Wikipedia:Teahouse

Maproom, 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

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)

Hi DogBehaviorPro. I'm going to slightly disagree with a part of what RudolfRed posted above. If you're BOLD, and your edit is subsequently REVERTed by another editor, then you shouldn't automatically revert back unless there's a really clear and strong policy-based or guideline-based reason for doing so (e.g. a clearcut case of WP:VANDAL, a clear WP:BLP violation). What you should do, in principle, is (1) look at the page's history for an edit summary explaining why your edit was reverted and then (2) seek clarification from the editor who reverted you by posting a message on their user talk page or by posting a message on the article talk page if you still don't understand or agree with the revert. Bold, Revert, Discuss (or WP:BRD) is good practice most ot the time when trying to resolve any disagreements you may have with others over article content; Bold, Revert, Revert back, Discuss (or WP:BRRD), on the other hand, is usually counterproductive because it can quickly lead to edit warring which is something nobody really wins. You need to be really quite positve that any reverting back of a reverted edit you make will not be considered edit warring by the community at large because you may be sanctioned by an administrator if it's not. Whenever in doubt, try to seek resolution per WP:DR since will likely lead to a resolution that's best for Wikipedia and avoid any problems requiring administrator action. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:41, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Citogenesis warning tag

Hello

Could a citogenesis warning tag be created? so that readers of an article can be made aware that some of the information is potential unreliable, but because wikipedia has been used as a source by so many media, academic and other sources it is nigh impossible to discern at this point if a source cited is based on information taken from wikipedia.

That way the reader is alerted that although the sources used are usual reliable there is a risk that the authors, journalists etc didn't take their information from wikipedia.

Happy to Discuss 84.13.85.156 (talk) 20:25, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi IP; welcome to the Teahouse! We have three templates already available for that purpose. {{Circular reference}} and {{Citogenesis}} can be used inline; the latter is for when it's not 100% clear that citogenisis is happening. {{Circular}} can be used to tag an entire page. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:51, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

And there is Template:Backwards copy for the talkpage. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:07, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks both! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.85.156 (talk) 10:03, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Is there one where it may be a problem? as in there is no direct evidence but wikipedia is so much of the zeitgeist particularly for journalists that it would now be impossible to disentangle a genuine source from one that originated in wikipedia?

In the list of best selling books we have the issue that one editor is sure anything published after the article was created is pulling numbers that were originally unsourced or poorly sourced from the article. However these numbers now have many sources in books and newspapers etc which may not in anyway even realise they were drawn from the wiki article (if they were) originally, but are now used as sources to support those numbers. However, without interogating ever writer of ever source it is impossible to ascertain. So to resolve the issue I though a general warning, that sets out these numbers are based on sources, however the influnence wikipedia on journalism etc means that citogenesis may have occurred but it is now impossible to know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.85.156 (talk) 10:11, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

How to cite

How do you gather reliable sources for citations? Thanks! TheLAXPlanespotter (talk) 03:00, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Basically, TheLAXPlanespotter, the process involves such things as making a Web search, going to a library, reading a lot about your topic to find more sources, looking at your bookshelf. I assume you are already familiar with the concept of reliable sources.--Quisqualis (talk) 03:30, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

@TheLAXPlanespotter: You might wish to read WP:REFBEGIN on how to insert citations once youve found good quality sources. As an aside, I note your userpage is a little misleading. I suggest you remove mention of you not being an admin, but being a bit of a vigilante. With just 8 edits to your name, I'd say you're simply a novice, which is a mighty fine thing to be in and of itself. Nick Moyes (talk) 12:27, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

At the request of Nick Moyes, the user page has been updated to reflect a more "current" synonym because vigilante sounds too 1880's. I didn't want to change it, but I decided to because I am not an idiot. (I am referring to myself, not anyone else). Bye for now, and maybe it sounds like I'm not welcome here. :) TheLAXPlanespotter (talk) 15:09, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Editing question

How can I edit the 2017 in Philippine television? Alanconsebido (talk) 09:00, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Alanconsebido, Yes. If you are to add any new content, be sure it is backed up with reliable sources. Le Panini ^Talk 11:48, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

@Le Panini: I believe the question might be "How". In which case @Alanconsebido: the answer is, like so: Go to the section you want to edit (I assume this one), then click the "edit" next to July. For some technical advice on what to do then, please take a look at Help:Editing. But as Le Panini said, be sure to back up your info with sources! --LordPeterII (talk) 12:42, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

LordPeterII, Wiat... that says "HOW", not "CAN". Dang. I'm stupid.

"How can I edit?"

"Yes." ~ Le Panini Le Panini ^Talk 12:45, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Well, given that it's currently quite popular to answer "How many ...?" with "Yes" [1], I don't blame you ;)

(But seriously, you probably read "who" instead of "how", which would make your answer perfectly legitimate. And confusing these two has happened to me several times as a non-native speaker; and I guess it can happen to natives as well.) --LordPeterII (talk) 13:27, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Too much detail?

Hi there, I have recently been reading the article on PvZ, and it seems to me that the "gameplay" section has way too much detail. The article itself says it is in the process of a major restructuring, but it seems like that the restructure is actually making the article worse. Should anything be done about this? 185.73.65.98 (talk) 09:21, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

It seems User:Lazman321 is the one doing a major expansion of the article, so you can contact them on their talk page and make suggestions if you want to. I'll look through the gameplay section and do a copy-edit. Le Panini ^Talk 11:37, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

suggestion for funding Wikipedia

More of a comment than a question. I usually do not give when asked by Wikipedia donor drives since I believe it just burdens those who appreciate the service, but this time I gave the minimum (plus admin cost) since, like everyone else, I really do use it alot. I think Wikipedia should start charging a very small membership fee for use. I think anyone who uses the platform regularly would pay $5-10 per year to have access to the content. You could have special, cheaper student rates too. Just level with people: anything that has value is not free.

best regards Allan 131.111.85.79 (talk) 09:52, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia's finances are currently stable (though the Foundation is trying to build an endowment to reduce the need for donations in the future) so there is no need to raise funds in such a manner. Wikipedia prefers that the knowledge here be available without cost to the reader. 331dot (talk) 10:13, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure charging a fee to use Wikipedia would turn down younger viewers and editors alike that don't have access to money. Although most editors are adults, there is a fair share of people who are young, and that would turn down a lot of people that keep Wikipedia stable. Le Panini ^Talk 11:28, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

An access fee, even though small by first-world standards, would be a significant barrier to access from poorer parts of the world - precisely where we really need to expand participation to reduce systemic bias. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:14, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Edit Request - New Section - Niall Dunne

Hi, I am trying to add a section to Niall Dunne's Wikipedia page however because of COI (I know Niall and am an employee at the company at which he is CEO) I am unable to make the changes myself. I've created an edit request on his page, I did this a couple weeks ago but there has been no movement or update. Is there something I am doing wrong or could do to make the updates get approved quicker?

Really appreciate any help or tips! Thank you :) SophieStromback (talk) 11:51, 8 December 2020 (UTC) SophieStromback (talk) 11:51, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

SophieStromback Your edit request was properly made and is pending; as noted in the request box, there are 108 requests pending, so you will need to continue to be patient. 331dot (talk) 11:55, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your response! I will sit tight :) SophieStromback (talk) 12:20, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi @SophieStromback:, I just took a look at the request. First off, hats off for declaring the COI, that's a lot better than many people around here do. The edit itself reads fine, but I've an issue in that even such a simple claim needs a source to back it up. Is the source for this already in the article? If yes, please point to it so it can be used for an inline citation - if not, please provide a link to the source. (I mean the link you provided [2] certainly is sufficient to prove that he is CEO, but e.g. I don't see the info about the $19 million funding, nor that he has been CEO since 2018.)

PS: Better write links within Wikipedia like this: [[Imperial College London]], and not like this: [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_College_London|Imperial College London]]. There's no need for the vertical bar unless you want to change how the link is displayed, like so: an awesome place (which written in markup reads: [[Imperial College London|an awesome place]]) This also works on talk pages, in case that wasn't clear. --LordPeterII (talk) 13:03, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Is Articles For Creation mandatory?

Greetings fellow tea enthusiasts,

I've finally finished a non-stub (imo) article (albeit not from the ones I set out to do, but meh... he was redlinked in a random DYI article recently). I intended to go through Afc properly this time (have published 2 stubs before directly in mainspace), but I see that the backlog is currently 3 months.

So, question: Is that process mandatory? I will certainly be going through it with my BLP article once that one is done, as that needs extra care (because living people and stuff). But I'm frankly a bit bored right now and don't really want to wait 3 months, so... can I publish the non-BLP article to mainspace directly? If that's shunned upon I can wait ofc; but if it is acceptable and allowing Afc helpers to spend more time on those difficult cases, I'd go the direct route (as I have done before, but back then I didn't know about Afc). -- LordPeterII (talk) 12:29, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

LordPeterII Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. It is not mandatory to go through AfC, but it is highly recommended unless you have a great deal of experience in article creation. If you are confident that your draft would survive an Articles for Deletion discussion(the primary thing AFC reviewers look for), then you could move it into the encyclopedia yourself. 331dot (talk) 12:32, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

LordPeterII (edit conflict, so basically the same answer), Nope! AFC is only required for non-autoconfirmed users. However, I would recommend using it to make your article as good as it can be before it goes live; I see a lot of articles being published where users write about 4 sentences and doesn't visit the article again. If you were to submit it however, I'd suggest expanding it, maybe with an image and expanding the lead section summarize the article more. Le Panini ^Talk 12:36, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Note that your article will be subject to WP:new pages patrol. The folk who do these patrols tend to be less forgiving of poor articles than would be the case for ones created by AfC, but you can try.... Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:39, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Alright, thanks y'all. I guess I'll go through Afc then, if only to not set a bad example for others. And that it will be work either for Afc or New Page Patrol folks is a good point; so I won't really be reducing anyone's workload.

See you all in 3 months for an angry rant about you wicked Wikipedians unlawfully declining my perfectly best article! ;) --LordPeterII (talk) 13:17, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

LordPeterII, nah, a lot of us ain't wicked. At least a lot of us. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ GeraldWL 13:40, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

I've tidied up your draft Henry Ehrenreich and accepted it. Theroadislong (talk) 15:14, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

@LordPeterII: Looking at that excellent, now accepted draft—if everyone was like you (and not, instead, like 95% of today's active new accounts – undeclared-paid, SPAs with a COI mostly not here to do anything but promote their one or two self-interested pet topics)—we wouldn't need AfC. It would probably be good if AfC was made mandatory, and then we could exempt the rare new user like you, actually here to build an encyclopedia.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:15, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Here here, a pleasure to help a genuine useful contributor for once. Theroadislong (talk) 16:31, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Oh wow, now you folks make me blush! Thanks for accepting it, and for the praise. Certainly helps my motivation, although it'll likely be some time before I finish another article. See you around! --LordPeterII (talk) 11:13, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Delisting good articles

I'm trying to delist Stephen Fry's Podgrams and I can't figure it out. I'm using this quick tutorial:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Good_article_delisting. When I delisted the article on the talk page inside the article history template I couldn't figure out how to include the date I'm delisting it, and I can't figure out how to remove the article from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Good_articles/.

I did ask in the talk page and the wikiproject whether it was okay to delist the article, and someone at the wikiproject said it was okay. TipsyElephant (talk) 13:05, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

@TipsyElephant: I'm going to start by saying that I tend to agree with your concerns about GA status for Stephen Fry's Podgrams, and would probably have graded it C myself. Now, I've not personally been involved in any downward reviewing of any GA articles, but I feel you could have gone about things better.

• First off, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Good_article_delisting is marked as historical, so I would tend to ignore anything there, for start. You should be following the 'Individual' process outlined at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment.
• WP:GAR explains the process, either of community review or of individual reassessment as you're doing.
• That advice is to raise issues on the Talk page and, after an appropriate period of time for feedback, make the amendments.
• You decided (not unreasonably) that, after attempting to improve it, it's still not worthy of GA status - and I tend to agree with you - and you stated that you were going to change it immediately, and mentioned (here, but not on the talk page) that someone on on a WikiProject somewhere supporting that view.
• Rather unhelpfully, you failed to provide a link to that discussion on the talk page itself, and made the change immediately. But there is WP:NO DEADLINE, so I think waiting a few days for feedback would have been preferable.
• You only removed the GA quality status from one of the two WikiProject assessments. - You'll need to remove them both for it to have an effect on the grading that appears on the article itself, below the title. But you will also need to remove the {{good article}} template from the bottom of the article page, too.

