? No or Yes? I want to be a Professional Writer, not a Housekeeper only. Geebei1988 (talk) 11:06, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

To Geebei1988: You registered your account a week ago, and to date, have made no attempts to contribute to Wikipedia. On your Talk page, an editor recommended Help:Introduction. I second that recommendation. Please cease from asking questions at Teahouse that have no connection to how to be a better editor. David notMD (talk) 11:24, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Why my draft is declined

Hello my draft: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Max_Elektro

Published entry of other, similar companies: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RTV_Euro_AGD https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaMarkt

The description of decline is ver vague. What to do exactly for this draft to be published? In my opinion the minimum standards are met, in opinion of moderator (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:4thfile4thrank) - they're not.

Please let me know, what exactly to change.

Best wishes - N Nataliagolisz (talk) 13:12, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Article X does not justify Article Y. The reason your draft keeps getting declined is because your sourcing is completely unacceptable and as a result you have not proven notability. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Takes a strong man to deny...} 13:24, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Furthermore, Nataliagolisz, the text of your draft is mostly promotional. Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost entirely interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources. --ColinFine (talk) 14:29, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Greeks wanted :)

Hi! Can anyone kindly let me know where to find users to whom I can ask to check my Greek of https://el.wikipedia.org/wiki/Τομ_Ζούντμπι ? Thanks! RøedS (talk) 13:38, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Try WT:WikiProject Greece -- Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:43, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

@RøedS: Each language Wikipedia has its own help desk. For Greek Wikipedia, it may be el:Βικιπαίδεια:Αγορά. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 15:34, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

I'll try those pages. Thanks lots for quick and kind replying!! RøedS (talk) 02:44, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Can I be a moderator? (JK)

Yeah, just kidding. How do I add tables? RusherLeBFDIFan (talk) 13:57, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

RusherLeBFDIFan, Try Help:Introduction to tables with Wiki Markup/1. It'll guide you through the steps. Le Panini ^Talk 14:54, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Click insert and then table. The link above by Le Panini should help you. TigerScientist (talk) 15:57, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Draft: Hector Carlos Lora

Hi, I'm just writing because I'm seeking some help on a "conflict of interest problem." It seems that every time I try to publish, I am tagged as probably working for this person, even though I do not. I simply wanted to represent Passaic's (my hometown) community in a stronger way in Wikipedia for educational purposes, and I thought their leader would be a great place to start. I am planning to go beyond just him, but now I worry that other articles will be pegged as having a conflict of interest too. So what is my next step? How do I ensure everyone knows I am not working for this person? Thank you for your time. Kindly, LMPAJ (talk) 14:04, 4 December 2020 (UTC).

Hello, LMPAJ, and welcome to the Teahouse. Put a statement on your user page saying essentially what you have said above. --ColinFine (talk) 14:31, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

User:LMPAJ - User:ColinFine gave you good advice in response to the question that you asked, which is in response to one of the comments that I made on Draft:Hector Carlos Lora. There is another issue. You created both a draft and an article, Hector Carlos Lora. Please don't create two copies of the same article, in draft space and in article space. Reviewer User:Praxidicae then redirected the article to Passaic, New Jersey with the edit summary of: 'extremely promotional campaign lit PR, not independent notable'. I agree that there were both notability issues and tone issues. Any further discussion should be about the redirect in article space rather than the draft. So discuss the redirect with User:Praxidicae on the redirect talk page, Talk:Hector Carlos Lora (or here). You put it in article space, so it can be discussed in article space

How to create internal page for individual journal

Hi there. I have been working on a WP article for a journal called Frontiers in Nutrition (you can see the article in my sandbox right now). However, after I was done with it I found out that Frontiers in Nutrition redirects to the list of journal on the main Frontiers page. There is a hat at the beginning of that page mentioning that several "Frontiers in..." journal redirect there, though some of the journals do have their separate pages (e.g. Frontiers in Psychology or Frontiers in Physics). So my question is how do I go about creating a separate article? Thanks in advance! Youllneverwalkalone2019 (talk) 14:27, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Youllneverwalkalone2019, and welcome to the Teahouse. The answer, for the moment, is, Don't worry about it. If you submit your draft for review (I added a "userspace draft" header, with a button to do so), and it is accepted, the accepting reviewer will sort out the redirection.

Much more pressing is the fact that, like many inexperienced editors who try the extremely difficult task of writing a new article, you have gone about it back to front. Creating an article starts by finding independent sources which discuss the subject at some depth - because until you find those, all work you put in is at risk of being wasted. At present you have not a single independent source with significant coverage, and until you do, worrying about the name (and, for that matter, preparing an infobox or categories) is like painting the windows of a house that has no foundations and may fall down at any moment. Please see notability, and your first article. --ColinFine (talk) 14:42, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your help ColinFine. If you have a look at typical WP pages for individual journals, you will see that proper indexing in major databases is generally enough to establish notability. I appreciate you adding the button to submit a draft, and I am going to go through this route, but please note that that this is not my first article. My question was how to do this operation myself (also so that I can learn something new about WP). If you know the answer to that, I'd appreciate you explaining. Youllneverwalkalone2019 (talk) 09:47, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Sorry, Youllneverwalkalone2019. So what you're asking is how to replace the existing redirect page Frontiers in Nutrition by your draft, yes? There are two ways. Either you go to the redirect page (by picking that link and then picking the link in the "redirected from" message at the top) and editing it to remove the redirect, and add your own content instead. If you're copying from a draft, that is technically copying within Wikipedia, but as long as nobody else has contributed to the content you're copying, there are no licensing issues. The second approach is to use WP:requested moves to ask an admin to move your draft over the redirect. --ColinFine (talk) 13:34, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

That's precisely what I was asking ColinFine, thanks a lot for your clear and articulate reply - very appreciated!

Pipe Major John McLellan DCM of Dunoon

Pipe Major John McLellan DCM of Dunoon I'd like to thank all the editors who have replied to my question. I've learned from this positive experience! And I aim to follow the Wikipedia guidelines in future articles. Keep up the good work!Baishan17 (talk) 14:54, 4 December 2020 (UTC) Baishan17 (talk) 14:54, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the appreciation, Baishan17. Feedback here can sometimes be rather bruising, so it's good to hear when people have found it useful. --ColinFine (talk) 15:28, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

just curious, is someone being divorced considered exceptional?

I've watched a couple pages where someone claims that a person's divorce is considered wp:exceptional. I'm not sure but I thought the scarlet letter days of divorce are long gone particularly when about 1/2 of all marriages end in divorce within the US. I think their reason for not wanting it posted is because on the 2-3 articles that exist referencing the divorce one of the couple is stated to be seeing someone. I can understand this new relationship not being posted but the divorce itself I think is fairly fundamental. I've also hear the lady reference being divorced on her tv show. Maybe someone can give some clarity. SailedtheSeas (talk) 17:18, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

SailedtheSeas, it's not that there's a stigma, it's that we don't want to report someone is divorced if they aren't. So we require a source. —valereee (talk) 17:48, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

There are at least two online sources (as well as at least one time where she mentioned it on air), so it's not that there's not a source. I think the problem is that it also has one of the people in a relationship which appears to be after separation but before the final divorce. I guess it's unfortunate that the people are not more noteworthy so that there would be a lot of articles. Out of curiousity, if the person does mention being divorced (it was actually phrased by her as ex-husband) on air where there could be a video clip could that be used as a source? SailedtheSeas (talk) 17:55, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

SailedtheSeas, it may be worth checking out the first example in BLPpubfig and comparing that with the advice for non-public figures. The latter guidance also has a link about using primary source material. Regards, Zindor (talk) 18:42, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

I don't think using ex-husband is definite enough. Divorce proceedings can take a long time and its not too unusual for separated (but not yet divorced) spouses to refer to each other as ex-whatever. Zindor (talk) 19:07, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

IANI

I'm trying to add a new page for a musical artist that I've come across and I'm completely new to all of this. How do I add pictures and add other relevant sources to have the page approved??

Thanks. 2facediani (talk) 17:44, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

@2facediani: Creating a draft is a very challenging task. I suggest reading WP:PSCOI, Wikipedia:Autobiography, and WP:Notability (music). If you want to continue and declare any conflict of interest on your help page, then try Help:Your first article, MOS:BIO, WP:Citing sources, and WP:External links. GoingBatty (talk) 17:59, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Okay thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2facediani (talk • contribs) 18:03, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

@2facediani: Before you add pictures, I suggest reading Wikipedia's image use policy, especially if the images to be used are potentially copyrighted. (Please remember to sign your posts on talk pages by typing four keyboard tildes like this: ~~~~. Or, you can use the [ reply ] button, which automatically signs posts.) —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 18:08, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Publishing an army unit wikipedia page

 Courtesy link: Draft:242d Ordnance Battalion (EOD)

ARMY UNIT WIKI PAGE I created a draft with hopes of someone reviewing and publishing the page but no luck. You can find the article under " Draft: 242D Ordnance Battalion (EOD) " Can someone please help me get this article published? Panamenoae (talk) 18:33, 4 December 2020 (UTC)Alex Panameno

@Panamenoae: Welcome to the Teahouse! In order to be published, the draft page needs to meet Wikipedia's notability guideline. I'm not too familiar with military topics, but the relevant guideline is probably at WP:NUNIT. It also would definitely help to add inline references to high-quality sources. If you think your draft meets the notability standards there, you can submit it for review by pasting the code {{subst:submit}}. If it doesn't appear to meet the standards, then there is no way to get it published. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 18:40, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

This was also asked at the help desk. @Panamenoae: please only seek one method of assitence at a time. Victor Schmidt (talk) 18:42, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Fake reference