If I've missed anything out, I hope someone with more experience of GA reassessments will chip in. Bottom line: make sure you're following the right instructions. Nick Moyes (talk) 14:21, 8 December 2020 (UTC)  

(edit conflict) Hi TipsyElephant. If you look at the top of Wikipedia:Good article delisting, you'll see there's a banner stating that the page is retained for "historical reference". This means it's probably not a good idea to follow the steps listed there since the community might have developed a new approach for delisting good articles. Since articles undergo a formal review process for them to be upgraded to GA status, it seems unlikely that such a status could be taken away without a similar review process. I suggest that you follow the advice given in Wikipedia:Good article reassessment and request a reassessment of the article and simply don't just try to delist the article on your own. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:23, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Would it be okay to undo all the edits on the talk page and start over so that I do it all right and get the experience? I noticed that Nick Moyes made a recent change, should I undo that as well or is it possible to just undo my changes? The Wikiproject page that I asked the question is here (I'll add it to the article's talk page as well once I decide whether I'm undoing edits or not): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Podcasting#Consensus_Before_Change. Should I ask in all the wikiprojects that are in the article's banner? Nick Moyes Marchjuly

@TipsyElephant: I'm afraid neither Marchjuly nor I got any notification of your reply as you didn't sign your post, so nothing happened. (more info on this at WP:PING). You are clearly working in good faith, so I'd be OK you following the guidance and doing what you think is best (it can always be undone by you or someone else if you mess up - see WP:BRD) If you do post to seek views on different pages, it's best to direct all comments via a wikilink to just one page, so that all responses are collated there for all to see and respond to. ie. draw them to your post at the article talk page. Good luck. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:09, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Reliable sources for Article

Hello, This is in regards with my draft – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Hello_Mini which was rejected due to not using the proper reliable sources. I have checked the sources and found only one reliable - https://www.iwmbuzz.com/digital/editorial-digital/review-hello-mini-erotic-thriller-ends-justifying-stalking/2019/10/07 can you please help me and let me know if it can work. Also, you have rejected the MX player link earlier. But the Hello mini series is available to watch on MX player only. So I can not understand the rejection reason. Though I think it is not promotional. Mathurrajv77 (talk) 13:09, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

I haven't look at the article; instead, I take your word for it that you don't have any reliable source outside the iwmbuzz.com page. I looked at that. Here's how it ends: Also, 15 episodes is too long, especially if you want to promote binge-watching. P.S. I know I went on and on, but kya karen, the exciting series and story deserved a longish explanation. This writing is at the "lazy secondary student" level. It inspires no confidence in the rest of the review. And sure enough, Iwmbuzz is merely a marketer. If you don't have sources that are a lot better than this, you will not be able to create an article on this subject. -- Hoary (talk) 13:40, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Hoary for your time. So in this case, I will check if I can collect some other reliable sources.

Can I add MX Player link or https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/web-series/news/mx-player-drops-the-trailer-of-their-first-psychological-thriller-hello-mini/articleshow/71326257.cms ?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mathurrajv77 (talk • contribs) 13:52, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

How to become an active contributor

How does one get to become an active contributor and get to go live on Wikipedia? Pete11DD (talk) 13:48, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Pete11DD Hello and welcome to the Teahouse and Wikipedia. By posting here and editing your sandbox, you are an active contributor. If by "go live" you mean create a new article, creating a new article is the absolute hardest thing to do on Wikipedia. Looking at Draft:Sarah Serem, you're actually not off to a bad start. I would still suggest that you use Articles for Creation to submit your draft for a review, so some other eyes look at it. You may find it helpful to read Your First Article and use the new user tutorial. 331dot (talk) 13:51, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes, Pete11DD, I agree - this is a really good start. I like the way you've collated all the key sources you might want to use before you actually start extracting information and supporting statements with proper inline citations. That's absolutely the right way to approach it. You will find WP:REFBEGIN of use in understanding how easy it is to add a good quality inline citation in the relevant place with our editing tools, and for it to magically appear in the 'References' section. I see you've thought about taking our interactive tour of Wikipedia, called The Wikipedia Adventure - there are 15 separate badges to collect as if you complete it all. There is a bit of advice here on things to remember when doing biographies of living people. All in all, a great start, and we're here if you need us. Nick Moyes (talk) 14:33, 8 December 2020 (UTC)  

Tool I can use for WP:TFDH

Hello. I’m helping out at WP:TFDH which involves orphaning templates. Which means I have to go on every page that transcludes those templates and remove them, and copy an edit summary into the edits I make. This can get tedious when doing by hand, and can take up some of my school time. I want to know if there is a tool I can use to help with this process and make it faster to orphan templates. PorkchopGMX (talk • contribs • Merry Christmas!) 14:12, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

(Comment: @PorkchopGMX: Whilst I can't answer this rather technical question, myself, if you don't get an answer here it might be more appropriate to then ask at either Wikipedia talk:Templates for discussion, or WP:VPT. I'd imagine WP:AWB might be suggested, but I can offer no direct guidance. Nick Moyes (talk) 14:40, 8 December 2020 (UTC) )

Period for consideration

Hi! glad I got your feedback so how long does it take to be given rights to publish upon participating on edit-job on the pre-existing articles? again upon checking my article what significant misdoings did you note kindly thanks Pete11DD (talk) 14:14, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Pete11DD, You already have the rights to edit and create and submit drafts. However, your account needs to be 10 days old before being able to publish articles without going through the draft process. Le Panini ^Talk 14:26, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

You can edit pre-existing articles now, unless those are semi-protected or protected (a 'lock' symbol, top right). As to your draft Draft:Sarah Serem, keep on adding content and inserting the references you have identified before you submit it to Articles for Creation (AfC). And maybe seek out other articles about Kenyan government officials before submitting. David notMD (talk) 15:52, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Finding articles to edit

How would i find articles to edit on Wikipedia? Then how would i know if something needs to be edited? Mekeit (talk) 15:13, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Mekeit Hello. Some users just click the "Random article" link on the left of the screen to see what comes up and if it needs any edits. Others might start with one article in an area that interests them and branch out into other articles that are linked within it. However, if you would like to be directed to specific articles that need editing, the Community Portal has lists of articles that need various edits. 331dot (talk) 15:16, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

• @Mekeit: As 331dot said, there are different approaches. You might want to try the WP:Task Center, or click "articles to improve" at the top of this page. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 17:00, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

@Mekeit: You may be interested in subscribing to SuggestBot. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:24, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Harry fear

Hello there, I hope you’re all doing well. Can someone please review my article Draft:Harry Fear and tell me if it needs adjustments? I really want it to be accepted. Thanks j advance Engy Badawy (talk) 15:24, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

I have declined it there is too much inappropriate content such as "As a teen, he was into photography and mass communication" "His favorite food is Malaysian cuisine" "his favorite country to visit is Egypt" etc etc and poorly sourced. There is also content copied and pasted from https://seribulangkah.com/harry-fear-the-british-journalist-who-will-inspire-you/ which is a BIG no no, all content MUST be in your own words. Theroadislong (talk) 15:36, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Stating his opinions isn't something I'd see in an encyclopedia --a gd fan (talk) 16:37, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Help finding a template

Salutations teahouse staff, I have returned to pester you (this shouldn't take long though). Does anyone know the template that reads something like "while there are sources in this article it lacks in-line citations"? Because I was just working on an article that could use that. Thanks! SnazzyInfinity (talk • contribs) 15:55, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

@SnazzyInfinity: {{No footnotes}}. Victor Schmidt (talk) 15:59, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

@Victor Schmidt: Thanks! SnazzyInfinity (talk • contribs) 16:00, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

@SnazzyInfinity: You can also use twinkle --a gd fan (talk) 22:51, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Oh yeah I have twinkle, I totally forgot about that! (P.S. GD Fan, I saw your user page earlier and I liked your userboxes and stole a whole ton) SnazzyInfinity (talk • contribs) 23:04, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Non-English query

eu nn consigo traduzir porcaria nenhuma, eu uso a traducao automatica , edito tudo oq esta errado ai do nada em alguns topicos fica em vermelho ai quando eu vou publicar falam que nn foi permitidp TioAldemir (talk) 16:09, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to theEnglish Wikipedia, your comment translates from Portuguese as "I can’t translate any crap, I use machine translation, I edit everything that’s wrong there out of nowhere in some topics it’s in red there when I’m going to publish say that it wasn’t allowed" so I'm not sure what your question is? Theroadislong (talk) 16:58, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

(e/c) (Inglês usado abaixo) Oi. Wikipédias em diferentes idiomas têm padrões diferentes para aceitação de artigos, com os padrões da Wikipédia em inglês para atender a sua diretriz de notabilidade sendo geralmente mais elevados do que para a maioria dos outros idiomas. Também pode existir um artigo em outro projeto de linguagem da Wikipedia que não atende nem mesmo aos padrões de aceitação, mas ainda não foi focado e revisado (ou devidamente excluído), onde estaria se alguém tivesse levado o hora de olhar o artigo com atenção.

O que você deve procurar ao avaliar os artigos para tradução, então, é que para a maioria dos fatos no artigo, as citações são fornecidas, usando citações in-line para fontes secundárias confiáveis que são totalmente independentes do tópico (não há problema se essas fontes estiverem em Português). Supondo que esses tipos de fontes citadas também tratem o tópico com algum detalhe, seu uso para fins de verificação também demonstrará a notabilidade do tópico. ((Usei tradução automática para fazer este post no que presumo ser sua língua nativa, então espero que não seja muito confuso). Cumprimentos.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:16, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

(e/c) (English used below) Hi. Different language Wikipedias have different standards for acceptance of articles, with the English Wikipedia's standards to meet its notability guideline being generally higher than for most other languages. It's also the case that an article may exist at another Wikipedia language project that doesn't meet even their standards for acceptance, but just has not yet been focused on and reviewed (or properly deleted), where it would be if someone had taken the time to look at the article carefully.

What you should be looking for when assessing articles for translation, then, is that for most facts in the article, citations are provided, using inline citations to reliable, secondary sources that are entirely independent from the topic (it's fine if those sources are in Portuguese). Assuming those types of cited sources also treat the topic in some detail, their use for verification purposes, will also demonstrate the notability of the topic. (I used machine translation to make this post in what I assume is your native language, so I hope it's not too garbled). Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:16, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Shaming me to donate

Why bother me for donations when I already pay a monthly contribution of $3.75? Doesn't your system have the capability of knowing when a true SUBSCRIBER's IP address is searching Wiki? Bobbystar80 (talk) 16:41, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Bobbystar80. Teahouse volunteers and Wikipedia editors in general aren't in control of donation appeals - they're run by the Wikimedia Foundation. As far as I know, your Wikipedia account and IP address is kept separate from your personal information supplied when you donate. Here's the advice those of us who volunteer at WP:OTRS send out in response to queries such as yours: Our apologies for the banners causing annoyance or inconvenience. Wikipedia and its sister projects receive over 400 million unique visitors per month, so for fundraising it is important that we keep it displayed during the limited duration of our campaign. To hide the banners, you can click the x in the upper right corner. If you create or already have a Wikipedia account, you can tick the "Suppress display of fundraiser banners" option in your account preferences at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets, which will prevent the banners from displaying. I hope that helps. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:54, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@Bobbystar80: Hi, and welcome to the Teahouse! We're just editors here, not the Wikimedia Foundation staff putting up the banner. I definitely agree with you it'd be better if the banner were smart enough to recognize when people have donated. There might be some privacy concern involved, idk. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 16:56, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

In general I hate the banner. It is up to the readers/editors whether they want to donate. It's a waste if they ask me to, and I click it and it says that donation is not available in Indonesia. GeraldWL 17:00, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

• Bobbystar80 The donation system is completely separate from Wikipedia. I think there would be privacy concerns with linking them together. As noted, you can turn off the banner messages in your Preferences. As a fellow editor, thanks for donating. 331dot (talk) 17:07, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia

Why I have to edit? Do you mean, the writings are take for granted only? or you're just assuming I am a Scientist? Geebei1988 (talk) 17:46, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Geebei1988, welcome to the Teahouse. Could you explain further? No one is obligated to edit. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 18:06, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Persistent timesink (see G's Talk page). No article editing to date, only own User and Talk, Teahouse, and other editors' Talk. Either troll or Wikipedia:Competence is required. Time to block. David notMD (talk) 18:09, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

And, blocked. Thank you. David notMD (talk) 19:25, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Help

I have tried everything on the Help page for Help:Cite errors/Cite error references no text, but it never works no matter what I do. I'm talking about this reference on Draft:Slater and Devil fires, I want to put the same reference without making a duplicate reference, but it doesn't work. Can someone help me? a gd fan (talk) 17:48, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. I've done it for you. Take a look at what I added to the article in my latest edit and you'll see the problem, which was that you didn't name the reference at its first occurrence. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:53, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you! --a gd fan (talk) 17:58, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Need admins help

Hello, can anyone share their views on this page : RightScale

I think my edits were not unsourced or poorly sourced. If they are proper, then can anyone edit them back?

Let me know what is right.