I visited Iyer and found a fake reference . The cite 82 provide a page number 3899 while the book only has 820 pages. Here is the book https://books.google.co.in/books/about/Encyclopaedia_of_Indian_Literature.html?id=KnPoYxrRfc0C

Some one has lied and added a fake reference. Another account (Wikiality123) removed it by saying the same thing https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Iyer&diff=979904348&oldid=978085470

An older version was restored by Holderlin2019 and it got lost. There is a lock and I cannot edit it. ஆகாயராஜ் (talk) 19:28, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

@ஆகாயராஜ்: The page number is correct. Pages start in the 3000s, as per the Google link you provided. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 20:03, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

@ஆகாயராஜ்: Right. You can see on page 3819 that it is the title page for "Volume V / Sasay to Zorgot". The first article page (Sasay) is 3833 and you can see that page number printed on that (upside-down) page. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 22:29, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

20 years and One Billion Edits

Both of those events are approaching, will there be a wiki for these events? Like Wikipedia 10? Or will there just be some other festival? a gd fan (talk) 20:01, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

I haven't heard anything about such an event, though I am pretty sure that due to COVID, there probbably isn't going to be many (And Some of the Ideas I haave are in WP:BEANS teritory) Victor Schmidt (talk) 20:07, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

@GeometryDashFan12: It's already being discussed in the newsroom of Wikipedia's in-house monthly newsletter, The Signpost. You can see a "best guess" of when this will be at Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom#Billionth edit countdown. As of now, the automatic calculations suggest that it will happen around January 11th. My guess is that as the date gets closer, editing will "pick up speed" so we may be looking at a few days before then. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 20:08, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

it won't let me edit

wiki won't let me edit the page for undertale even though it has misinformation and must be changed please tell me how to edit this page

Thank you, J.S. Rinoking358 (talk) 20:43, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

@Rinoking358: Welcome to Wikipedia. Please start a discussion on that article's talk page to get consensus with other editors on your proposed changes. Be sure to include what sources you are using for you changes. RudolfRed (talk) 20:51, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

thank you for the advice I will try to do this — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rinoking358 (talk • contribs) 20:59, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

The article is semi-protected, meaning that without having made more than ten edits, you were not allowed to edit it. You correctly proposed a change on the Talk page of the article and got an answer. David notMD (talk) 22:25, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

@Rinoking358: If you'd like, you can tell me what to add on my talk page and do it for you if you'd rather have it up now (I know my share of the game). Rhain has good credit for the article's status as well, so their an option too. Le Panini ^Talk 23:07, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Illegally photographed images

Does Wikipedia allow images that have been illegally or unauthorizedly taken?

For example, if someone went inside a religious building, and took pictures and/or videos, when photographs and/or videos are not permitted, then publishes them, does that go against Wikipedia's policy? Matthew.weller (talk) 22:33, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

@Matthew.weller: Maybe. This appears to be about photos inside LDS temples, which sounded familiar to me. See the two deletion discussions linked to at c:File talk:Salt Lake Temple Garb In Sealing Room.jpg. There are probably other such discussions both here and on Commons if you search. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 22:48, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Some articles may include images, text, or links which are relevant to the topic but that some people find objectionable, but Wikipedia is not censored. Theroadislong (talk) 23:01, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

@Matthew.weller: The simple and honest answer to your question is "NO!", Wikipedia (including Wikimedia Commons) does not allow any images that have been taken illegally to be housed on Commons, or to be shown on Wikipedia. This is a key approach it takes that all images must be legally obtained and freely available. The problem comes in interpretation of the law in various countries. I have personally uploaded images I have taken myself of public art in England which have subsequently been deleted from Commons because they breach somewhat obscure copyright laws, and pictures of statues in France were deleted because there is no 'Freedom of Panorama' in that country. But if I put a sign up outside my house saying 'No Photos Allowed' that has no legal authority whatsoever. How that applies in a publicly accessible religious building, or an art gallery, where someone shoves up a sign saying 'No Photos' I honestly have no idea, just as a sign saying 'No Parking' may have no legal authority unless backed up by local laws or statutes. So, interpreting what is and what is not legal requires great care and very detailed knowledge, but that consideration is normally not done here, but by volunteers at Wikimedia Commons. For images only on Wikipedia, that is a matter for us, of course (though not me personally!). I note you posted this request, but I would comment that, unless a law were broken, no personal opinion of "offensiveness" would be considered relevant because this is an encyclopaedia, and Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED.  Nick Moyes (talk) 01:47, 5 December 2020 (UTC)    

This isn't entirely accurate! Commons does not allow images that breach copyright, but there are many cases where this is not the issue. For example very old artworks in museums or other places have no copyright, but photography of them may not be permitted (especially if flash is used). However breaching this is usually an offence of trespass only (or the local legal equivalent), and Commons will (or should) accept the photos - there are many uploaded. But wikipedians should certainly avoid breaching the rules, especially where flash can damage the objects. Johnbod (talk) 18:56, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

@Matthew.weller and Nick Moyes: I said "maybe", given the subject and the location (i.e. the influence of the LDS church and its members is substantial in Utah law). It may well be that there are Utah state or SLC local laws that deny "freedom of panorama" inside LDS temples and other places, though the previous discussions that I referred to apparently did not look for, or did not find, them, as they resulted in "keep". Anyway, that is the avenue along which to proceed – find something with the force of law that makes taking or publishing the pictures unlawful and then propose deletion of the images based on that. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 18:41, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Were the images taken in a publicly accessible religious building, or in a religious building to which access is restricted to the qualified faithful? It is my understanding that LDS temples are mostly limited as to who is admitted to them, and in that respect they differ from religious buildings that are open to the public. If so, and if the rules prohibit the taking of photographs by persons who were admitted for religious purposes, then that may be legally different than unauthorized photography in a chapel or sanctuary that is open to the public. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:12, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Notability guidelines for articles

Been working on Draft:Cycle of Life (Album), curious if it fits guidelines because I think autoconfirmed users have the ability to move drafts to mainspace but I don't know how. Thanks again Teahouse staff! SnazzyInfinity (talk • contribs) 23:46, 4 December 2020 (UTC) SnazzyInfinity (talk • contribs) 23:46, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

SnazzyInfinity, I'm not familiar enough with music pages to be able to give you a good answer, but the notability criteria against which the page will be judged is at WP:NALBUM. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 00:54, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Ok, thanks Sdkb. Would you happen to have any knowledge on the process of moving drafts and the types of users who can? I'd like to get into making more articles but I'm not 100% sure where/how to start. SnazzyInfinity (talk • contribs) 00:58, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

SnazzyInfinity, Help:How to move a page has the instructions. Since you're autoconfirmed, you can move drafts directly to mainspace. However, they will still be reviewed by a New Page Patroller, who may nominate them for deletion if their notability is questionable. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 01:04, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the help! (P.S. I like your custom signature!)SnazzyInfinity (talk • contribs) 01:08, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

You're welcome! And thanks! {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 01:17, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

@SnazzyInfinity: Since the article is so short and has almost no sources, I think you might consider merging it with Ghost Community. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 03:01, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Userboxes

Do I need permission from anybody to create and publish a userbox? TrevortniDesserpedx (talk) 00:54, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

TrevortniDesserpedx no a gd fan (talk) 01:03, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Trevortnidesserped, generally speaking, no. Adding a userbox may put you in a category for something like a WikiProject that might raise a few eyebrows, but no one really pays attention to those as far as I'm aware. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 01:04, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

@TrevortniDesserpedx: Within reason, you are free top make any userbox you wish (see my poor attempt at humour here), but be aware that if you were to try to create a userbox that is deemed as offensive, racist or otherwise unacceptable, it will be deleted. (Personally, I quite like it when users help me by self-identifying as a racist, bigot or misogynist etc., but the consensus here seems to be that we delete offensive userboxes straight away). Nick Moyes (talk) 01:29, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Tagging a draft for review

 Courtesy link: Draft:Gabriel T. Rozman

This regards the draft for "Gabriel T Rozman". How do I tag for review my draft submission ? I pressed the "tag" button shown, but an AFC template box appeared with text already in the multiple and numbered white text boxes. Thank you. Kiraly17 (talk) 01:02, 5 December 2020 (UTC) Kiraly17 (talk) 01:02, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Kiraly17, if you're looking to resubmit the draft for review, you can click the blue Resubmit button in the latest declined divbox. I would suggest reading what the second declining reviewer (Berrely) has to say before pressing it, however. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 01:07, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Kiraly17, the draft has been declined, so before you resubmit it, you need to make sure you've addressed the concerns that led to it being declined. Once you've done that, there's a resubmit button at the top of the page. Also, if you have any connection to Rozman, please make sure you comply with our conflict of interest guideline. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 01:09, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Inserting a photo into a draft

FYI

 – Making this a subsection of the previous section. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 01:08, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

This regards the draft for "Gabriel T Rozman". I need help with inserting a photo. I have read the help text and have tried to google the info, but when I insert the photo according to the instructions as I understand them, the photo is inserted in the middle of a random paragraph of the draft! Thanks so much for any help.Kiraly17 (talk) 01:05, 5 December 2020 (UTC) Kiraly17 (talk) 01:05, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Kiraly17, could you edit the draft so we can see what you mean? We'll probably be able to fix it for you. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 01:11, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

In the infobox, select add more fields and add the image field and then copy the link of the picture you want into that section. TigerScientist (talk) 01:29, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