Thank you! Flenleaf (talk) 18:19, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Flenleaf Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Any user is capable of weighing in, not just administrators. You are welcome to discuss your concerns on the article talk page. If you are a representative or employee of RightScale, you must review conflict of interest and paid editing for information on disclosures you may be required to make. 331dot (talk) 18:26, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

You added content identical to what had been added by Kingoftheuno, later reverted because identified as undeclared paid editing and furthermore Kingoftheuno being blocked as a sockpuppet. As such, you are suspected of also having done undeclared paid editing and/or conflict of interest, and being sockpuppet of User:Ablasaur. You are especially suspect as your attempted addition to the article is your only article edit to date. David notMD (talk) 19:13, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

I am not disputing whether or not Jonathan Siegel deserves detailed mention in the article, only that your role as an editor is suspect. David notMD (talk) 11:42, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

David notMD (talk) Hello, I think I am eligible for COI as I am somehow connected to the company, this means I can't directly edit it, right? But can you please review the history and reverse it back to what it was because that is the truth.

As for the blocked account, I have no connections with it. How do I prove this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flenleaf (talk • contribs) 17:48, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

@David notMD: Flenleaf (talk) 17:25, 10 December 2020 (UTC) Hello

@Hugo999: Hello Flenleaf (talk) 17:25, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

@Flenleaf: I have added some information to your user talk page about how to disclose your affiliation with the company and how you can then suggest edits to the article. Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 17:48, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Proper Names

why do some company names show in blue and others in black. Can I make it consistent? IwTbA4EvR (talk) 19:10, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

IwTbA4EvR, welcome to the Teahouse. Some companies are linked and have an article due to their notability, which will cause them to appear in blue text. Linked text to articles that don't exist will appear in red. As a general guideline, we don't redlink in articlespace (unless it's possible that they're notable). —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) (🎁 Wishlist! 🎁) 19:13, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

@IwTbA4EvR: The ones in black are not linked at all, either because there is no appropriate article to which to link them, or it has already been linked once before in the article and so does not need to be linked again (see WP:OVERLINK). —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 00:26, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

How can I request an article be written for a restaurant chain?

I would like to add Goodcents to the list of restaurants featured at:

List of submarine sandwich restaurants

After reading about how to create articles, I don't think I'm qualified to do so. Further reading suggests one can request an article be written, but I found the instructions on this topic to be intimidating and complex. I thought it best to simply ask what I should do to request a Goodcents article that I can then link to from the above linked article. Bubbleking (talk) 20:08, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Bubbleking Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. You may request that an article be written at Requested Articles; but there is a severe backlog of thousands upon thousands of requests, and very few people to fulfill them. The best way to see an article created is to do it yourself. You are correct to be cautious, as successfully creating a new article is the hardest thing to do on Wikipedia. However, given time and experience editing existing articles in areas that interest you, it is possible to succeed. If this business is given significant coverage in independent reliable sources and meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable business, it is possible to submit a draft using Articles for Creation. 331dot (talk) 20:46, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

If you are associated with this chain(other than perhaps being a mere customer), you will need to review conflict of interest and paid editing. 331dot (talk) 20:47, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Bubbleking: Welcome to the Teahouse. You are probably looking for Wikipedia:Requested articles, though from what I've heard activity there is... glacial. I think it would be helpful to find reliable sources for Goodcents to establish that it is notable to merit its own article. My (partial) suggestion would be to to create it as a draft through Articles for Creation (AfC) and use the template {{refideas}} on the associated talk page to deposit those sources for interested editors to peruse. I am unaware of any templates that acts like an RfC (Request for Comment) but for article creation (and it seems to be too much to be an edit request), so if any other editors know of any it would be much appreciated. Ultimately, Wikipedia is a volunteer effort, so the creation of such an article would rely on editors that are at least marginally interested in the topic. I suggest worrying less about feeling unqualified about writing an article, and create a draft via WP:AFC and have reviewers look at the product when you feel like you've done the best you can. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) (🎁 Wishlist! 🎁) 20:47, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Picture of Alex Mains used on the wiki site.

Today I found that a baseball card from 1919 of my great uncle does exist. The family has been looking for years to no avail. I am wondering if anyone can tell me where the picture of the card came from and who might have it yet today ? 174.25.168.15 (talk) 20:31, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. This is a place to ask questions about using Wikipedia. You could try asking this at the Reference Desk and hope there is a baseball expert there. 331dot (talk) 20:37, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

According to the description page, the image File:1919_Zeenut_Alex_Main.jpg was uploaded from a website tradingcarddb. You can try looking at that website to see if there is more info on the card's current owner. RudolfRed (talk) 02:55, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

If it helps, a set of 1919 Zeenut cards was auctioned here for $2,370. You uncle was among the cards included. At that website look at the image on the right hand side of the page – see the seven round buttons below it? Click on the last (seventh) one. You can maximize the resulting image by clicking on it. Your great uncle's card is the third down on far right hand side.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 11:50, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Aha. You can purchase the card apparently, here. I say apparently, because the auction site lists the name as "Miles Mains" rather than Alex, but it is the 1919 Zeenut set, and they have every card listed with player names, so I assume this is the one.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:05, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

David Burnell IV

Is David Burnell IV a notable subject? David Burnell the Fourth (talk) 20:41, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

David Burnell the Fourth Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Are you asking if you yourself are a notable subject? What do you do, and is it written about in independent reliable sources? 331dot (talk) 20:43, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

David Burnell the Fourth, in addition to 331dot's questions, I would caution against writing about yourself; it's not prohibited, but is strongly discouraged. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) (🎁 Wishlist! 🎁) 20:51, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Another problem: if you ARE NOT David Burnell IV, who appears to be a film actor, you should not have chosen his name as your User name. There is a name change process. If you ARE him, you may be asked to confirm that. David notMD (talk) 01:32, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Question related with Wikipedia timing

So I know there is no time rush on Wikipedia. I got burned a few months ago after asking a question on a talk page, only receiving 1 response (a support) after a 48 hour wait. The article had almost 50 edits done during that 48 hours, so people had chances to reply. When I implemented the change though, tons of people got upset saying I did it too quick. (It was too quick and it was a split proposal and I know that should be a week at least). Too be honest, I was slightly confused why people didn't choose to respond but when the change happened (no one opposing at the time), people got upset.

So I recently asked a question about a new source for an article. I have waiting 24 hours and no responses. (Topic is slightly searched and between the time of my asking the question and now, an article related to it had a closed Afd ending in a merge into this article.

My question is simple. How long should I wait before implementing a change if I hear no responses. I don't want to wait too long, because I would probably forget the change, but if I do it too quick, I don't want to have a ton of people up set with me. Thanks in advance for your responses. Elijahandskip (talk) 22:23, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Elijahandskip, I'd say give it a few days, but you could make the changes per (weak consensus from) WP:SILENCE. If people object to it, direct them to the relevant discussion at the talk page. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) (🎁 Wishlist! 🎁) 23:15, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Categorization alphabetization

Hello! I was looking at the Category Deaths in police custody in the United States, and I added the Death of Chavis Carter article. But on the category page, it lists that article under the 'D' section. Other pages in that category are under sections by the subject's last name. How is this accomplished? What do I need to do? Kirby777 (talk) 22:56, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

I added <s>{{DEFAULTSORT|Carter, Chavis}}</s>. See WP:DEFAULTSORT for more information. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 23:08, 8 December 2020 (UTC) Update: It's <s>{{DEFAULTSORT:Carter, Chavis}}</s> not <s>{{DEFAULTSORT|Carter, Chavis}}</s>. Thank you Le Panini. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 23:15, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

When putting the [[Category:Deaths in police custody in the United States]] to an article, put {{DEFAULTSORT:Chosen Name}} before any categories to set a default name. In this case, {{DEFAULTSORT:Carter, Chavis}}. It's been put in for you. Le Panini ^Talk 23:12, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

how to send page from sandbox to live

I moved my page from sandbox but after that I got this error please help me with publishing my page live "This sandbox is in the article namespace. Either move this page into your userspace, or remove the {{User sandbox}} template." Repairdental (talk) 23:55, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

It sounds like you didn't remove {{User sandbox}} when the content was moved from the sandbox to articlespace. Removing it should fix the issue. It appears that NoSandboxesHere has done that already. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) (🎁 Wishlist! 🎁) 00:16, 9 December 2020 (UTC) (Addendum at 00:21, 9 December 2020 (UTC))

Message on your Talk page requires you change your User name, and provides link to method. David notMD (talk) 01:36, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Harry fear

Hello there, I hope you’re all safe and well. Can someone review Draft:Harry Fear ? Do I need to edit it more? Thanks in advance Engy Badawy (talk) 01:34, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

@Engy Badawy: The Draft:Harry_Fear is already marked submitted for review. You just need to be patient. RudolfRed (talk) 01:39, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Specifically "This may take 3 months or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 3,475 pending submissions waiting for review." You can continue to work on it in the meantime. RudolfRed (talk) 01:41, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

@Engy Badawy: Another thing you can work on is providing the licensing info for File:Harry_Fear.jpg, otherwise it will be deleted. RudolfRed (talk) 01:43, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

I’ll work on it. Thank you so much

The current version - refs #2 and #3 are interviews, which Wikipedia does not accept as confirming notability, and ref #5 is his own blog. Try, before the next reviewer gets to it, to find better references. David notMD (talk) 01:46, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Okay 👌🏻 Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Engy Badawy (talk • contribs) 02:01, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

@Engy Badawy: Remember to sign your posts! You can do so by adding four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking the third button on the edit bar. Le Panini ^Talk 10:52, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Need to publish my article successfully

I need my article to be reviewed and successfully published. I have written a article which is verified by me and need to get my article published. Maverick2554 (talk) 03:33, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm confused. What is the need? I mean, what bad thing will happen if there is a delay? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 03:35, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi Maverick2554. I can say right now that the content in your sandbox will most likely be declined (or rejected) as it is. I suggest you take the time to read Your first article and this beginner-friendly primer for referencing. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) (🎁 Wishlist! 🎁) 03:39, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You have created a draft in your Sandbox User:Maverick2554/sandbox. It has been submitted to Articles for Creation (the large yellow rectangle at bottom). There is a backlog of thousands of AfC drafts. The selection by reviewers is not a queue, so can be days, weeks, up to several months. In its present state it will surely be declined, as it has no references. Verification requires references from reliable published sources. Lastly, you have a duplicate version of your content on your User page. Please delete all of that. Your User page is for a description of your intentions as an editor. David notMD (talk) 03:41, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

And based on a Google search (String: "Shalkal carty" singer) there's no possible way we could have an article on them at this time, notable or otherwise. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Takes a strong man to deny...} 03:47, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

I declined it as covering the same person and having a large overlap with a declined draft from a few months ago by another editor, Draft:Shalkal Carty. I also moved your "user" page to User:Maverick2554/sandbox2, submitted it on your behalf, and did a "pro-forma" decline as it is almost identical to your draft in User:Maverick2554/sandbox. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 03:57, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

My article was rejected here. But need to be done in wikitia. Please do help me in wikitia. Maverick2554 (talk) 05:10, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi Maverick2554. There's not a lot anyone here at the Teahouse can do to help you with respect to Wikitia. That's a completely separate project from Wikipedia with it's own policies and guidelnes that nobody here has any control over. You'll find out a little bit about Wikitia by going to their homepage. I can't even add a link to Wikitia to any Wikipedia page because the site has been WP:BLACKLISTed by the Wikipedia community. So, you just have to Google the name and then get the link yourself. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:21, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Goutte d'Or

I noticed that the article about the Goutte d'Or neighbourhood of Paris has been flagged with: This article includes a list of general references, but it remains largely unverified because it lacks sufficient corresponding inline citations. (September 2009) This article needs additional citations for verification. (September 2009) While I am by no means an expert on Paris, I'm wondering if it's just a case of finding some better and more recent citations? I had a quick look for information about le marché Dejean and there were several pages, although some of them were published many years ago. Are there any Parisians who have got time to give this article a quick look, please? Canberranone (talk) 08:24, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Canberranone, more references to reliable sources would solve the {{More citations needed}} tag, but {{More footnotes}} requires the current references to be attributed to the end of the information that they source. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) (🎁 Wishlist! 🎁) 08:36, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Canberranone Yes, inline citations are those little numbers that appear at the end of every-ish sentence. Le Panini ^Talk 10:50, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

@Canberranone: To learn how to add convert vague links into inline references at the end of each factual statement, just follow the simple guidance at Help:Referencing for beginners. (Or see the alternative guide I wrote at WP:ERB.) Nick Moyes (talk) 11:59, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Tenryuu Thanks but I think the references are attributed to the end of the information they source. The only ones I can see that aren't are under See Also and External Links Canberranone (talk) 23:23, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

shutterstock, alarmy: are their location pictures a reliable source?

shutterstock, alamy: are their location pictures a reliable source? 24.7.56.99 (talk) 09:08, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Possibly I can guess what your question is about, but I doubt it. Please provide a link to one such "location picture", and specify the assertion that it may or may not reliably source. Then somebody here can comment on that. -- Hoary (talk) 09:25, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Shutterstock and Alamy are both commercial sites which claim all their images are theirs (or their suppliers') copyright. Images from those sources could not be used on Wikipedia, unless properly and legally released by their owners, which I doubt would happen. Pictures are usually as reliable as their captioning - and that is never 100% guaranteed - and this is equally true of images on Wikimedia Commons. Nick Moyes (talk) 11:55, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

My article was unjustly rejected and i am protesting against this decision.