In general, however, an image doesn't help a draft get approved, and it's better to save them for when/if the draft is approved and moved to articlespace. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Takes a strong man to deny...} 03:30, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Kiraly17. I restored the image in the proper place for a lead image, which is immediately before the first sentence of the lead paragraph. You had inserted it in the section of the wikicode that has to do with the Articles for Creation review process. It displays correctly now, although I recommend cropping out those big empty spaces to the left and right. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:18, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Requesting teahouse feedback for improvement

FYI

 – Another section merge. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 01:10, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

This regards the draft for "Gabriel T Rozman". I have twice submitted this draft for review. The first rejection stated it was too much like a resume/CV, the second rejection indicated a need for more biographical information. I am working on the latter but would welcome input from the community as for tips for approval. Thanks to all !!Kiraly17 (talk) 01:09, 5 December 2020 (UTC) Kiraly17 (talk) 01:09, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Kiraly17, general information on achieving neutrality is at WP:NPOV, and general information on writing a page is at Help:Your first article. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 01:13, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello Kiraly17. Here are two recommendations that will improve your draft: Remove every single solitary assertion in the article that is not verified by a reference to a reliable source. Alternatively, add references. Verifiability is a core content policy. Remove all the external links from the body of the draft. External links should be used very sparingly and only in specific sections. They are not for general information about other topics mentioned in the article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:35, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Saving work while editing a draft

This regards the draft for "Gabriel T Rozman". When editing a draft, how do I save my work if I am not yet ready to publish? I have just lost 2 hours work (but fortunately printed beforehand so all is not lost). How do you save a draft, then go back later and continue working on it before finally publishing? Thanks a million.Kiraly17 (talk) 01:00, 5 December 2020 (UTC) Kiraly17 (talk) 01:00, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Kiraly17, whenever you click the blue publish button, the page is saved, and it should be there when you come back to it unless someone else edits it. You'd have to give us a more detailed explanation of what you did and how things disappeared for us to be able to figure out exactly what happened. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 01:15, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Also, in the future Kiraly17, please don't create new sections when asking questions about the same draft; it causes trouble for the archiving bot. Subsections (with === ===) are fine. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 01:18, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Its here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Gabriel_T._Rozman When searching do Draft:name of draft and it will come up. Also that page needs more reliable citations. TigerScientist (talk) 01:26, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Note that "publish changes" should be interpreted to simply mean "save changes". "Publish changes" does not mean "publish this to the encyclopedia". The button used to say save changes, but the Foundation changed it for legal reasons, to emphasize that all edits are visible to the public even if not formally part of the encyclopedia(talk pages, policy pages, sandbox edits, etc.). 331dot (talk) 01:29, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

What to do when a possible vandal is detected

What is protocol for an auto-confirmed user when I find an account I believe who's intent is vandalism or unconstructive editing? SnazzyInfinity (talk • contribs) 02:05, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

SnazzyInfinity up, you can leave templated responses like {{subst:uw-vandalism1}}. If they continue, you can report them to WP:AIV. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 02:12, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks SnazzyInfinity (talk • contribs) 02:17, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

 Dicesstool (talk) 04:11, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi SnazzyInfinity. Generally speaking, in order to report at WP:AIV, a user is expected to have received an escalating series of warning templates on their talk page and to have vandalized after the final warning. Please see WP:WARN. You don't always need to give a full series in order, and it is always subject to context, e.g., extreme vandalism requires less or (sometimes even no) warnings before a block, but reports at AIV are often declined if suitable warnings have not been given. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 05:32, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello SnazzyInfinity. It is important to be accurate in distinguishing between genuine vandalism and "unconstructive" edits. It has to do with clear evidence of intent. An edit that is actually vandalism is made with the intent of damaging the encyclopedia. Edits that are misguided, incorrect due to a misunderstanding or unfamiliarity with sources, but intended to improve an article, are not vandalism. Do not issue vandalism warnings for the second type of edit. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:57, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Not able to edit -- I have only "Edit Source" tab

Please disregard, the problem has been resolved.

Kindest Regards for any advice! W2317 (talk) 04:53, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Adding a DFC recipient's name to the following Wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Recipients_of_the_Distinguished_Flying_Cross_(United_States)

My father-in-law was awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross (DFC) from the US Air Force and I want to add his name to the Wikipedia page noted in the Subject box above. I have documentation in a pdf file (his original Distinguished Flying Cross certificate) that proves he was a recipient of this award.

I have no clue how to add his name (Francis W. Belanger) to the the list of DFC recipients on the following Wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Recipients_of_the_Distinguished_Flying_Cross_(United_States)

Please help. This should be a simple task, but it appears that I do not have access to add a name to the list of recipients. I set my preferences to use the VisualEditor whenever it is available, but that did not give me access to add a name to the list of DFC recipients.

Also, I do not see how to attach a pdf file to this message which contains proof that he is a recipient of the DFC award. He was awarded the DFC on the 11th of October in 1970 accorinf to his DFC certificate.

This is very frustrating, but perhaps Wikipedia editing should not be user friendly for obvious reasons.

Professor Elsdon ProfessorElsdon (talk) 05:43, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi ProfessorElsdon, and welcome to the Teahouse. Entries are added by designating categories to them on their articles. Your father-in-law would have to have his own article on here before he could be included into the category, which means that he would have to meet at least Wikipedia's general notability guidelines; that is mostly determined from secondary reliable, independent sources. The certificate is a primary source which is great for fact-checking, but it shouldn't be the only type of sourced used; secondary sources are recommended. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 06:06, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

@ProfessorElsdon: In other words, the category is not meant to be a list of recipients of the DFC, but instead a list of articles about such people in this encyclopedia. The category has 1,243 articles. According to this site, "No one knows how many DFC’s were awarded but The Distinguished Flying Cross Society has over 6,200 recipient members with possibly thousands more eligible to join our prestigious and elite Society." —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 19:37, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Help

FYI

 – Heading added by Tenryuu.

Can you help me edit the page SMG4 please Starkiryu64 (talk) 06:04, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

@Starkiryu64: You will need to find sources demonstrating the notability of this person in order to save the article. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 06:13, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

WP:NFCC#8

What criteria of WP:NFCC#8 specifies? What comment written for the media files articles? There is misunderstanding with this guideline specifically this bolded word as the following:

• Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. The Supermind (talk) 09:26, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

• I told The Supermind to ask here. This is about File:S.M.I.L.A by Alexander Ozolin .mp3 which was uploaded for Kiev Day and Night#Alexander Ozolin. Me and JJMC89 doubt the song warrants a fair use sample. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 11:38, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

The elements got pulled right

If you click here https://sk.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leeds_United_FC#S%C3%BA%C4%8Dasn%C3%A1_zostava and scroll down, you will see all the elements got pulled right. Tried to fix it, but since I don't know how, I rather did not touch it. I have noticed a few Wiki pages having the same problem. Thank you for advise TomasHvizdak (talk) 09:39, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

@TomasHvizdak: This page is not within the english Wikipedia, but within I think the slovak Wikipedia. Try asking at sk:Wikipédia:Potrebujem_pomoc. My guess would be that the table there is not properly closed. Victor Schmidt (talk) 09:58, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi @TomasHvizdak: The link you posted is for the Slovakian Wikipedia. You’ll have more luck posting on their help pages. I did a quick search and unfortunately can’t find the link for you. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:09, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

I conjured my inner Slovakian and I believe I've fixed it. Zindor (talk) 11:17, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

draft:Wolfgang_Tschacher

 Bety Bannwart (talk) 11:01, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

@Bety Bannwart: Hello, and welcome to the teahouse. May we start with your question please? I have added a submit button to the draft, however, if it were submitted right now, it would be declined, as Wikipedia is not interested in a rerun of the Seigenthaler incident. Every claim you want to make about a living person needs to be directely backed up with an inline citation to a relible source. Victor Schmidt (talk) 11:20, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

disambiguation

should there be a disambiguation? Wilayah (administrative) and Walayah (ideology)? Baratiiman (talk) 11:29, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Need to get Articles to be Reviwed

Hi there, I earlier created article for CNEEC, as a participant of WAM 2020, unfortunately didn't get my article approved due to its adverts/promo workdings n poor referencing n citations as well. Later, however I really worked hard upon editing, refernced n cited properly, removed promo characters as well. Please anybody here to help me out, that how I can I improve it even further, no prob. if it won't get accepted even at this time also, I am ready to work upon even a 100 times as well. What I only want to know is what's still wrong with the article that it has still hann't got any response or is it still in waiting progress. Kindly go through the below the link and all the page history as well which is to be checked. Many Thanks n Regards.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:China_National_Electric_Engineering_Company ~~SB~~ 12:00, 5 December 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SB Edits (talk • contribs)

I looked at just one source cited in the draft: this one at protenders.com. Pretty obviously this says what CNEEC pays the website to say: it even points out that miscellaneous information is missing because CNEEC hasn't supplied it. This is not a reliable source (as understood in Wikipedia). Wikipedia articles have to be based on reliable sources. -- Hoary (talk) 12:11, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

I ve' removed that Web Address for not being the correct ref, with improving the existing references also. Thanks.