MY article Jeriq was rejected unjustly. I need to understand exactly what is wrong with that article Fabregado (talk) 09:35, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Fabregado Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. You were told what was wrong with the draft, "A biographical article for a musician must satisfy WP:MUSICBIO. Furthermore please our general notability criteria, what Wikipedia is WP:NOT, WP:COI & WP:PAID". Wikipedia is not a place to merely tell about a musician. Any draft about a musician must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about a musician, showing how they meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable musician(again, WP:MUSICBIO). If this person meets at least one of the criteria, you haven't adequately shown that with reliable sources. 331dot (talk) 09:38, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Just a note that I've fixed that link, which was doing very odd things. It now links to the draft. Nosebagbear (talk) 09:41, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Jeriq does not have adequate refs. The first and last are about him, but near-identical wording suggests taken from a press release of a posted biography. All the other refs do is confirm he has released music. This may be an instance of WP:TOOSOON. David notMD (talk) 12:16, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Locking Train Robbery article

Hello

I thought someone might want to lock the Train robbery article. It appears people are continually adding the cast of Red Dead Redemption 2 to its list of famous train robbers.

Thanks 84.13.85.156 (talk) 10:01, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

You can follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. However, they tend to only protect pages where vandalism is constant, rather than slow changes or only one vandal for a while. Le Panini ^Talk 10:47, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Welcome to the Teahouse, IP editor, and thank you for reverting that vandalism. It seems to have ceased now, so the page doesn't merit protecting at this stage. However, I've added it to my watchlist and will keep an eye on it, lest it continues. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 10:49, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

LaTeX funny

I’ve come across a couple of new editors trying to add spaces around negative signs in LaTeX. The complaint is that the negative signs aren’t rendering without increasing the zoom level on the browser. Sure enough, I’ve had to increase the zoom level on my browser to see some negative signs. LaTeX used to render reliably at 110% (Maybe lower, but I’ve used 110% for years). Now I need to go to 150% in some cases. Has the LaTeX engine made some new assumptions about display resolution. My monitor is 1920 x 1080. Maybe it is time for an upgrade.Constant314 (talk) 10:53, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Hey Constant314. I have no idea about the answer to your question – and of course it's possible that someone will be along soon with an answer – but seeming arcane technical questions like this sometimes languish here, and are more likely to be seen by someone in the know if posted to the Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). So if no one answers below in a number of hours hours, I suggest posting there (and noting here that you've done so). Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 11:14, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I posted there. Constant314 (talk) 11:32, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

How do I create a page?

I want to create a page for a person. How do I start and where is that link? Rrelangi0310 (talk) 12:17, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Rrelangi0310 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Successfully creating a new article(not just a "page") is the absolute hardest thing to do on Wikipedia. It takes much time and practice. If you dive right into it without some knowledge and experience beforehand, your chances of success are low. It is a good idea to first gain experience by editing existing articles in areas that interest you, to get a feel for how Wikipedia operates and what is expected of article content. This is especially important if you intend to write about a living person, which has special guidelines. It's also a good idea for you to use the new user tutorial to learn more about Wikipedia.

If you still wish to attempt to create an article, you may create and submit a draft at Articles for Creation after you read Your First Article. If you are associated with the person you wish to write about, please read about conflict of interest and paid editing. 331dot (talk) 12:32, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

How to make wikipedia page

How to make wikipedia page??? Muhammad Umer Ali UsmAni (talk) 12:35, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Muhammad Umer Ali UsmAni Hello and welcome. Please see the section immediately above this one, where another person asked the same question. It helps if you think of what you want to create as an article and not a mere "page"(which has a broader definition). 331dot (talk) 12:37, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Draft: Disappearance of Luke Durbin

Unapproved Draft on the Disappearance of Luke Durbin

Hello, hope this finds you well. I recently was received notification that my draft was not approved due to the following: This submission appears to be a news report of a single event and may not be notable enough for an article in Wikipedia. Please see Wikipedia:NOT#NEWS and Wikipedia:ONEEVENT for more information. There is also a potential conflict of interest.

This confused me for the following reasons. I had used all outside sources such as the BBC and local newspapers as well as a documentary. Additionally, I have zero connection to the missing person nor his family. Would it be possible to point out which parts of the article resulted in its non-approval and how it can be approved? Thank you for your time! CelestialOne (talk) 12:41, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

CelestialOne Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. You wrote a fine summary of the event- but Wikipedia articles must do more, they must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage say, showing how the event meets the definition of notability. I don't mean to trivialize this awful and tragic event, but many people go missing every year around the world. What merits this person's disappearance an article on this global encyclopedia? How did you come to edit about this topic? 331dot (talk) 12:48, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

331dot Thanks for getting back to me! I very much agree with your statements, although had a question. As this is an article of a person who disappeared mysteriously, what causes other missing persons articles to remain? For example, Disappearance of Alex Sloley , Disappearance of Andrew Gosden or Disappearance of Georgina Gharsallah. The circumstances surrounding the event comment on crime culture in Ipswich. Channel 5 (British TV channel) created a documentary concerning drug crimes from Brixton, London arriving in Ipswich. Luke's case is picked up by the MIT (Major Investigations Team) Source Thanks for your time! CelestialOne (talk) 13:30, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

CelestialOne A few of the articles you cite go into much more detail not just about the event, but (for example) criticism of the police investigating it; other such articles might discuss protests in response, changes in laws, or some lasting impact beyond the occurrence of the event. Killing of George Floyd merits an article because, among other reasons, the protests and violent riots that occurred afterwards and the subsequent national discussion in the US about race and policing(among other things). I'm sure others might have other comment to add. 331dot (talk) 00:59, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

33dot 331dot Thanks for taking the time to help me. In this case, would it be appropriate to stress on the issues of how Luke's mother critiqued the police investigation, specifically speaking to a newspaper over how they missed a crucial window to declare it a murder case? As a result, Suffolk Police re-classified it as a murder case in 2010, 4 years after. Additionally, March for the Missing, a march organized by Nicki Durbin and Valerie Nettles, mother of Damien Nettles was a public event in which the names of the missing were read aloud, followed by a flower placed on the street in their name with the intention to appeal for resources from the government and getting a bill passed. Source - Critique of investigation, Source - March for the Missing, Missing People Choir promoting Luke's case on Britain's Got Talent. Would stressing on these aspects meet the criteria that Wikipedia looks for? Many thanks for your time and support over the matter. CelestialOne (talk) 12:24, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

I can't guarantee anything, but it would certainly help; the article needs to be more than an accounting of the event and investigation. 331dot (talk) 12:28, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

File:S.M.I.L.A by Alexander Ozolin .mp3

Hi, yesterday this file has been deleted in violation of WP:CSD#F7. What does problem encountered to this file or can you explain "the subject of sourced commentary" mean. I can't understand this term, but can you explain clearly in order to know in the future please? The Supermind (talk) 13:15, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

It seems that this was a "non-free" file that you uploaded for "fair use" in the article Kiev Day and Night. One requirement for "fair use" is that the file actually is used in the article for which permission is requested. (NB there are numerous other requirements too.) Did it appear in that article? -- Hoary (talk) 13:31, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Message from Cureeight

Hello,

Thank you for taking the time to review my wikipedia page. As I am new to Wikipedia and devoted to have my own Wiki page go live, may I request some additional support please? I was using this page as an example to write my own - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popjustice You reviewed that 'Twitter and the official site aren't reliable sources'. That is understandable, what should I post then to clarify authentication, as I thought my own website would have been authentic enough? Any support would be dearly appreciated.

I look forward to hearing from you,

Yours Sincerely, Mark. Cureeight (talk) 13:41, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Courtesy link: Draft:MarkMeets Media

@Cureeight: On Wikipedia, we want to use secondary, reliable sources to back up the information in the article. This means that the source should not be affiliated with the subject and should have a good track record of being factual, like an established news outlet. An article cannot be completely based on what we call primary sources, which are sources that the subject written about themselves including official sites and tweets. Also, Wikipedia has a rule about notability, which is how we determine if an article is "important" enough to have an article. This means that we need multiple independent reliable sources to go in depth about the subject. Regarding your draft, I suggest you look for these sources first, then work on the draft to make sure it's notable enough in the first place. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 13:55, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi Mark. In addition, to what Ganbaruby posted above, I also suggest you carefully read through Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, Wikipedia:Ownership of content and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not because it appears from you comment As I am new to Wikipedia and devoted to have my own Wiki page go live that you might be misunderstanding some very important things about Wikipedia. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:07, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Putting images in

Caption goes here

Hello I don't know how to add any images to posts... And why can i coppy and paste things?Mr. Amasballs (talk) 13:55, 9 December 2020 (UTC) Mr. Amasballs (talk) 13:55, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

@Mr. Amasballs: If you go to any image, like this one, you'll see a button saying "Use this file" with a Wikipedia logo next to it. Click on it and copy that code into the article, like I've done here. Notice which part of the code I changed to write my own caption. For more info on how to do this, see Help:Pictures.

I don't really know what you mean by "coppy and paste things", but see this page on copyrights if you intend to copy the text on Wikipedia somewhere else, or this page for copying text from one Wikipedia page to another. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 14:03, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm worried about a rude editor

There is a rude editor on Wikipedia that keeps bothering me. What should I do? Toad62 (talk) 13:59, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Definitely confront them And report them Mr. Amasballs (talk) 14:06, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

@Mr. Amasballs: Check the user's edit history before replying. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 14:18, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

@Toad62: Nope. Your comma usage is completely wrong. There is no reason to put a comma after the subject's name (whether it's a bird, person, or building). The only reason to add a comma would be if if there's a dependent clause that goes there. For example: "John Smith, known professionally as the Goat, is a basketball player."

Quisqualis gave very reasonable warnings for you to stop, but you disregarded those and failed to recognize that you were in the wrong. It doesn't matter if you're 13 or 31; as a Wikipedia editor, you're expected to communicate with the community and respond to feedback through discussion. If you really don't understand something, you should've asked for help here! ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 14:18, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

@Quisqualis and Toad62: I believe the recent example (Victor Adeboyejo) may be incorrect after Quisqualis' edit:

Ayomide Victor Adeboyejo (born 12 January 1998) known as Victor Adeboyejo, is a professional footballer who plays as a striker for Championship club Barnsley.

I believe there should be a comma after the closing paren (before " known") to set off the following clause correctly:

Ayomide Victor Adeboyejo (born 12 January 1998), known as Victor Adeboyejo, is a professional footballer who plays as a striker for Championship club Barnsley.

If the parenthetical (born 12 January 1998) is removed, the sentence is still correct (which is how it's supposed to work I think). I suppose if the parenthetical were set off by commas instead of parentheses, you wouldn't need two consecutive commas after 1998, but because a different scheme (parens) is used, I believe the comma should be there.

An alternative I've seen elsewhere (especially when there are more clauses needed, like pronunciations, other language transcriptions, etc.) is to put the "known as" inside the parens:

Ayomide Victor Adeboyejo (born 12 January 1998; known as Victor Adeboyejo) is a professional footballer who plays as a striker for Championship club Barnsley.

I don't think looking at other articles for players on the same team necessarily proves anything about the "correctness" of the grammar; it may only prove that editors use existing articles as a template for new ones and/or that they are largely created/edited by one or a small number of editors. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 19:06, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

AlanM1, well spotted! I admit that I was looking only at the parenthetical date of birth info for the comma, and ignored the context. Adeboyo, one of the last players listed on the team article, got short comma shrift from me, which I hope has been remedied. Thanks for spotting it.--Quisqualis (talk) 21:18, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Ok, sorry for overreacting. Toad62 14:06, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

THE IMAGE IN THE PAGE OF WIKIPEDIA

Hi, how can I put an image in the giovanni scanu page? I try a lot of time but the answer is always an error thank you Gmasuri1989 (talk) 14:09, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

@Gmasuri1989: Check how another page like Robert Lewandowski does it. The file is hosted at Wikimedia Commons at this URL: [3]. If you have an image on Commons that you want to use, you would use the same formatting. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 14:28, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

@Gmasuri1989: You would need to have access to a photo of Scanu which can be used under Wikipedia's image use policy. This essentially means one which is not under copyright, so it would need to be one taken by yourself or by someone else who was prepared to make it freely available. See WP:IUP#COPYRIGHT for more detailed information on what types of image are acceptable -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:02, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

transfermarkt no reliable?

hi, it's a joke? transfermarkt is the official website for football player and the UEFA PRO coach Gmasuri1989 (talk) 14:16, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

@Gmasuri1989: Transfermarkt is largely user-generated, or that its users contribute it's information. Therefore, we treat it the same way as a self-published source and don't consider it reliable. IMDb is not considered reliable for the same reason. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 14:21, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Gmasuri1989 This has been discussed multiple times, most recently here. The website is user generated, and there is no evidence that the information on that website has been peer reviewed for factual accuracy. Try seeing if the player has a profile on Soccerway or Soccerbase instead (both of these are acceptable sources). Joseph2302 (talk) 14:28, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

External links

FYI

 – added title — Yours, Berrely (🎅 Ho ho ho! 🎄) • ^Talk∕_Contribs 14:30, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Then ca I ask you why a lot of people have in the external link but i can't have??? Gmasuri1989 (talk) 14:25, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi Gmasuri1989. Let me ask you a question. When you ask your mother if it's okay if you "drop out of high school, fail the GED and sell black market ferrets for a living", and she says, "no", and then you whinge, "but 'all the other kids are doing it'", what does she say? Probably something like just because other shit exists is no proper ground for, or validation of, doing improper acts yourself. Right?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:59, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

More diplomaticlly, Wikipedia:Other stuff exists. There are many articles in Wikipedia that are not up to currant standards, which have become more stringent over time. Per Joseph2302, try to find reliable sources for the same information. David notMD (talk) 16:24, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Update

 Courtesy link: Clifford Sobel

I have been trying to update my personal information and cannot do so. It keeps going back to old information  SOBEL1 (talk) 14:52, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

SOBEL1 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Your edit was removed and redacted because it was a copyright violation. We cannot allow copyrighted content to be improperly used here. Please understand that Wikipedia articles summarize what independent reliable sources say about a person, not what a person (or those associated with them) wants to say about themselves. If there is information in the article about you that is missing or incomplete that should be changed and you can support it with independent reliable sources, we would like your input in the form of a formal edit request(click for instructions) on the article talk page, Talk:Clifford Sobel. 331dot (talk) 15:10, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi SOBEL1. Please take a look at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Dealing with articles about yourself for more information, but basically what you will need to do is propose the changes you’d like made to the article on its talk page in the form of Wikipedia:Edit requests to give other editors a chance to assess them and make sure they are in accordance with relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines. — Marchjuly (talk) 15:17, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Is this notable enough?

Hi, I have a quick question. Is the chemical plant explosion in West Virginia notable enough for an article? I saw that another explosion a few days ago in the U.K. got an article, but I’m still not sure to write an article about this event. •rslashthinkong User page User talk page 15:22, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

I doubt it, as there were no fatalities as there were at the Avonmouth explosion, and Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS. It seems to be generally accepted that such accidents are only notable when there are fatalities, and even then the event needs to meet WP:GNG--Shantavira|^{feed me} 16:24, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Ok, Thanks! • • rslashthinkong (User page) (User talk page) 16:32, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Editing

How can I create a page? Kenzie Abraham (talk) 15:26, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Kenzie Abraham, hello and welcome to the teahouse. Go to WP:AfC and click "Click here to start a new article!" Regards, Heart ^(talk) 15:27, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

HOWEVER, first, per advice given earlier today to a new editor with the same question: "Successfully creating a new article(not just a "page") is the absolute hardest thing to do on Wikipedia. It takes much time and practice. If you dive right into it without some knowledge and experience beforehand, your chances of success are low. It is a good idea to first gain experience by editing existing articles in areas that interest you, to get a feel for how Wikipedia operates and what is expected of article content. This is especially important if you intend to write about a living person, which has special guidelines. It's also a good idea for you to use the new user tutorial to learn more about Wikipedia. If you still wish to attempt to create an article, you may create and submit a draft at Articles for Creation after you read Your First Article. If you are associated with the person you wish to write about, please read about conflict of interest and paid editing." David notMD (talk) 16:28, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

But before you do that, Kenzie Abraham, please study your first article. When a new editor tries to create an article as the first, or nearly the first, thing they do here, they usually have a frustrating time, and often find that all the effort they put into it is wasted, because they don't know how to tell whether the subject is suitable for Wikipedia or not. We have six million articles, and probably five million of them could be massively improved. Please do yourself and Wikipedia a favour by spending a few weeks or months improving some of what we've already got and learning how Wikipedia works, before you try this extremely difficult task. The community portal is one place to find jobs that need doing. --ColinFine (talk) 16:30, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

It was incorrect.

Listen, I don't know who you think you are changing the edits that I made to Barbados but those edits were completely true. I am a Barbadian myself and Bajan Creole is not a language that we speak, we speak english with a accent that is similar to a british one, so why when we speak english its called creole but when people of America or U.K speak english its not considered creole. Don't talk about the vocabulary how we have different words, all English speakers of different regions have different vocabulary so why is it cosidered creole for people of Barbados. You can understand when we speak english its not like Jamaican Patois or Hatian Creole which are actually languages that a primary English speaker will not understand. Please do not change back my edits I have just explained to you why I made those edits so please don't. If you do i'll just change it back all the time so lets really not go through that, OK. NickMaraj (talk) 15:41, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

NickMaraj Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Threatening to edit war to preserve what you feel is the correct version of an article is against policy and aside from that, never a good strategy. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort where editors must work together to achieve a consensus as to what an article should say. The proper place to do that is on the article talk page, in this case, Talk:Barbados. There you should offer any independent reliable sources you have to support your edits, as well as explain why you wrote them the way you did. (another editor expressed concern that the tone of your edits was not encyclopedic). 331dot (talk) 15:57, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

@NickMaraj: A creole is not at all the same thing as accented English (or any language with an accent), so if you speak English with a Barbadian accent you don't speak a creole – just as people speaking English with other accents don't speak creoles. The article claimed that most people speak Bajan Creole, which sounded extremely unlikely – so I checked the source and no such claim was made there. I have changed that phrasing. --bonadea contributions talk 16:03, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

I suspect the numbers are right Bonadea (much to NickMaraj's consternation). I am not informed well enough to differentiate between what is a dialect, an accent, and a fully fledged creole, or where the line in the sand is but suffice to say I think the OP may be taking the meaning of "Creole" as a slur, rather than a recognition that there is a language there that is, to quote our Creole language article, "a stable natural language that develops from the simplifying and mixing of different languages into a new one within a fairly brief period of time". There will be varying depths of reliance upon the language, and how broadly it is used and in what situation, but I suspect Nick would better understand a Bajan Creole than any of us would ever hope to. Koncorde (talk) 17:43, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

That Wikipedia article does not provide a very good definition of what a creole is, in my opinion! Creoles have nothing to do with accents or dialects; an English-based creole is a language that springs from a contact between English and another language, and not a variety of English. That it is a distinct language with native speakers is part of the basic definition, another part is that it is possible to use a creole in a variety of domains (as opposed to a pidgin, which is domain-specific). I guess that's where Wikipedia got the "simplifying and mixing" part from, but I wouldn't accept that answer on an undergrad exam in sociolinguistics. I admit that I may have read the description in the article a little too quickly, and read "...is spoken by most Barbadians in everyday life, especially in informal settings" as claiming that it is the native language of most Barbadians, probably because I am so conditioned to seeing "creole" and thinking "emerging language which has native speakers"! I agree with you – I'm sure most Barbadians can understand Bajan Creole even if they are not native speakers, and that code switching is very frequent. That does not mean that most Barbadians use it in everyday life, though. (I am not in any way an expert on creoles, I only know the things you learn when you teach linguistics.) --bonadea contributions talk 21:38, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

I've just explained why I changed it, simply because the facts of the matter were not true. Here, let me right it in all caps so you may understand or see it better. BARBADIANS OR BAJANS DO NOT SPEAK BAJAN CREOLE BECAUSE IT IS NOT A LANGUAGE, WE SPEAK ENGLISH WITH AN ACCENT THATS IT, IF WIKIPEDIA IS SUPPOSED TO HAVE FACTS THEN WHATS THE PROBLEM WITH ME FIXING THE FACTS SO THAT THE OUTSIDE VIEW WOULD BE CORRECT ALL IM TRYING TO DO IS MAKE SURE THE INFORMATION FOR Barbados IS CORRECT, WHATS SO WRONG WITH THAT. NickMaraj (talk) 18:43, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

@NickMaraj: please do not write in all caps – it comes across as very aggressive. It is a verifiable fact that Bajan Creole is an existing language (which is not just some variety of English, but a language in its own right). Even if that were not the case, it is never appropriate to write personal comments in an encyclopedia article. If you have reliable secondary sources that show that Bajan Creole is no longer a living language, by all means present them, but no individual editor can ever change information that has a reliable source based solely on what they personally know.

If you want to keep discussing this question, please keep it in this section, unless it has been moved to the archives. Thanks! --bonadea contributions talk 18:49, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Promoting yourself selflessly but properly

Hello, I am trying to update columns that pertain to Canada history in Ufology. It just so happens to be my organization and my work. Yes this is self promotion, but I've been trying to display the movement that my group has done that contributes to Ufology on a whole. I've written in third person and refference third party articles that others written about us to show a non biased and factual documentation. The issue in the Ufology community, is no one promotes anyone else and you have to promote yourself in order to be recognized. I'm totally understanding the rules and guidelines but my intentions of self promoting is for the benefit of mankind not for myself. With that said, how do I get the content on there ? I can have another member of the group write for me but then it's a conflict as well. People aren't endorsing our work because we are the fact checkers and are actually making it difficult for the other ufologists. We just want the truth. I am a private investigator by trade. So with this said, I'm stumped and looking for someone else to write this story for me. I can provide links and refferences and help another writer/editor if it comes to it.

Please help me find someone to write because I have more info to update on these pages. Stuff that no one has ever read and has never seen the public eyes. Rstacey86 (talk) 16:20, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Rstacey86 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Self-promotion is not permitted, regardless of the reason for doing so. You have what is called a conflict of interest(click to review) and as such you should not directly edit articles that pertain to your conflict of interest. You may make a formal edit request on the article talk page, detailing changes you feel are needed, but it would be original research to post the findings of your organization. If independent sources have written about the findings of your organization, please offer those sources.

If you ask someone else to make the edit, that is still a conflict of interest, but for that new person. 331dot (talk) 16:24, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

I appreciate the security screening. Do I request an edit in general or on each page ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rstacey86 (talk • contribs) 16:28, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Hi there, Rstacey86 and thanks for dropping in to the Teahouse with your question. I'm afraid your final sentence is the real giveaway here, as Wikipedia is not to be used for WP:PROMOTION, and we only ever collate what is verifiable and already published via Reliable Sources in the public domain. If the mainstream media have taken note of your organisation and written about it in detail and in depth, then it might meet this set of notability criteria for organisations. But we never base a Wikipedia article on what an organisation or person says about itself. And yes, you would certainly have a big Conflict of Interest were you to try. I'm sorry, but I doubt Wikipedia is the place to get that wider promotion. Regards from the UK,Nick Moyes (talk) 16:30, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi there. This is good information. I understand the stand point and I appreciate the high standard. There are reliable sources in the public domain. So I'll request an edit and see where that goes.

Either way, I can push for more media coverage on the work so that it becomes notable and available for other editors to draw from.

I assure you, we are the real deal and want to be taken seriously. So thank you for your comments and I'll redirect my research towards the media and will circle back here once we've achieved that milestone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rstacey86 (talk • contribs) 16:37, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Rstacey86 I don't doubt your legitimacy. But pushing for news coverage is not the way to go, we want independent reliable sources that have chosen on their own to write about what you do, not that have published press releases or interviews with you(both of which are primary sources). 331dot (talk) 16:40, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

(ec) Rstacey86 This: Stuff that no one has ever read and has never seen the public eyes doesn't sound promising - Wikipedia does not propagate the first-hand information. Unpublished truth doesn't matter here (please see WP:OR and WP:PRIMARY), only published, reliable, secondary sources count (see WP:VER). --CiaPan (talk) 16:44, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

If you take all that's said in consideration, and you accept that being added to Wikipedia is a goal of ours, what strategy would you recommend and where would I start ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rstacey86 (talk • contribs) 16:45, 9 December 2020 (UTC) CiaPan I don't know the tag to reply to you specifically. I agree with your thoughts and I support them. I should have been clearer, even though we are talking in general terms right now.

The information I am reffering to is unclassified documents given to me by the Canadian Government. We just haven't made them public yet.