Draft Samuel Ridwan

Please i need with my article Samuel Ridwan i want to get it approved but am not sure what the problem is so please help me identify the errors and how to fix it. please help thank you Campusfilla (talk) 12:07, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

The template at the top says that the references "do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject". I see no reference to any published, reliable, secondary source that's independent of Ridwan. If there are good sources, use them; if there aren't, the draft is doomed. -- Hoary (talk) 12:15, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Hoary So the problem is the references okay sure so i have to change them to a published article about Ridwan online and please how many reference do i need to put in Campusfilla (talk)

And Please Hoary Apart from the references is there any thing that needs to be done Campusfilla (talk)

Hello, Capusfilla. What you probably need to do is to throw away your first attempt, and then start again, by finding suitable references (which do not have to be online, but do have to have been reliably published. Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost entirely interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources. . --ColinFine (talk) 13:31, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Indeed, the most obvious problem is the lack of any evidence that Ridwan is notable. Unless you can establish his notability, any other work will be wasted. Maproom (talk) 14:04, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Well Noted ColinFine Maproom. Campusfilla (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 14:16, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

I know I said that was my last question, but I have 1 more. Asked my last question at the help desk, but I found that you guys answer faster

How do I change my signature to pale pink background, purple words, and cursive font? Thanks in advance. Ex-Borg Seven of Nine (talk) 12:31, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Ex-Borg Seven of Nine. Yeah, we're great like that. I'll knock together some sigs for you and drop them in your sandbox. Once you've decided on a design, or made one yourself, go to the preferences tab in the top right of the screen, scroll down and paste the markup in the signature field, then tick the box that says 'Treat as Wiki markup'. Then click 'save' at the bottom of the page. Regards, Zindor (talk) 12:41, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

@Zindor: Lol, and thanks. I'll keep an eye out. Ex-Borg Seven of Nine (talk) 12:44, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Files

Xanderman016: I want to upload music on my profile page, but Wikipedia isn't letting me. Why? Xanderman016 (talk) 13:13, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

@Xanderman016: Why would you want to do that - we're building an encyclopaedia, not running as music station! Anyway, most music will be copyright so you can't release it for free here yourself, as you don't own it. However, there are already some free music files already on Commons that you could embed, and which will play if you click them. Like the one from my favourite musician that I've included here. Nick Moyes (talk) 13:30, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Quote from your user page: "So, I created this to promote my Scratch account and to post my book here. I guess I can also use this to promote my followers." I deleted it. Welcome to Wikipedia. It's an encyclopedia. It's not a free web host. -- Hoary (talk) 13:29, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Sorry Xanderman016 you are not allowed to use your user page for self promotion. See WP:USERPAGE for guidance on what is permitted and what isn't. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:31, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

You're also not allowed to use your sandbox to create a draft for something that you hope will drum up interest in the project you're working on. I deleted that too. Now, if you'd care to improve existing articles on subjects to which you're not related, basing your improvements on reliable, published sources independent of anyone you're writing about, you're welcome to stay. Years from now, others may publish material about your writings, and others again may use this material to create Wikipedia articles about your writings. -- Hoary (talk) 13:51, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Xanderman016: That was MY profile page! Why can't I do that on MY profile page!? Whatever happened to freedom of speech!? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xanderman016 (talk • contribs) 15:53, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not have "profile pages." It has articles about notable people. Freedom of speech is one thing, freedom to publish at other than social media is entirely another. Regardless of what you think can be on your User page, Wikipedia:User pages says otherwise. David notMD (talk) 16:16, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

@Xanderman016: Just for future reference, on a discussion page (like this one), if you start a post with "Someone:" or "@Someone:", that means you are talking to the user named "Someone", so your posts above appear as though you are talking to yourself. If you want to address your comments to the user named "SomeoneElse", start your post with {{Re|SomeoneElse}} .

Also see WP:INDENT for how we use indenting to keep talk pages organized.

Lastly, at the very end of your posts, please add a space and four tildes, like this: ~~~~, which will be automatically converted to your username and timestamp (a "signature"), like I've done here: —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 00:39, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Cross-wiki notifications

Please see this, as yet, unanswered question I have posted at the Help Desk. I would welcome feedback there, lest I've been doing something wrong all this time. Thanks, Nick Moyes (talk) 13:24, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Question re autoconfirmation

When can I be a “confirmed” and an “auto-confirmed” user? RusherLeBFDIFan (talk) 13:49, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. Concentrate on making intelligent, well referenced edits to existing articles, the huge majority of which don't need any kind of "confirmation". -- Hoary (talk) 13:58, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi RusherLeBFDIFan Since you already have more than ten edits, you will be automatically autoconfirmed later today, when 21:30 (UTC) passes, i.e, 96 hours (four days) after your account was created. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:13, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Delete misspelled November 1866 redirect (Novembe 1866)

I accidentally created a misspelled redirect for November 1866, known as Novembe 1866. Please can someone get it removed? I can't see an option for it. Childishbeat (talk) 13:49, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Redirection is called "moving", for some reason. If you can create it, you can move it, to "November 1866". This is just one of many similar redirects you've created: July 1866 is another. Has anyone else said that their creation would be helpful? -- Hoary (talk) 13:56, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

I moved it, but it kept the old redirect. I still ask for the old redirect to be removed, and for consistency across the similar redirects I've created. Childishbeat (talk) 14:06, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

I've tagged the page for deletion. Regards, Zindor (talk) 14:48, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

And I have now deleted the erroneously-named redirect, although they could have requested a CSD themselves. But I really see no value in making such pointless redirects, and I have told User:Childishbeat to desist until they have explained their rationale and gained consensus (or shown a prior consensus) to do this.

@Hoary: would you regard this as potentially disruptive if they were to continue without that? I feel many of these redirects may well need deleting at WP:RfD, as these myriads of month/year redirects only seem to serve to clog up notable entries in the drop-down search results with pointless and irrelevant results, and with no real user gain. Nick Moyes (talk) 15:08, 5 December 2020 (UTC)  

I didn't know my redirects would clog up these results. Childishbeat (talk) 15:59, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Nick Moyes, I think that these redirects, however well intentioned, are a net minus. But I am of course willing to be proven wrong. Yes, I think they should be nominated for deletion. If that's closed as "keep", work on them can be continued; in the meantime, I think Childishbeat should pause. -- Hoary (talk) 13:26, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

How to submit draft

How do I submit for draft reveiw Iwillbe65 (talk) 14:42, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, I have added the submit template, but the draft would be rejected if submitted as it stands, there is no indication of notability. Theroadislong (talk) 15:29, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

(e/c) Hi Iwillbe65. All you need to do is post this to the top of the draft and save it: {{subst:submit}}. (Later inserted note: A template for submisson has already been placed for you—all you need to do now to submit it is click the blue button that says "Submit your draft for review!" – which would be premature at this time, per below) However, assuming this is about the content in your sandbox, that will be declined for a variety of reasons at the present time. Most importantly, what we are looking for are inline citations in the text, through footnotes, to reliable, secondary sources that are entirely independent from the topic, which treat it in substantive detail, and directly support the material. It needs those to verify its content and demonstrate the notability of the topic. The current manner of citation – external links, hyperlinked to certain words in the text – is a good start, especially because some of those look to be good sources, but they need to be converted to footnotes, and some of them are not actually about the topic of the proposed article, e.g., the NYT article you linked about Arthur Weinstein has no mention of the milk bar.

It may be that this is a notable topic, but my (albeit quick) survey of the sources makes me think that even if you convert what you have now to proper citations, you will need to find more sources, that discuss the milkbar in detail, and rewrite this to only include information that the sources you cite actually verify. A good place to start for the referencing issue is Help:Referencing for beginners. And please see generally Help:Your first article. By the way, the content of the draft should not also be on your userpage. That is for telling us a little bit about yourself in relation to Wikipedia. e.g. your editing interests, a list of articles you've created, links to useful places, etc. Please see WP:UPGOOD and WP:UPNOT. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:37, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Question (again)

Where do I submit page ideas? RusherLeBFDIFan (talk) 14:45, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

@RusherLeBFDIFan: Wikipedia:Requested articles. Or you can be bold and try it sourself. Victor Schmidt (talk) 15:12, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

@Victor Schmidt: Where’s the category for airplanes + how do I join a WikiProjecy? RusherLeBFDIFan (talk) 15:59, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

@RusherLeBFDIFan: There is no specific Category for airplanes, try searching in Category:Aircraft. As for WikiProjects, requirements and join Process is Project dependent. Try asking on the respective talkpage. Victor Schmidt (talk) 17:11, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

@RusherLeBFDIFan: For WikiProject Aircraft, all you need to do is put your name on the list linked. Le Panini ^Talk 17:24, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

can somebody help me please/من به کمک نیاز دارم

Hey there I am a new member of Wikipedia and I really need this page translated in English but Wikipedia doesn't let new members to translate so can you please translate this page for me actually I translated it in English but I couldn't publish it, so I saved it as a public draft This is the link of the Wikipedia page in Persian:https://fa.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D9%85%D8%AF%D8%B1%D8%B3%D9%87_%D9%86%D9%85%D9%88%D9%86%D9%87_%D8%AF%D9%88%D9%84%D8%AA%DB%8C This is the link of my public draft:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Governmental_leading_high_school If you can help me It means a lot to me thank you for taking your time to read this

سلام ، من عضو جدید ویکی پدیا هستم و واقعاً به این صفحه ترجمه شده به زبان انگلیسی احتیاج دارم اما ویکی پدیا به اعضای جدید اجازه ترجمه نمی دهد ، بنابراین لطفاً این صفحه را برای من ترجمه کنید ، در واقع من آن را به انگلیسی ترجمه کردم اما نمی توانم آن را منتشر کنم ، بنابراین من آن را به عنوان پیش نویس عمومی ذخیره کردم این پیوند صفحه ویکی پدیا به زبان فارسی است:https://fa.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D9%85%D8%AF%D8%B1%D8%B3%D9%87_%D9%86%D9%85%D9%88%D9%86%D9%87_%D8%AF%D9%88%D9%84%D8%AA%DB%8C این پیوند پیش نویس عمومی من است:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Governmental_leading_high_school اگر می توانید به من کمک کنید برای من معنی زیادی دارد متشکرم که وقت خود را برای خواندن این مقاله اختصاص دادید