This is just research for me right now. I want this information handled properly. I don't want the media to put a spin on it — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rstacey86 (talk • contribs) 16:50, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

I would suggest that you use social media, a website owned and operated by your organization, or perhaps one of the alternative forums listed here to better serve your purpose. Nothing against you, but I don't think Wikipedia is the right place to do what you wish to do. 331dot (talk) 16:53, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

I appreciate what you saying, perhaps I misunderstand what Wikipedias purpose is, because the information that's on there (in these particular sections of ufology) has in accuracies and is false testimony which is proven when you read the source material provided in the refference. So I'm trying understand how that material fits without creating an argument. I am confused about the expectation of Wikipedia. Help me understand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rstacey86 (talk • contribs) 17:04, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

@Rstacey86: That's a good question. With 6million+ articles, our expectation is that all factual statements liable to be challenged will be supported by citations to reliably-published mainstream sources that anyone in the world can access and check (even if they have to go to a library to do it) Sadly that isn't always the case, so we have things like this and this and this and this which can be added to content. Not everyone does, but you are most welcome to flag up on article talk pages content that you doubt, or remove it yourself if you don't have a conflict of interest in so doing. (Please remember to sign your posts on talk pages by typing four keyboard tildes like this: ~~~~.) Nick Moyes (talk) 17:11, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

You do indeed misunderstand what Wikipedia's purpose is, Rstacey86. I can tell this because you say "being added to Wikipedia is a goal of ours". You appear to have the common misconception that an article is in any way for the benefit of its subject. Many people and organisations who are the subject of articles do benefit from it, of course (and some definitely do not), but it is absolutely not part of Wikipedia's purpose that they should. To that end, the subject of an article has no control over its contents; in fact in a way has less control over the article than almost anybody else in the world, because they are strongly discouraged from editing the article directly. --ColinFine (talk) 18:52, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. I'll start there. I'll have someone else look into it and flag it for you to review.

I appreciate what you are doing and I understand the challenges in regulating.

I am an expert in this field which why I'm paying closer attention.

Step one, make the data that's there accurate.

Ryan Rstacey86 (talk) 17:18, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

@Rstacey86: I'm replying to your original message. Be careful that you stick to what reliable, independent sources say. Please read Wikipedia:Fringe theories, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, and the encyclopedia article False balance as they may apply when you write about UFOs as such and when you write about what UFO researchers say about them, or when you suggest edits on the talk pages of subjects in which you have a conflict of interest. Writing about the researchers themselves, or the groups themselves, will be less problematic - either there will be independent, reliable sources that talk about them or there won't be. Even then though, you need to be careful that the independent, reliable source you are citing isn't falling into the trap of "false balance" if they are writing about a fringe idea, person, or organization. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 17:57, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. Very good points. Rstacey86 (talk) 18:07, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Rstacey86, Wikipedia has a policy called WP:Verifiability, not truth. Which means that only stating "The Truth" is less of a goal of this encyclopedia than stating what reliable, published sources unconnected to the subject have said. You want Wikipedia to have what you know to be the truth, but that may be counter to what Wikipedia seeks. Wikipedia is aware that not all of its content is necessarily true (such as certain actors' dates of birth), but the reliable sources all repeat the same untruth, so we must go with what they say.--Quisqualis (talk) 21:50, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

To publish new article/page on Wikipedia

I would like to have information about how to publish a new article/page on Wikipedia. Ilgiurista digitale (talk) 16:51, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Ilgiurista digitale Hello and welcome. From the subject of your edits, I gather that you may have a conflict of interest and/or paid editing relationship with whatever it is you wish to create a new article about. Successfully creating a new article is the absolute hardest thing to do on Wikipedia, it's even harder if you have a conflict of interest. If you dive right in without some knowledge and experience, you are liable to end up disappointed and with hurt feelings, which I don't want for you.

Please use the new user tutorial to learn more about Wikipedia, and perhaps also take some time to edit existing articles in areas that interest you personally, to get a feel for how Wikipedia operates and what is expected of article content.

If you still wish to attempt to create a new article, you should read Your First Article and the other policies I have linked to here, and then you may visit Articles for Creation to create and submit a draft. Be advised that Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources state. 331dot (talk) 17:01, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Replying to Wikipedia Editors

Hello Teahouse Hosts: I am new to Wikipedia and excited about participating and have recently made a few edits and additions yet received a few messages and a couple of edit or reversions. I would like to reply, however I am not exactly sure how to do so at the bottom of their talk page. I tried on one and start a new subject and published it and believe that to be the way. If there is another way more acceptable could someone please suggest it to me? Thank you in advance for your considerate assist and support. SILENTWARRIOR SILENTWARRIOR (talk) 17:19, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes you did it correctly. Make sure you use the "four tildes" to sign your posts. See help here Wikipedia:Tips/How to sign comments Koncorde (talk) 17:26, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Ancient megalithic architecture

 LizLI2 (talk) 18:14, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

LizLI2, If you are asking for an article, try Megalithic architectural elements. For anything else, its best to ask the Wikipedia:Reference Desk. Le Panini ^Talk 18:28, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

mnkbvhgxfdzgchvjbnm,

gvcfxdzsxgcgvbhjnmk 166.127.1.75 (talk) 18:53, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

If you want to do test edits, use the WP:SANDBOX RudolfRed (talk) 18:54, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Bot programming

I have been wondering for a long time, how are bots programmed? Do they use the User: namespace, or the MediaWiki: namespace? a gd fan (talk) 19:06, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

@GeometryDashFan12: Check out the page Wikipedia:Bots that explains how bots are uses and has links to other pages on how bots are created. Hope this helps. RudolfRed (talk) 19:10, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Suspected advertisement/travel guide

Hi! I'm new here. The page for Operation Wallacea appears to an advert for voluntourism packages, and seems to just be a list of travel locations available. Is it warranted to remove most of its content, especially parts that are not cited? Who should I report this to? Thank you! Arcahaeoindris (talk) 19:13, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

@Arcahaeoindris: Based on the box at the top of the article, you are not the only one to notice this. I would say go ahead and be WP:BOLD and cut out anything that looks like an advertisement or otherwise unsuitable for an article. RudolfRed (talk) 19:25, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi Arcahaeoindris. Agreeing with the above, when you remove content that is clearly an advertisement, numerous policies and guidelines are involved that will support various aspects of such removal—e.g., neutral point of view, what Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTADVOCACY) and no original research (since such content usually includes, improperly in Wikipedia's voice, evaluative content, analysis and synthesis)—but I think it's especially useful to be familiar with WP:BURDEN, a subsection of the bedrock verifiability policy, that provides a policy-based ground for removal of unsourced content, and defines the direction of the burden for return of such content – being that those wishing to return it, may only do so if they cite (using inline citations) to reliable sources that directly verify the returned content. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:01, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Immigration to Svalbard

Hello, I was wondering if anyone could enlighten me on best practices to begin immigration, or where I could learn more about this subject. 2601:1C2:4F01:89D0:C120:BF77:B548:85F3 (talk) 21:07, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, but this isn't the appropriate venue. You might be able to get help at the reference desk. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) (🎁 Wishlist! 🎁) 21:18, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

IP editor, this is not a general help desk. It's the help desk for wikipedia editors to get help with editing Wikipedia. Good luck.--Quisqualis (talk) 21:20, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Don't think my last message was understood...

Hello, I have tried to fulfill all requirements to get a neutral article posted but it seems that I have been misunderstood. The person I have written about is a notable person who has been interviewed on TV, been written about in several scientific and business publications. People need a neutral place where they can look him up, which I thought was Wikipedia. Unfortunately, I've been responded to quite rudely when I was only inquiring about the proper steps involved. I was even dissuaded from doing the 10 edits because of it being a profile, even though it is a neutral one on a notable scientist/entrepreneur. Please note: IT IS A PROFILE DONE ON A PERSON WHO HAS BEEN INTERVIEWED ON TV AND BEEN WRITTEN ABOUT IN SEVERAL SCIENTIFIC AND BUSINESS PUBLICATIONS, NOT BY ME BUT BY OTHER WRITERS.

I don't understand the necessity for rudeness when I am trying to abide by your rules. Do I stand a chance of getting this published or should I give up, as I was so rudely told? Scientrep (talk) 21:47, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Please do not do all caps - it is considered shouting. You were advised on your Talk page on 10 November to declare on your User page which topics you are being paid for, before doing any creation. Please do that first. Then, you can create a draft and submit it to Articles for Creation. David notMD (talk) 22:10, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

You asked for advice at Teahouse on 26 Nov. I have copied the answer here because the reply applies: The information about your paid relationship belongs on your User page, not your Talk page. Your working draft of content belongs on your Sandbox or as a draft, not your own Talk page. On your Talk page, editor Theroadislong provided a form to use on your User page to explain your paid situation. Your "draft" has no references yet, so please do not submit it until it looks more like articles about other science entrepreneurs. David notMD (talk) 03:50, 26 November 2020 (UTC) In answer to your 13 Nov question, Wikipedia:Articles for creation provides instructions on how to draft an article. David notMD (talk) 03:57, 26 November 2020 (UTC) @Scientrep: For reference, your "user page" is User:Scientrep, your "[user] talk page" is User talk:Scientrep, your "sandbox" is User:Scientrep/sandbox, and your "draft article" should probably be at Draft:Sam Molyneux. I'll note there is already an article about a company he founded, Meta (academic company). If you do move forward with this, in addition to the links to policies and style guides provided earlier, you might want to look at other biographical articles in edit mode for some of the formatting and structure details. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 17:06, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Hope this helps David notMD (talk) 22:16, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Courtesy comment for other page stalking editors - there doesn't seem to be a draft as far as I can tell - this is all forward looking. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:44, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry if you feel people have been rude, Scientrep, but if you think that what you are writing is a profile, you have fundamentally misunderstood what Wikipedia is. Wikipedia does not contain profiles: not one. Some of the differences between a profile and an encyclopaedia article are: 1. A profile is generally for the benefit of its subject; a Wikipedia article is not, in the slightest. Of course, the subjects of many articles do get some benefit from there being an article about them (though others definitely do not!) but that is no part of the purpose. 2) A profile generally says what the subject wants it to say; A Wikipedia article does not, in general. Again, it might happen to, but that is a happy accident, not its purpose. 3) A profile is generally based on what the subject and the subject's associates have said about them; a Wikipedia article is almost entirely based on what people who have no connection with the subject has chosen to publish about them. --ColinFine (talk) 22:47, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Timtempleton and others - draft content is at Scientrep's talk page. David notMD (talk) 03:30, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

David notMD Thanks - I looked in the editing history but didn't look on the talk page. Perhaps it would be better in the near term to create a Sam Molyneux redirect to Meta (academic company), where there's already some info about him. Maybe a bit WP:TOOSOON, with one company under his belt, and not a lot of coverage. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 07:00, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

I have a question

Hi if I am trying to edit a page like Art to add some grammer changes how do I visually submit an edit request because I cant find what I want to change on the normal edit mode? Thatweirdeditor (talk) 22:19, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Thatweirdeditor, hello! The article is WP:SEMI protected, see that link, so you can't edit it just yet, but if you stick around a bit. It's probably locked because of unhelpful edits. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 22:32, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes - there was persistent IP vandalism from 2007-2008, and this has been protected ever since. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:41, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

@Thatweirdeditor: If you want to make an edit request, but the page is locked, you would click on "view source" at the top of the page, and then you click the button that says "Submit an edit request". Once you click that button, you can type in whatever request you want. But if you want it to be accepted, you should type in a specific change, for example

"In the section titled 'Mammals', replace 'The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog.' with 'The speedy grey wolf leaps over the tired cat.'."

Then, probably give a reason for your request. Hope this helps. —Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 08:10, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Adding an image to an infobox?

Hi, I have uploaded this image to the site (File:Tip_Of_My_Tongue_Single_Art.jpg) but I can't add it to the infobox of the song (Tip of My Tongue by Kenny Chesney) because I believe the page is locked? Can someone help me out Paul to my Linda (talk) 22:32, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Paul to my Linda, page's not locked, but done: [4]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 22:37, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Article submission

How do I submit an article for review? And how do I create one? Nononsense101 (talk) 00:41, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

That is our #1 question, Nononsense101. Please see where we advised another user with the same question as you.--Quisqualis (talk) 02:41, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Page disappearance

 Professeur XYZ (talk) 01:34, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Why would a page be there for a few days and then suddenly disappear? Professeur XYZ (talk) 01:36, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

What page? As far as I can tell, this is your second edit on any Wikimedia project under this account, your first is right above this one. And yes, pages are routinely deleted from Wikipedia, see WP:Deletion. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 01:38, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

FYI - a Speedy deletion (Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion) by an Administrator can make an article, or inappropriate User page content, or User's Sandbox disappear quickly, leaving no trace.David notMD (talk) 08:49, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Bully Admins?

Hi. Just curious. Is there anything to be done about admin bullies? Because there are many many admin bullies on here that just gang up and attack people, but if you retaliate, you get threatened with a ban. That does not seem fair. This seems to only exist on the English wikipedia. So I am unsure why this exists or how you deal with it? I am happy to finally have an account, after 10 years of applying. However, I do not want to lose it overnight. But I also do not want to be the victim of bullying and vulgar attacks. Thank you. Walther Faunus (talk) 03:34, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Actually, the great majority of interaction is editor-to-editor, not admins bashing editors. That said, it does not excuse rude behavior. English Wikipedia has different standards than other languages for defining notability and what are reliable source references. These are the major causes of disputes. The general advice is if you modify an article (addition or deletion of content and refs) and another editor reverts, to start a discussion on the Talk page of the article, along with inviting the other editor to join. Disputing content is fine, but it should not devolve to attacks on other editors. If this happens, there are avenues of redress. I hope you find articles that interest you, and you make valid, valuable contributions. David notMD (talk) 03:44, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Walther Faunus. I wanted to see evidence of administrators bullying you, so I looked at your contributions. You have only two edits to English Wikipedia, this one and an edit to your userpage. So, how have you encountered this bullying? Have you edited previously as an IP editor or with another account? I am an administrator and in my opinion, most administrators strive to be fair and neutral, and to base their actions on policies and guidelines. But there are a few administrators who skirt the edge of bullying behavior, and some have been removed for that reason. Humans are imperfect and sometimes they make serious mistakes. The problem I have with your comment is that it is vague and unspecific. Far better to say that three specific identified administrators are bullies, based on their contributions to these six conversations, providing diffs, or links to those discussions. Without specificity, your comment comes off as griping without evidence. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:03, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

My own application for an account, as you might term it -- I'd say registration of an account -- took only a few minutes. I'm astonished to hear of difficulties that prolonged your application process to a decade. (Most nations grant citizenship in less time.) By far the commonest reason for people to lose their accounts is having forgotten their password (and either not having registered an email address via which they could be given a replacement password, or having lost access to the email account that they did register for this purpose). Do pray tell us more about your troubled application process. -- Hoary (talk) 05:07, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Self published?

I've got a question about self published sources. When do you tag or consider a source as self-published?

In addition, what if a website, in which the author is the same as the one in the Wikipedia page, will be used as a source? I don't know if I'm understood with that, but I noticed it in some pages. Mottshmikes (talk) 05:46, 10 December 2020 (UTC) Mottshmikes (talk) 05:46, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

@Mottshmikes:. You can find out a little more about what Wikipedia considers to be a self-published source in WP:UGC and WP:SPS, but basically it's a source which has no real reputation for an established system of editorial control. A self-published source by the subject of a Wikipedia article can sometimes be used as explained in WP:ABOUTSELF, but there are limitations as to how it may be used and in general WP:SECONDARY sources are preferred whenever possible. Just for reference, Wikipedia doesn't consider itself to be a reliable source for any purpose, and any websites which WP:MIRROR the content found on Wikipedia are also not considered to be a reliable source. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:27, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Referencing method

I'm wondering if Template:Rp is a good referencing method to use for page numbers, along with Template:Cite book for the general information about the book. I will be using each book a few times, with different page numbers, with references at Draft:Culture of Silicon Valley. Is this the best practice or should I use another referencing method instead? —Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 05:48, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Naddruf, welcome to the Teahouse. Like you, I think the use of {{rp}} would be helpful for any readers to quickly verify when they have access to the source. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) (🎁 Wishlist! 🎁) 05:50, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

@Naddruf: Yes, {{Rp}} and {{R}} are the easiest way to cite multiple pages in the same source. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 12:58, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Is there a reason Infobox Officeholder should be used over Infobox Judge?

So I've noticed @CAPTAIN RAJU:'s edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ren%C3%A9_Leblanc&oldid=992558717, which replaced Infobox Judge with Infobox Officeholder in Rene Leblanc's page who is a Judge on Canada's Federal appelate court. Richard Wagner's page who is the Chief Justice of Canada used Infobox Judge. Is there a reason Infobox Judge should not be used rather than Infobox Officeholder? Swil999 (talk) 06:07, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

There's no such thing as "Infobox Judge"—the {{infobox judge}} template is just a redirect to {{infobox officeholder}}. It will still work if you put in {{infobox judge}}, but it's bad practice to do so as it misleads editors into thinking these are two different templates and consequently causes confusion (as appears to have been the case here!). ‑ Iridescent 06:28, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Need help revising

Are there any improvements that you could recommend to me that be made to the Pre-debut section of my draft? 52-whalien (talk) 06:43, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Courtesy - draft in question Draft:Rima Nakabayashi has been submitted to AfC. David notMD (talk) 06:50, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

If none of these refs have lengthy content about her - more than just mention and a photo - a problem. David notMD (talk) 06:59, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Why My article got rejected

 Courtesy link: Draft:Narugopal Mandal

Yesturday I uploaded an article about a film director Narugopal Mandal talking about his works and achivments with all supporting links attached to the article, but today when I submited the article it got rejected stating it sounds like advertisement and not a neutral statement. How can I rewrite it? Capturegraphics (talk) 07:21, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

@Capturegraphics: Your draft is written too much like a fan article or personal essay. The tone needs to be more encyclopedic, and less fawning. Also, IMDB is a poor source for articles, since it is based on fan contributions. You need to find independent reliable sources about Mandal that demonstrate he is notable enough for an article. Please see WP:RS and WP:GNG for general guidelines. Good luck! TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:26, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

In a Biographies of living person, can the person's own twitter posts be cited?

Bob says x on twitter. I report bob said X, and use their twitter post as a citation. Is this allowed?--Michaelwalky (talk) 08:02, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

@Michaelwalky: Tweets can sometimes be allowed per WP:BLPSELFPUB and WP:PRIMARY, but that often depends upon the context of the tweet and what/who it's about. Moreover, not WP:NOTEVERYTHING that's tweeted may be deemed encyclopedically relevant to Wikipedia readers; so, in some cases, even if it's true, the consensus may be that it's not really something worth adding to the article in question because doing so would give it WP:UNDUE prominence. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:17, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

@Michaelwalky: Twitter can be problematic because tweets can be faked with Photoshop, or deleted, which gives you a form of link rot. Your best bet to cite one is if it appears in an article, perhaps as a screen capture to highlight a controversial tweet that a quick thinking journalist saved for posterity. Then depending on the journalist's credibility, you can reference the article showing the tweet. Other than that, it's something you'd look at on a case by case basis, and I think it would largely depend on exactly what is being sourced. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:33, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Most of the time when a tweet is worth including in the Wikipedia article, there are reliable sources that comment on the tweet. For example, consider Donald Trump on social media: almost all tweets are referenced to secondary sources, not to Trump's Twitter account. —Kusma (t·c) 09:34, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Is sandbox public or private

Is my sandbox public or private? Sungpeshwe9 (talk) 11:32, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

@Sungpeshwe9: sandboxes are, as well as any other page on Wikipedia, accessibly by the public. They do not appear on well behaved search engines indexes. Victor Schmidt mobil (talk) 11:40, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Fixing a ping in the entry above. --CiaPan (talk) 11:43, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

• They are public, but not searchable by search engines. Someone would have to see it in the Recent Changes feed or know how to find it in order to see it. However, if you want to experiment or write a draft without anyone seeing it, you should not do it on Wikipedia itself, but in a word processing program on your computer/phone. 331dot (talk) 11:50, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

@Sungpeshwe9: It is worth adding that our policy on copyright violations also covers content pasted into sandboxes. I must confess that in my early days of editing, I used to innocently paste in newspaper/journal text, save it and then re-write it in my own words later on and then delete the original. I now realise this was against our rules, so I am careful now to either do that in a WordProcessor document, or paste, work on it, and then remove original material prior to any saving/publishing here. Hope this helps. Nick Moyes (talk) 13:33, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Specificity

Hi! I apologize first as this is a very specific question and I was not sure where to ask. I am wondering for reference what counts as a 'suicide'. If an individual attempts suicide but survives, and then dies from injuries caused by the attempt months later.. would that still be considered suicide?

I am new to the tea house and a little bit confused but I hope my question is properly formatted

Thank you La Transatlantique (talk) 12:14, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello La Transatlantique! If you don't find anything about this at the suicide article, try asking at Wikipedia:Reference desk. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:30, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

That is an interesting question, and really outside what teahouse is about, which is for Wikipedia-editing related questions. I could not find an authoritative legal answer. Medically, there are case reports in the literature of people who attempted to hang themselves, were interrupted while still alive, but died hours to days later (rarely, weeks to months) from the physical trauma of the attempted suicide or complications such as pneumonia. Can include people who are conscious and able to function physically and mentally after the rescue. I suppose attempted suicide by poison or gunshot or leaping from a height could also result in delayed death. David notMD (talk) 12:33, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you! I will go and have a look aat the reference desk. I appreciate your kindness though.

Thank you La Transatlantique (talk) 13:15, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

@La Transatlantique: To me, this scenario sounds like 'attempted suicide' in which the person subsequently died of injuries sustained during the failed attempt. But, as always, it depended on context and what sources state (not what you think). You can't jump in front of a train and be sufficiently injured that you die five months or five years later and have people say that you committed suicide. There might be something relevant in this personal essay: Wikipedia:Articles on suicides. Nick Moyes (talk) 13:28, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Is the West Virgnia explosion notable now?

Yesterday I had asked if the WV explosion was notable enough for an article, and I got a now. The only requirements I think it really needed was fatalities. Well, there has been confirmed fatality, so before I do anything, I would to make sure if it is notable enough now. • • rslashthinkong (User page) (User talk page) 13:35, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

One dead. My opinion - not notable. David notMD (talk) 15:33, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

@Rslashthinkong: I would like to add that I do find it a bit morbid to make notability hinge only on the number of deaths (although I understand why that's a convenient metric). The disaster was certainly reported in the news, but I concur with David notMD that it does not seem to be notable (which, technically, imo is a good thing because any notable disaster should be avoided!). But as an alternative to its own article, have you considered adding it to the article about the locality (Belle, West Virginia)? Subsections and info in existing articles do not need to follow the stricter notability guidelines of stand-alone articles afaik. --LordPeterII (talk) 16:30, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Whoops, I just saw it already got added there, so nevermind! Still, it would seem best to me to leave the info on that page, and not make a standalone article. --LordPeterII (talk) 16:43, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Ok, thanks! • • rslashthinkong (User page) (User talk page) 17:25, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Can't attach original picture.

Hello, I've been trying to attach my personal image but for some reasons I get this: ,,We could not determine whether this file is suitable for Wikimedia Commons. Please only upload photos that you took yourself with your camera, or see what else is acceptable. See the guide to make sure the file is acceptable and learn how to upload it on Wikimedia Commons."

It's a portrait of the person about who the page is being created. Thank you for your help:)

Best Regards, Domante Purtokaite DomaPurt (talk) 13:36, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, DomaPurt. Firstly, if you are creating an article about a Notable Person, the presence or absence of a photo makes absolutely no difference to whether the article is acceptable. So there is no need for you to upload one immediately, especially as you haven't even started work on any new article, as yet. I suggest you wait until you have. Secondly, did you take the photograph yourself? If not, you have no right to upload it, except under certain specific circumstances. Thirdly, here on English Wikipedia we don't deal directly with image upload issues because Wikimedia Commons is a separate entity. You may find additional help there at this url. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 13:53, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Newbie Confusion over removal of suggested edit

Just added this to the Talk page on Section 28 - and immediately had it removed....What did I do wrong?

Extended content

-- I'm Brand new here and joined because of this issue -- There is an issue with the Jill Knight comment retrieved from Hansard: Why did I bother to go on with it and run such a dangerous gauntlet? ... I was contacted by parents who strongly objected to their children at school being encouraged into homosexuality and being taught that a normal family with mummy and daddy was outdated. To add insult to their injury, they were infuriated that it was their money, paid over as council tax, which was being used for this. This all happened after pressure from the Gay Liberation Front. At that time I took the trouble to refer to their manifesto, which clearly stated: "We fight for something more than reform. We must aim for the abolition of the family". That was the motivation for what was going on, and was precisely what Section 28 stopped.[21] The quote of the line from the Gay Manifesto does not exist. No where in the Gay Manifesto does it state that they aim for the abolition of the family. To leave this quote as it is suggests, 'the aim of the abolition of the family', is a fact. The tone of the Gay Manifesto, which was written by the Gay Liberation Front (1969-1974), was the aim of the EVOLUTION of the idea of Gender, Family and Sexuality across society to become broader and more inclusive, along with the removal of Stereotyping of Gender Roles. Placing this in context, by 1969, for more families it was becoming common and necessary for both parents to work. The idea of Female equals homemaker and Male equals breadwinner across all classes was being undermined by the economic changes in Society and the Women's Liberation Movement. My apologies for not being more concise - but Jill Knight's comment needs to be rebutted(?) with fact for the sake of transparency, accuracy and fairness. Being a newbie here, it would not be right for me even to begin to attempt it. I will leave it to the more experienced :-) GLF Manifesto GLF Atomicman33 (talk) 13:09, 10 December 2020 (UTC) References

I then received this response....abrupt and unhelpful....Can someone please expand on what I did wrong as I thought it was constructive, I had cited sources and specified why it was necessary.