Can someone review my draft(Persian to English)

This is the link of my draft can you please check it out: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Governmental_leading_high_school — Preceding unsigned comment added by ROSE1820 (talk • contribs) 15:45, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

@ROSE1820: I see you submitted the draft for review today. Please be patient, as Wikipedia doesnt operate on deadlines. Victor Schmidt (talk) 17:07, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

@ROSE1820: Drafts submitted for review are reviewed out of order, so the process could take about 3 days to 3 months. You can improve the article during this time. Le Panini ^Talk 17:19, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

And indeed, ROSE1820, I suggest you read notability and citing sources. Articles without citation to reliable sources independent of the subject are extremely unlikely to be accepted. Sources in Farsi are acceptable if there aren't English ones; as long as they are reliable sources. Note that just because an article is accepted in another edition of Wikipedia does not mean it will automatically be accepted in English Wikipedia, as each edition has its own rules and policies. --ColinFine (talk) 18:01, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

it is title mistranslated and add news from google.Baratiiman (talk) 13:40, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Next Steps After "Publishing"

I created a Wiki article for a nonprofit organization that I founded and ran from 1995-2009 (the organization dissolved in 2010). Because I am a conflicted editor as its founder, I'm wondering what I should do after pressing "Publish Changes"? I read that "Now it's time for you to move the article from your personal userspace (as a subpage) to Wikipedia mainspace (where the real articles are)"* but I don't think I can do that as a conflicted editor. The name of the article is Stages of Learning and its page is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Floydrumohr

Does any one have any advice? Many thanks for any help about what to do next.

- My username is Floydrumohr

• Help:Wikipedia: The Missing Manual/Editing, creating, and maintaining articles/Creating a new article Floydrumohr (talk) 16:48, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Courtesy link: Draft:Stages of Learning

@Floydrumohr: Just leave your draft as is. You've already submitted it for review, so another volunteer will come along and check if it's up to Wikipedia's standards. Be patient, as there's a lot of drafts to review, and they're done in no particular order. That being said, you need to make the paid contributor declaration on your userpage at User:Floydrumohr, not your draft. I've gone ahead and moved it for you. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 17:25, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

@Ganbaruby: Thanks for your help in moving my article to review. I hope you get this post -- I'm not sure if I'm doing it correctly. You mentioned that I need to make the paid contributor declaration on your user page at User:Floydrumohr, not your draft. What does that mean? I think I already disclosed that I am the founder of the organization but I have not been paid to create the Wikipedia article. Floydrumohr (talk) 18:00, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Floydrumohr, I've moved your reply to the right section here: you added it to a different section at the end of the page. --ColinFine (talk) 18:10, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Can we use Press release as sources

I have a doubt about using press releases as sources for Wikipedia articles, can we use Press Releases? Nameisthor (talk) 17:03, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

In limited cases, as described in WP:SELFPUB. Also, Press releases do nothing with regards to notability (as WIkipedia defines it). Victor Schmidt (talk) 17:05, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

@Nameisthor: Basically, you may use a press release if it's the subject talking about themselves, like a singer saying where she was born. However, we want to use as many secondary, independent sources to back up our claims. See WP:RS for more. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 17:34, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Is there any possibilities that an article is accepted without proper sources and citations.

I recently joined WIKIPEDIA and I am curious and start learning new things from Wikipedia, I have come to know that without proper article sources and notability an article won't be published, but I saw many of the articles on Wikipedia without proper citation and sources. Is this possible? Thank You. Nameisthor (talk) 17:21, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

@Nameisthor: Most Wikipedians try their best to make sure everything is backed by a reliable source, but sometimes newer editors will add unsourced content and nobody notices. Just because it happens does not mean adding unsourced information is okay. If you write a new draft and submit it through the Articles for Creation process, reviewers will be checking if you sourced every claim; if not, it will get rejected. If you find an article that does not have a source, or has a tag like , go ahead and see if you can find a source for it! That's one good way to ensure that Wikipedia stays as close to the truth as possible. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 17:30, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Older articles, especially, may not conform with current guidelines. As Ganbaruby noted, New editors are recommended to submit draft articles to Articles for Creation, which then calls for an experienced reviewer to accept or decline, but editors who are auto-confirmed can skpi AfC and create an article directly into mainspace. If flawed, such articles may be nominated to Articles for deletion (AfD). David notMD (talk) 17:34, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hello, Nameisthor, and welcome to the Teahouse. A new article without references is unlikely to happen now, but in earlier years Wikipedia editors were much less careful about this, so we have thousands and thousands of articles which, if somebody submitted them today, would not be accepted in their current form. (Some of them would not be accepted at all, because their subjects are not notable). unfortunately, improving (or deleting) such articles is not something that many editors choose to spend their time doing, so they tend to hang around, lowering the overall standard of Wikipedia. --ColinFine (talk) 17:37, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

How do I know whether My Wikipedia account is autoconfirmed ?

I have heard that Autoconfirmed is a user group that is automatically given to registered user accounts that are more than 4 days old and have made at least 10 changes. I have a bit confused about changes and contributions, is no of changes is the same as no of contributions, and how do I know whether my account is autoconfirmed. Thank You. Nameisthor (talk) 17:51, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Nameisthor, you can see your user rights in many ways. I prefer using XTools, which gives me other details (here is a link with your user), but for an on-wiki alternative, you can use Special:UserRights. To access this for you, click on "View user groups" under the tools section in the sidebar when on your talkpage, or go to Special:UserRights/Nameisthor. I hope you have a good December, and thank you for wanting to edit Wikipedia! — Yours, Berrely (🎅 Ho ho ho! 🎄) • ^Talk∕_Contribs 18:19, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hello again, Nameisthor. No, you are not Autoconfirmed, because your account is less than one day old. But when new users ask about this, my reply is, Why do you want to know? Most of the things that Autoconfirmation allows you to do I would strongly advise new users not to do anyway. It allows you to create articles directly in article space: but anybody who does so without experience of already having created dozens of articles is probably going to have a very frustrating experience: use the Articles for creation process to create a draft. It allows you to upload media files; but nearly all media files should be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, which has no autoconfirmation requirement. The only files that should be uploaded directly to Wikipedia are non-free media, and it is unlikely that a new editor will understand the application of the criteria for these. The other main privilege is editing Semiprotected articles; but again, an inexperienced editor would be well advised not to try doing so, but to continue making request on articles' talk pages.

On the browser version, you can find out whether you have autoconfirm or any other rights by picking "Preferences" at the top. I don't know if there is a way to do it on the app. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ColinFine (talk • contribs) 18:23, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Book

Um... So, I told some people on other websites about my book here before it was deleted. I moved my book to another website yesterday, and I'm wondering if I could post the link to it for a short while so people know that it is not available here anymore? Xanderman016 (talk) 19:35, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

No, per same answer on your Talk page. David notMD (talk) 19:40, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Darn... I told some people to find it here before this happened. I will find some way to do it! Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xanderman016 (talk • contribs) 17:05, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Point deduction for football league table

Hi, how do you add in point deductions for teams in football league table? Editing Essex Senior League table for 2020-21 but can’t figure out how to add a 6pt deduction for southend manor Platypus88 (talk) 20:02, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Harry Fear

 Courtesy link: Draft:Harry Fear

Draft:Harry Fear Hello, can someone please view my draft and tell me if there is any adjustments needed before submitting it. Thanks in advance. Engy Badawy (talk) 22:29, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

His own blog and Twitter (refs #5 and #7) cannot be refs. David notMD (talk) 01:49, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Donations

Hi, I would happily make a big lifetime contribution to Wikipedia if they would quit asking me for donations every time I log in at the end of the year. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.176.151.21 (talk) 00:21, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

IP editor, Wikipedia cannot tell if the person at the other end of an IP is the same person as the one that used it the day before. The best thing for you to do is to create an account and adjust your preferences to disable the banner. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:24, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

That's funny, they only ask me for donations when I'm NOT logged in. Bookmark https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:UserLogin and you won't have to worry about those pesky messages. Oh wait, I see you aren't logged in so, yeah, register for an account and set your preferences. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 00:28, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I'm always logged in and I never see requests for donations. I think they only show those messages to readers, not editors. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:44, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

One would hope so. There's also a "Suppress display of fundraiser banners" option in the gadgets menu to be doubly sure that they won't appear. Zindor (talk) 00:56, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Side Note:These banners also show when logged in, as I saw the other day using Victor Schmidt mobil, unless you have taken steps to hide them (the afroamented gadget is one option) Victor Schmidt (talk) 06:57, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

How to edit?

How do i edit wikipedia? Chevytruckps (talk) 02:12, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Chevytruckps, In reference to just editing itself, check out Help:Editing. For a very helpful and broad explanation, try out WP:The Wikipedia Adventure. Le Panini ^Talk 03:08, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

A doubt

I nominated John Toffan, an article created by me for WP:AFIL. I just wished to know more on the process. Is it important that a person who has edited an article nominate it for WP:AFIL.--Atlantis77177 (talk) 07:18, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Atlantis77177 While AFIL might find help, more up to you to improve this article, which in my opinion is fatally flawed, as the only ref about Toffan is an obituary. All the others are about horses he trained, with only minimal mention that he was the trainer. Delete all the descriptions of actual races and the the horses' deaths and there is no article left. David notMD (talk) 11:27, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

What if you find something obviously strange in a reliable source

I found a strange article in the AMS(american mathematic society)journal archive. My simple question is that would I be violating some policies if I contribute the fact to the related talk page. To me, it's as simple as 1+1=2, and I believe almost all highschool teachers (and some smart students) can easily understand my points within 10 minutes. It's just that simple. It's (in my opinion) an important article, because it's related to the current (practically one of the)fastest (yet unproven to be valid)computer algorithm supported by a folklore which originates from the paper(by a famous scientist). It's also directly related to your digital signature security strength(isn't that an important fact?)

Should I leave this obviously wrong history best untouched? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aquahabitant (talk • contribs) 07:40, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello Aquahabitant. This is a matter that should be discussed at the talk page of the Wikipedia article in question. Your critique of an individual journal article would deserve mention only if published reliable sources made the same criticism. Otherwise, it is orginal research, which is not allowed in Wikipedia articles. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:49, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Aquahabitant, a reliable source is not always a reliable source. NatGeo sometimes publishes articles that are kinda... eh. The New York Times has published bullcrap. Vice versa, an unreliable source is not always an unreliable source. I am unable to grasp your struggle, but just want to give a related trivia there. GeraldWL 08:59, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

I am too coward to write anything to the talk page, so if i am allowed, i would like to do it here. This is a very delicate subject, because many IT funds are believing this (to me, obviously wrong) history, and their beliefs should be very strong, too. The main part of the article is an ALGOL code which is (almost) correct, but the (obviously unchecked) proof part became a famous folklore, and nobody seem to have checked it, and today this (possibly unchecked) proof is used to exaggerated digital risk. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aquahabitant (talk • contribs) 09:51, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

@Aquahabitant: Again, this belongs on the talk page of the respective article, where other editors can give input on your ideas. Wikipedia works through consensus by multiple editors, so you must initiate the discussion yourself to get the ball rolling. Otherwise, you can just be bold and change it yourself, assuming that you have reliable sources of your own backing up your claims. If that gets reverted, then you'll have to sort it out on the talk page. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 13:25, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Wish to add to the vaccine page. It seems to be protected.

I'm provax and have had too much experience on twitter and facebook re:vax mis info, etc. I wish to edit the vaccine page to reference the long history of vaccination starting in 1796. Example:14 diseases defeated by vaccination https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/parents/diseases/forgot-14-diseases.html. This may differ from the wiki page that covers this issue. Here is the CDC article https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/downloads/prinvac.pdf This site gives the best reference re:vaccinations.Bgordski (talk) 08:11, 6 December 2020 (UTC) Bgordski (talk) 08:11, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

@Bgordski: Wikipedia has many articles on vaccines. Which one are you referring to? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 08:26, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Note, Bgordski, that the basic page on vaccine has a history section that goes back to the 10th century and covers much else. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:20, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Help with submitting article

I have written a bio about my Grand Uncle (one of the founders of early American silent film comedies). It is in my sandbox. I thought I submitted it for review but I never head anything back so now I'm not sure. Can someone help me verify that I am proceeding correctly? Gwlnl (talk) 10:08, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello Gwlnl and welcome to The Teahouse, I have moved it to draft and added the submit button for review Draft:Louis Anger. Theroadislong (talk) 10:25, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Excellent effort by a new editor. Given family connection, you should state on your User page that Louis Anger was your grand-uncle. This is about Wikipedia's policy of declaring conflict of interest WP:COI. However, in my opinion your create a neutral point of view draft. I took the liberty of a bit of copy editing. David notMD (talk) 12:27, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

The images are a critical issue, as clearly, most of these are not your "own work" (you were not the photographer). David notMD (talk) 12:30, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Elize Cawood 1952 - 2020

There is an incorrect photo on the page that the family would like removed and replaced 196.250.128.184 (talk) 15:01, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to The Teahouse, I have removed the photo not because the family want it removed, but because it is a VERY poor quality illustration. Theroadislong (talk) 15:19, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Barossa Valley, South Australia url https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barossa_Valley

I'm new and not likely to be a regular editor. WOuld you please edit the Barossa Valley page for me. In part it reads, QUOTE The Barossa Valley is a rich source of some of the oldest Shiraz vines in the world. Shiraz vines planted as early as 1847 by Johann Frederick August Fiedler on Lot 1, Hundred of Moorooroo (the township of Tanunda) are still in commercial production today by Turkey Flat Vineyards.[16]

Please edit to include the correction as outlined in this extract from The Weekend Australian.

Bethany Road, 'Ancestor' vineyard, Turkey Flat winery QUOTE The vines were part of an experimental vineyard of more than 70 varieties planted by Johann Fiedler in 1847 in order to see which ones would prove most suitable in this strange new land, Fiedler was the son in law of Pastor Kavel, leader of a congregation of Silesian Lutherans escaping persecution in their native Prussia whose influence is still so strongly felt in the Barossa [Valley] today.... and the vines he planted are most likely second only to the vines planted by Christian Auricht at nearby Langmell in 1843 as the oldest viable shiraz vineyards still in production … “These old vineyards, the oldest still productive vineyards on the planet, pre-dating the destruction by phyloxera of European vineyards and subsequently still on their own roots, ….” [Emphasis added] UNQUOTE Source: The Weekend Australian Magazine, 14-15 November 2020, p24

Thank you for your help Ralph Schwer Ralph Schwer (talk) 15:20, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Ralph Schwer, you're going to want to discuss this over at Talk:Barossa Valley. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 16:23, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Can an item added to my (user) talk page be deleted?

Hi. When I first joined, a comment was added to my talk page, making unfounded accusations about my first page edits. I would like to remove it from my talk page, not because I feel like I did anything wrong, but because it is the first commentary on my talk page, and I feel like it may negatively impact my reputation in the community.

I have been working hard to contribute and don't wish to see this on my page anymore. It was written without giving consideration to the fact that I was new, and the writer was assuming I was editing in bad faith. Apologies for the length of my post, I just want to be clear as to why I wish to have it removed. Thanks in advance for any help you can offer!Mollifiednow (talk) 15:55, 6 December 2020 (UTC) Mollifiednow (talk) 15:55, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi Mollifiednow. But for a short list of special cases, you can remove anything from your own talk page – and doing so is taken as an acknowledgment of having read the item. See WP:REMOVED. After looking at the item in question (assuming it's the thread immediately following the welcome message) go right ahead. However, have you considered archiving older items on your talk page instead? Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:07, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the info! I appreciate your help. I'll go read how to remove. One question, why would I archive? Is there some benefit to archiving rather than removing? Mollifiednow (talk) 18:31, 6 December 2020 (UTC) Oh! I see why you suggested archive, just read about it... I appreciate you taking the time to help:-) Mollifiednow (talk)

Mollifiednow: I recommend archiving. if you delete it, it will still be visible to anyone who looks at the history of your talk page. By deleting rather than archiving, you make it slightly harder for such a person to find it; but you also raise the suspicion in them that you thought you had something to hide. (The first ever item on my talk page was an admin making an unwarranted accusation. Now, 13 years on, I am very glad I chose to archive it rather than delete it.) Maproom (talk) 22:52, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Rats =-O I tried to follow instructions on how to archive, but wasn't getting anywhere. I don't know if it's because I use an Amazon firepad, (My laptop needs repairs) but I gave up and just deleted it. I guess it's too late for me to change what I did. :-( Thanks for taking the time to try to help me. I do appreciate it. Mollifiednow (talk) 23:00, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Edit war

I recently came across cases of disruptive editing on several historical articles. The user makes incorrect ideological edits, using sources already used or adds questionable sources for these purposes. He doesn't discuss his edits after reverting, but simply does them again.

I read the recommendations of Wikipedia, but I still didn't understand what I supposed to do. I would like to know the position of experienced participants on this matter. Please, explain what I have to do in such situations. Also, rate his and my actions and make a revision (if needed).

Revision histories:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Simo_H%C3%A4yh%C3%A4&action=history
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Soviet%E2%80%93Japanese_border_conflicts&action=history
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battles_of_Khalkhin_Gol&action=history KiL92 (talk) 16:42, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

You Canhthuy9 and Kil92 are in or on the verge of having edit war on three articles, which can lead to being temporarily blocked. Kil92 recommended going to the Talk pages of the articles in question to start discussions on how to resolve the disputes, including fact that one of the sources you cite is being described as unreliable. That is the correct follow-up. David notMD (talk) 20:04, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the answer. Yes, I suggested moving on to the discussion. I want to know what to do if Canhthuy9 continues his/her activity without consensus. Then his/her edits can be regarded as vandalism? KiL92 (talk) 22:16, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Edits in good faith are not considered vandalism, but there are other ways to ask for help with a disruptive editor. David notMD (talk) 23:23, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

What ways? Please clarify. KiL92 (talk) 00:21, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Rollback?

Hi, I noticed that we have a tool named Twinkle to let autoconfirmed users rollback other's edits. But we have a right named rollbacker to let you rollback other's edits. So if I'm not a rollbacker but I uses Twinkle to rollback other's edits, will I get blocked?

  Larryzhao|Talk|Contribs 16:47, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi there. Twinkle is a tool to allow all autoconfirmed users to perform counter-vandalism and other actions without needing rollbacker permissions, which fewer users have. Having rollback rights allows you to use other tools such as Huggle. Using Twinkle without rollback rights is fine though; I am pretty sure rollbacker is just a technical user right that gives you the rollback tool, while tools like Twinkle emulate rollback without actually needing the user right. If you have a measurable track record of counter-vandalism edits, then you can request the rollback user right at Requests for permissions/rollback if you wish to do so. Happy editing! PlanetJuice ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:53, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Pinging Larryzhao123, whoops! PlanetJuice ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:57, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

User:PlanetJuice Thank you very much! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Larryzhao123 (talk • contribs) 17:25, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

J. A. Rahim

I am the son of J. A. Rahim and would like to replace the existing article on my father. That article is completely fanciful. Almost nothing of what it says is true and the few facts that are correct are put at the wrong times. I have no idea where this article comes from, but any editing would be a complete rewrite. Please let me know how I can provide a factually correct replacement. Thank you. ALKASSANDER (talk) 17:22, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

ALKASSANDER Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia articles summarize what independent reliable sources state about the subject. If the article about your father does not summarize the reliable sources accurately, we would like to know about it, and you are welcome to make a formal edit request(click for instructions) on the article talk page detailing any errors and any independent reliable sources to support the changes you feel are needed. As his son, you should not edit the article about your father directly due to the conflict of interest. Please understand that we cannot accept content based on personal knowledge, no matter how correct it might be; for verification purposes all content must be in a published, independent reliable source. If the sources currently in the article are summarized accurately, but those sources are incorrect, you will need to speak with the sources directly to issue corrections or retractions. 331dot (talk) 17:30, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Article on 486958 Arrokoth

I noticed a typo but do not have expertise to edit. The article states that the perihelion of Arrokoth is 43.7 AU, but, in a later sentence it states that New Horizons spacecraft reached it at 43.28 AU. In other words, New Horizons found it CLOSER than perihelion. 75.140.194.170 (talk) 18:20, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing it out. It appeared to be a typo in our article 486958 Arrokoth: the sources says 42.7212447. I have corrected the error. Generally, the article's talk page (in this case Talk:486958 Arrokoth is a better place for discussing improvements to a particular article. --ColinFine (talk) 19:50, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Asteroid Mining Corporation

Hello there, my name's Ian Winiarski, and I'd like to talk to you about my draft article that I have written that you have repeatedly rejected. I have written an article draft regarding the Asteroid Mining Corporation, however you have stated that it is not notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia, I don't know if you'll change you mind on this, but I will still point out the flaws in your argument nonetheless. My first example is another company focused upon space resource extraction, the Shackleton Energy Company. In this Wikipedia which was in fact approved that regards a company focused on extracting resources from space, there are thirteen sources, many of which barely or don't at all mention the Shackleton Energy Company. My draft article regarding the Asteroid Mining Corporation, which you have rejected twice, has seventeen sources, and likely more to come, all of which are focused upon the subject of the Asteroid Mining Corporation, and don't just have passing mentions of the Asteroid Corporation. Another example that I will bring up is Deep Space Industries, which is in fact another example of a space resources company. Coincidently, the Wikipedia article regarding Deep Space Industries also only has thirteen sources, many of which barely or don't at all mention the company. Given the evidence that I provided, it is clear that the article draft I have written regarding the Asteroid Mining Corporation does in fact deserve approval. It has seventeen sources and many more to come that are specifically focused upon the Asteroid Mining Corporation, given the other two examples I have provided, them being Deep Space Industries and the Shackleton Energy Company, it is clear that the article I have written regarding the Asteroid Mining Corporation deserves approval. However regardless of what I believe to be a large mistake, I thank you for your input on the article draft that I have written. All input is much appreciated, and serves for the betterment of the article draft regarding the Asteroid Mining Corporation that I have written, and will play a key role in providing readers with a better article when this article is eventually approved, whenever that may occur. The link for my article draft regarding the Asteroid Mining Corporation and the links for Deep Space Industries and the Shackleton Energy Company are below. I hope you take what I have stated here into some consideration, and even if you don't, I thank you for reading this.

         - Ian Winiarski

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_Space_Industries https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shackleton_Energy_Company --— Preceding unsigned comment added by IanWiniarski (talk • contribs) 2020-12-06T18:33:47 (UTC)

Hello, IanWiniarski. I'm afraid I'm not interested in ploughing through a wall of text to see if there is merit in what you say: please use paragraphs. I will, however, point you to OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. The fact that you may have found a couple of the thousands and thousands of substandard articles has no bearing on whether a new one will be accepted or not. Feel free to improve the existing articles, or nominate them for deletion if their subjects are not notable. --ColinFine (talk) 20:00, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Asteroid Mining Corporation was Rejected (stronger than Declined) and then resubmitted by an editor other than the one who created the draft, with only minor changes in the interim. I agree with the Rejection. Massive amounts of text in the draft are there to justify the concept of asteroid mining. These are not relevant to AMC. The first ref, used 16 times, is by AMC. Wikipedia only cares (and allows) content written by others about a company, not what the company says about itself. Ref quantity is meaningless, and in fact Wikipedia dissuades over-referencing. In my opinion, the only chance for this draft is to blank everything and start fresh. David notMD (talk) 20:27, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Articles contain only what has been, not what is planned. David notMD (talk) 21:01, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

(e/c) Hi Ian. What we are looking for when we review a draft is that the content be primarily verified by citation to reliable, secondary and entirely independent sources, directly supporting the information written, and that by the use of those types of sources, if they treat the topic in substantive detail, a demonstration is provided of the topic's notability.

Ideally, then, a good draft would be what would present if someone with no familiarity with Asteroid Mining Corporation, and couldn't care less about promoting it, decided to write only what the could learn by looking at those types of independent sources – possibly, just possibly filling in minor gaps, for utterly straightforward details that present no analysis, opinions, or synthesis, with primary sources.

That is not at all how the draft presents. Let's take a look at the 17 current sources cited. Respectively, in order of their use:

1. Own website - non-independent source ("NIS"); useless for demonstrating any notability, and as primary source has limited use;
2. Does not mention the draft topic at all ("DNMTDTAA");
3. Youtube video by CEO of company and NIS;
4. NASA source – DNMTDTAA;
5. Physics World – a brief mention, i.e., non-substantive treatment ("NST"), followed by a quote from CEO, i.e., NIS;
6. CGTN – seemingly fair source; appears at first blush independent; real news organization; has some substantive content that isn't, on its face, regurgitated press release material
7. NewSpace Index – NST, just a name drop, seemingly misused in draft to support fact not appearing in source (fails verification);
8. Listing site of related companies – regurgitates companies' own material – useless NIS;
9. Repeat of source 7;
10. "Error 521"; "Web server is down";
11. Company's own Twitter Tweat – useless NIS; see also WP:TWITTER;
12. Own Facebook (currently says "The link you followed may be broken"); – useless NIS;
13. Tech Times – seemingly fair source; appears at first blush independent; has some seemingly usable content;
14. Academic paper – DNMTDTAA;
15. Space.com article – DNMTDTAA;
16. Digital Trends article – seemingly fair source; appears at first blush independent; has some seemingly usable content;
17. Crunchbase; mere listing, NIS; NST.

Okay, so as you see, there are three sources above that may be useful for a decent write up. They are buried among the others—for content that mostly should not be included. If, with great discipline, you were to pretend to be the type of independent writer I spoke of above, and started essentially from scratch, citing just these three sources and others like it, for a completely neutral write-up of only what they verify, the draft might have a decent chance of acceptance. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:25, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

IanWiniarski, to summarise what Fuhghettaboutit says: You've got three (probably) good sources there. If you want your draft to get through review, make sure the overworked reviewer looks at them. Don't hide them in a pile of garbage. Maproom (talk) 23:03, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

As the reviewer, I'd also just like to point out that this is the third version of this page that has existed within the past week or so. Versions 1 and 2 were speedily deleted around several days ago, and this third version is pretty much a carbon copy of the previous versions. Curbon7 (talk) 02:54, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Referencing PDFs

I'd like to source something to a PDF, but it's not on the web – how do I source the PDF itself? (Sorry if this is confusing, I can provide an example if needed.) Skarmory (talk • contribs) 20:38, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Greetings Skarmory, welcome to the Teahouse. The fact that a document is a PDF is irrelevant, what matters is that it is a wp:reliable source such as a paper, journal article, newspaper article, etc. If that is the case you can still use it as a reference. Use the Citation tool in the editor. If you use the original editor there should be a "Cite" link at the far right of the top row of the widgets. Click on that and then click on the "Template" link that shows up as the first link in the second row and choose the appropriate kind of reference. But if it is just a PDF that someone wrote but hasn't been published in a reliable source then you shouldn't use it. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 20:56, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

@Skarmory: Is it a PDF of a work that is either 1) published or 2) accessible to the general public or at least to credentialed researchers, such as unpublished letters of a former United States President that would be available to credentialed researchers who make an in-person visit to the Presidential Library for that former President? If so, you can cite it as you would a paper copy of the same material. If it's an unpublished work that is NOT accessible, such as internal company correspondence, or something given to you privately, then it's probably not going to be useful as a source unless a copy can be made available to everyone. Without the ability to access it, the PDF's contents or in some cases the PDF's existence isn't open to verification.

Here's an example: You can cite most US-university Ph.D. dissertations in the last 50+ years because they are available for inspection from the granting institution and/or available for purchase through companies that specialize in such things. However, you probably cannot cite the unpublished schoolwork done by that same graduate student unless it were available through the university's library or another archive, nor could you cite the unpublished work he did for his employer after graduation. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:04, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the responses - it's in a reliable source, I'm asking about how to reference the PDF itself, as it's not on the web, but you can download it from the website. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 21:33, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi Skarmory. Please provide the link to the website and provide some identifying details re: the source available there as a PDF (my suspicion is that if you can download it through the website, then it does have an accessible URL, which you may not know the trick to learning. Sorry of that sounds presumptuous, but I've seen that exact issue play out before--where learning the URL was a tricky matter; always willing to eat my hat if wrong). Anyway, in my experience, a great deal of the time, a better, tailored answer can be provided once the specifics are provided. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk)

Unexpected Behavior of Reference with External Link

I'm cleaning up the page Uniform_Resource_Identifier Some of the references have links that go directly to external sites within the article which isn't the standard. I'm changing them to be standard inline citations with links in the reference section. But working on this in my Sandbos, I'm getting results that I don't understand. In the History>Refinement section I changed a reference to an external site to an appropriate reference. But for some reason the text which as far as I can tell has no link on it still ends up looking and acting like a link. The new code in my sandbox is:

=== Refinement === In December 1994, IETF RFC 1738 formally defined relative and absolute URLs, refined the general URL syntax, defined how to resolve relative URLs to absolute form, and better enumerated the URL schemes then in use.<ref>{{cite web |last1=Berners-Lee |first1=Tim |title=Request for Comments: 1738: Uniform Resource Locators (URL) |url=https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1738 |website=tools.ietf.org/html |access-date=6 December 2020 |date=December 1994}}</ref>

but for some reason the "RFC 1738" text still shows up as a link. In fact I noticed it even seems to be a link here in the text of my question which also isn't formatted as a link! Is there some magic around using the text RFC? See the Refinement section in my Sandbox to see the behavior. I can't figure out why this is happening, is it a bug or is it something wrong with the code I should do differently? --MadScientistX11 (talk) 20:49, 6 December 2020 (UTC) MadScientistX11 (talk) 20:49, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

@MadScientistX11: This is confusing, for sure. RFC is one of the Wikipedia magic links and automatcially produces a link. See Help:Magic_links#RFC, for more info. RudolfRed (talk) 21:07, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

@RudolfRed: So it is magic! Seriously, thanks, I'm looking at that article and I'm sure there must be a way to use the text without getting a link. Cheers, --MadScientistX11 (talk) 21:25, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

@MadScientistX11: See the example at the end of a page. I think that this will work: "RFC <nowiki /> 1738" RudolfRed (talk) 21:29, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

@RudolfRed: That did it! Thanks. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 21:39, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Question (I know, I know, but I still need help)

How do I submit my draft (Queen Iduna) to be created? Ex-Borg Seven of Nine (talk) 20:52, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

I don't want ugliness to be submitted yet, though. Is there was way to submit one and not the other? Ex-Borg Seven of Nine (talk) 20:54, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

@Ex-Borg Seven of Nine: Are you referring to User:Ex-Borg_Seven_of_Nine/Sandbox? It is not ready, you have not provided any citations to reliable sources. See WP:REFB for more on this, or follow the guidance at WP:YFA for finding and citing sources. When you are ready for review, put this on your draft: {{subst:submit}} RudolfRed (talk) 20:58, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

@Ex-Borg Seven of Nine: I guess your second question is based on the fact that you have written about two topics on the same page, User:Ex-Borg Seven of Nine/Sandbox? You can't submit one part of a page and not the rest, so you would have to create a new draft page for Queen Iduna (at Draft:Queen Iduna for instance), and submit that. I'm afraid I agree with RudolfRed that the single line and infobox about the character that's currently in the sandbox would not be an acceptable article, so you would need to add more information, based on reliable secondary sources that talk about the character – and also add the sources. Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 21:01, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Welp, so long, ugliness. I got a message a while back saying g that it was pointless to make it, (see my talk page) but I didn't really want to delete it, it being my only article draft. But I'll delete it now. Ex-Borg Seven of Nine (talk) 21:07, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Ex-Borg Seven of Nine. Don't worry about asking more questions: that's what this page is here for (as long as they're about contributing to Wikipedia, which yours are). In addition to what the other replies have said, I'd like to explain that if creating an article is like building a house, then images and infoboxes are like painting the windows: there's not a lot of point in doing it before you've given the house foundations, because the house may very well fall down. The foundations for a Wikipedia article are the sources: reliable published sources, mostly completely independent of the subject, and which talk about the subject at some length. If you write one single word of the article before finding the sources, you may very well be wasting your time, for two reasons. First, if you cannot find suitable sources, then the subject is not notable and the article will never be accepted. Secondly, because if the things you happen to write aren't backed up by any sources, they'll probably get removed from the article anyway. --ColinFine (talk) 21:13, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

@ColinFine: thanks, I think. It's just kinda tricky to get citations because my parents blocked my browser on my tablet. (To use Wikipedia I have to go into Overdrive and tap and hold any of the words on the page and hit the "Wikipedia" button. It's one of the reasons I read so many random articles, most of which are disambiguation pages.) Ex-Borg Seven of Nine (talk) 21:18, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

@Ex-Borg Seven of Nine: Whether you follow your parents rules or not is up to you (I suggest you do), but if you can't find sources then creating articles is not a task you will be able to do. Consider finding other Wikipedia tasks to work on instead, or wait until the rules are lifted on your internet use. RudolfRed (talk) 21:31, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

No, I mean they literally put parental controls on my tablet. I can't even check the weather anymore, I'm pretty much holding an e-reader. Ex-Borg Seven of Nine (talk) 21:34, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Professional Audio - Is creating a page on a Company considered wrong per se?

Hello Community,

I’m Italian and I’m a huge fan of the professional audio world. Together with some geek friends of mine I noticed that there are a few pages missing on Wikipedia that would be interesting for pro audio students and all those who share this passion. These include both technical contents, historical references, special applications and some Italian Companies’ information. These companies are not as well-known as multinationals and famous brands and are important mainly for the niche industry in which they are worldwide main players, for the technological innovations achieved in their history, important collaborations etc. Some existing articles should include references to the new pages we have in mind. So, as far as the new articles have independent notable sources and existing articles cross-references, it shouldn’t be a problem to be able to submit the new articles for approval and have them approved - once possible, of course. I’m wondering whether some of this potential work could be wasted since some of the companies to be involved are small local businesses that became important worldwide in this niche; I don’t want the articles to seem promotional in any way. We just would like to give pro audio students and wannabe professionals some more free and independent information filling a gap that we noticed here on Wikipedia. Thank you for letting me know how likely it is to have issues in this mission!

Best regards fp FedericoPupeschi (talk) 21:16, 6 December 2020 (UTC)  FedericoPupeschi (talk) 21:11, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello FedericoPupeschi. I suggest that you read Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) and Your first article. What is most important is the quality of the reliable, independent sources that you discover which describe a company. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:23, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello, FedericoPupeschi, and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm not quite sure what you're asking. It's not a question of whether the sources are "notable": it's whether they are reliable|, whether they are independent of the subject, and whether they have significant coverage of the subject. All these questions can be clear-cut in some cases, but very much a judgment call in others. If all the sources are local press, that probably does not meet the "reliable" criterion; but sources in respected trade journals can be (but watch out for independence: if they are based on interviews or press releases they are not independent). But one thing to beware of is that giving "pro audio students and wannabe professionalas" more information may not be consonant with Wikipedia's purposes: see NOT. Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost entirely interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources. . A certain amount of information from the subject is acceptable, but large amounts of technical detail, or exhaustive lists of products, may not be. Does this help? In any case, please read WP:NCORP if you haven't already. --ColinFine (talk) 21:25, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

FedericoPupeschi, There are a couple of articles that go over the exact definition of what's considered notable for Wikipedia. Wikipedia:Notability is the general list of what makes something notable; If the companies meet Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies), however, it could be included. If you need additional help, you can use the WP:Article Wizard or request some guidance or eyes at a specific Wikiproject (an area that covers specific parts of Wikipedia related to one topic, such a WP:WPVG. Hope this helps, and others might cover stuff I forgot to mention. Le Panini ^Talk 21:29, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Requests instead of Reverts

Some wiki articles such as the Notability article (just as an example) state that when an editor feels articles or edits to articles are not suitable (he doesn't like the sources, the content, the length, or other issue) he should either look for sources himself, ask the article's or edit's editor, or ask for input from others. Yet I find that what generally happens is someone will simply, quickly "revert" or reject without taking any of these steps first. Why? And is there a way to try to ensure that happens instead of sudden rejections/declines or reverts? DogBehaviorPro (talk) 21:12, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

@DogBehaviorPro: Welcome to Wikipedia. Reverting is part of the normal Wikipedia process of being Bold with changes. If someone objects to the revert, they may restore the material and start a discussion on the article's talk page to get consensus. See WP:BRD for more info on this. If you see something reverted and you disagree with it, then you can start that discussion. RudolfRed (talk)

Can You Verify This Article?

Hello, would someone help me with this article? Can you verify If this article has verifiable sources? I created it on my sandbox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Cookiedough23/sandbox

Thank You Cookiedough23 (talk) 23:01, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Cookiedough23, I have three simple pieces of advice. Don't capitalise ordinary English phrases, such as "makeup artist". Don't use the word "passionate", it will trigger any reviewer's bullshit detector. You will need reliable independent published sources to establish that the subject is notable: reports of interviews with the subject don't count as independent. Maproom (talk) 23:13, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your advice. I will update the draft if I find any better sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cookiedough23 (talk • contribs) 23:20, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Logan Thirtyacre

The page Logan Thirtyacre is currently blocked from creation so there is currently no way to redirect it to SuperMarioLogan without assistance from an administrator. TrevortniDesserpedx (talk) 22:11, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Pinging protecting admin Ohnoitsjamie. SuperMarioLogan was unprotected to have the article moved there from draft by ToBeFree — IVORK _Talk 02:13, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

It can be unprotected if the article survives the AfD nomination. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 03:28, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Request for review

Would someone, or even several someones, be available to review the following page. It is my first and seems to be drawing some conflicting opinions. Thanks

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Playcrafting Naixa (talk) 02:48, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Contact Editor who removed my article

Eddie891 removed my article. How can I contact him to find out why and get him to reinstate it? GeorgeSanders1008 (talk) 04:13, 7 December 2020 (UTC)