"Hello, I'm Materialscientist. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions—specifically this edit to Talk:Section 28—because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help desk. Thanks. Materialscientist (talk) 13:12, 10 December 2020 (UTC)"

thanking you in advance. Atomicman33 (talk) 13:44, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Atomicman33. I suspect Materialscientist removed this edit of yours because you posted it between a thread from 2011 and one from 2015! Quite how you managed to make that unusual error, I really don't know, but I suspect they simply saw a wall of text and thought it had no place there. New posts go at the bottom of the page, just as they are here at the Teahouse. Perhaps you should try again, this time by clicking the 'Add Topic' tab and then put in a short subject header and a clear description of your concerns. It certainly looked to be a 'Good Faith edit' to me. But in future, if you feel someone has dropped a 'templated message' unfairly on your talk page, the simple way is to respond politely to that person and seek an explanation. If you're unsure how to Notify them correctly, you could go to their talk page and ask them directly (but please include a link to the article or edit under discussion). They won't miss it that way! I'm afraid Wikipedia always seems complex at first, but in due course I'm sure you'll get the hang of it. And we're here to help you in that goal. Best wishes, Nick Moyes (talk) 14:03, 10 December 2020 (UTC) .

When to make a separate episode guide

I have added episode summaries for A Discovery of Witches season one, episodes 5-8. I tried to match the length of previously written summaries, but I agree that they are all too long and detailed. Season two starts airing in January, and I wondered if this would be a good time to make a separate article for the episode guide. I would then shift the more detailed episode descriptions there and condense the summaries on the main page. Kaboobie71 (talk) 13:48, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

ETA: I have sought out the pages of some other recent series and noticed that their episode summaries are at least as long, but have not been flagged as "too long or excessively detailed". For example, The Umbrella Academy. Kaboobie71 (talk) 19:31, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Can you site non digital sources?

I am working on a wiki article for a scientist at a major research university. I am having issues getting his article published. His work has been published in a lot of major peer reviewed journals and has made major contributions to his field. However, I could not find any secondary sources (articles written about him) other than peer reviews which are not digital and not easily accessed by the public. Any help or advice you can give me in getting this article published would be appreciated. Draft is for Richard L. Green an American condensed matter experimental physicist. Thank you!! Kstenson86 (talk) 13:59, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Kstenson86 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Reliable sources do not need to be online, and do not need to be easy or free to access, but they do need to be available to the public. Documents only in private hands inaccessible to the general public are not acceptable. 331dot (talk) 14:02, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

331dot Thank you for letting me know. Would a peer review be consider a secondary source. It is a critique of the scientists work but he is listed an author because it's his orignal material that they are citing and reviewing. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kstenson86 (talk • contribs) 14:09, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

I think I know, but I am not 100% confident in my ability to give an accurate answer to that, so I will leave it for someone else. 331dot (talk) 14:14, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

@Kstenson86: I have had to delete the main paragraph of this article. It was a blatant copyright violation from your university's website. Unfortunately, whilst 'hiding from view' the offending content the page has suffered an internal error, and will not display for certain groups of editors. I have been unable to correct this, but have reported the matter, so don't panic! However, if you know or are related to this person, or happen to be employed at the same University, you have a clear Conflict of Interest which you need to declare on your talk page. You should do this before attempting any further edits (once the page comes back to life). Even if you happen to have written that text on the University website, you may not paste it in here unless it has been released with an appropriate Creative Commons commercial-use licence. (The simplest way is to rewrite it in your own words in a style appropriate to users of this encyclopaedia). My other constructive feedback would be to suggest you consider how you can add citations to allow verification of his various awards and honours (see WP:REFBEGIN) and check WP:NACADEMIC for the notability criteria that scientists and academics do have to meet, which can be more esoteric than for boring old sports people or minor here-today-forgotten-tomorrow TV celebrities. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 14:59, 10 December 2020 (UTC)    

Thank you Nick MoyesI will follow your advice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kstenson86 (talk • contribs) 15:03, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Hey, where do I put stub templates?

Sometimes when I put stub templates on top of articles, I notice on other articles that the stub template is on the bottom. Am I doing something wrong? Toad62 14:21, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Toad62, Stub templates should be put at the bottom of an article. According to WP:STUBSPACING, these templates should be placed at the bottom bottom, under any navigation templates and categories.

Thank you for helping me, I appreciate it! Stay safe :) Toad62 15:17, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

@Toad62: User:SD0001/StubSorter is very useful. You don't have to search for a stub and sort, because that's inconvenient, and it puts it on the bottom of the page. Put it on your Common js page for it to work. --a gd fan (talk) 18:15, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Quality and importance

I've been working on adding quality and importance labels to articles related to the Wikiproject Podcasting. I was curious whether there was a standard convention for the capitalization of the different levels. For instance, should they always be capitalized or always be lowercase? Does it not matter at all? Should I just be consistent with the other banners on the page or should I change them all to a specific capitalization?

I also wanted to ask whether there is a standard convention for editing summaries. In this case I'm specifically asking about what the best editing summary would be for changing a banner status from one quality and importance rating to another, but I'm also curious if there are guidelines for edit summaries in general.

Wikiproject Podcasting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Podcasting

Priority Scale: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Release_Version_Criteria#Priority_of_topic

Importance Assessment: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Content_assessment#Importance_assessment 

TipsyElephant (talk) 14:31, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

UPE tag

How do you manage a UPE tag if it was assigned unfairly? What are the steps or the process to eliminate that from a page? Thank you Iulia Braila (talk) 14:40, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Imprima iRooms was originally created by User:Askwieuol a sock of User:Anatha Gulati, You, yourself have also added promotional material see here [5] sourced to their own website. You are are also being paid to edit. You CAN edit whilst being paid but you need to make a formal declaration on your user page. Theroadislong (talk) 15:15, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Determine if CtrlT (The Artist) is Notable

Is Ctrlt a Nigerian artist a notable person to write about? Ctrltoby (talk) 15:07, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Ctrltoby, Depends. After doing your research, do they meet the general notability guidelines? More specifically, Wikipedia:Notability (people)? Le Panini ^Talk 15:14, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

I would say not. I cannot find any evidence that the artist has received any coverage at all in reliable independent sources as required. Also, Ctrltoby, your username implies that you are the artist in question, in which case you are strongly discouraged from writing about yourself on Wikipedia per WP:COI -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:31, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

How do I find someone who can help me create a page devoted to an emerging science?

Hi. I'm a philosopher and a scientist new to Wikipedia. I'd like help creating a page devoted to an emerging science. Is there someone who can guide me through this process? I can't devote a ton of time to learning the intricacies of wiki editing, but can handle drafting the article, siting background research, etc. I need a collaborator who's passionate about science, knows Wikipedia, and wants to contribute to public understanding of an exciting new science. Can you help? Philo1963 (talk) 15:37, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Philo1963. Please would you explain what you mean by 'emerging science'? Wikipedia follows what has already been reported about new scientific developments. It does not serve to publicise new, unwritten-about theories or developments until they have been accepted by mainstream sources. You would need to be able to provide citations to previously published and reliable, independent sources if that were your hope. Nick Moyes (talk) 16:01, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Greetings and welcome to Wikipedia Philo1963! Sadly, I personally don't have time to help you atm, as I am busy with my own projects (as well as real life). But if you want to attract attention, maybe you should provide some information about that science you want to write about? Right now, I have no idea what you are referring to :)

Also, I must admit that I'm a bit skeptical since you are referring to it as "new" science. There are certainly many emerging areas of research, but not everything fits into Wikipedia (yet). Please make sure your subject meets the notability and verifiability guidelines; otherwise, it might be better to wait until the science has matured enough and sources (e.g. in journals) are available. Wikipedia is more of a long-term encyclopedia, and sometimes it's just not the place for cutting-edge developments. --LordPeterII (talk) 16:11, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

(Oops, Nick Moyes was quicker ^^) --LordPeterII (talk) 16:14, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Philo1963, please read WP:TOOSOON. Wikipedia is not for promotion.--Quisqualis (talk) 19:29, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

How do I make a draft get reviewed faster other than adding WikiProject tags?

Draft:Slater and Devil fires

Sorry if I am a bit impatient, but my best article is up for review, and I want it to get reviewed faster, but how? a gd fan (talk) 15:56, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

You dont. Please enhance your patience. Victor Schmidt (talk) 16:05, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

I second this. Le Panini ^Talk 16:09, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

I third this.SenatorLEVI (talk) 16:54, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

I fold. Le Panini ^Talk 16:57, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

@Le Panini: Fold? SnazzyInfinity (talk • contribs) 17:27, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

I don't know what you all are playing, but I'm playing Poker. Le Panini ^Talk 17:32, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

@GeometryDashFan12: The good news is that articles are not reviewed in any order. My impression is that draft articles that are about real events or real things (as opposed to minor TV celebrities, unheard of musicians or small businesses etc etc etc which are all usually chock full of promotional links) tend to get reviewed an awful lot quicker than the rest. Think of Wikipedia like a busy hospital - it takes patients. (sorry!) Nick Moyes (talk) 16:20, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

I would like to say though, that Thereisaloading did the review for you. Sometimes if you ask politely here, one of the hosts tend to be kind enough to do it, or leave comments and changes. Le Panini ^Talk 17:33, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Stub or Start

How can you tell if an article is Start class or a stub? Slater and Devil fires is now published as a stub, and the article is short, but I feel like its long enough to not be a stub. How can you tell if it's a stub? a gd fan (talk) 18:12, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Content assessment. Stub to Start: even if you are the creator, within reason that you decide if better than Stub. David notMD (talk) 18:28, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

The rule of thumb I like to follow is if the article is less that two full paragraphs its a stub. The official page for stubs says around 250-500 words, but it's mostly up to your best judgement. SnazzyInfinity (talk • contribs) 19:13, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Alternative methods for seeking vandalism

Bonjour members of the Teahouse, it is I once again. I've gotten into fighting vandalism, mostly through recent changes. This can be slow, and most of the time I get beat to it anyways. Are there any other more efficient ways to find vandalism? Thanks! SnazzyInfinity (talk • contribs) 19:18, 10 December 2020 (UTC) SnazzyInfinity (talk • contribs) 19:18, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

User:SnazzyInfinity, what apps are you currently using against vandalism? Let us know here please.--Quisqualis (talk) 19:26, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Typically either the undo button or Twinkle.. why? SnazzyInfinity (talk • contribs) 19:28, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

@SnazzyInfinity: perhaps Huggle? Sometimes patroling Special:AbuseLog can also be of interest. Victor Schmidt (talk) 19:48, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm not looking to install anything (possibly in the future), but I will look at the Filter Logs, thanks again! SnazzyInfinity (talk • contribs) 20:00, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Volunteer Author for New Page Needed? Women in Red (History) Author?

A Wikipedia page is needed for an incredible woman who organized and led efforts to acquire, preserve, restore one of the most well known Revolutionary War sites, helped preserve another internationally known site, worked with the original Daughters of the American Revolution and became founder, first Regent of one of the first significant Chapters of D.A.R., was Matron-In-Chief / Nurse for three years during Civil War, at times tending over 2,000 wounded soldiers, was present (nearby) for Abraham Lincoln's Gettysburg Address, was State Regent at 1893 Chicago World's Fair, Authored three books, all while helping organize, raise funds / supplies, donate time for multiple other National, State and Community causes.

While collating information for another project regarding this incredible women it came to our attention that she is more than well-deserving of a Wikipedia page, yet none exists. There are highly qualified historical writers who have written or supplied content and bibliographical data over the past 100+ years, however there are currently no writers available that also have the proper Wikipedia experience needed to author this page in a deserving way.

As you can easily tell I am neither a Historian or Writer. What we do have is an incredible amount of factual data supporting all of the above contributions. We are hoping to find a qualified writer to properly utilize that information for a page. The information historians, historical organizations, Authors and others have uncovered and have direct hyperlinks to comes from the Library of Congress, U.S. National Park Service, contemporary magazine and newspaper articles, pictures and factual data uncovered by highly qualified historians over the past 100+ years.

Please let me know if there is a qualified volunteer author we can review the data with.

Thank You. CBrookUM (talk) 19:54, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Why so covert? Can't you just give us the name, then it would be easier to judge if she were notable. Theroadislong (talk) 19:59, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Can you please tell us the title of the article you want, so we can tell whether we want to participate with you on the article?--Quisqualis (talk) 20:21, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

What is big enough to make an article about?

Since I saw an image posted as a joke (a screenshot of a tiny, kinda useless Wikipedia article that I don't think exists), I've been wondering about what kind of things are significant enough to make an entire article about. (I did dig up and read pages like this.) For example, Sans, Flowey, and Toriel have pages, but other main characters from Undertale don't. But then, they're rather important characters...?

I'm sorry if this question is too silly or has been asked before and I just didn't see it in the Teahouse... Galina&Oddity (talk) 20:02, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure if this answers your question, but the judgement wikipedia uses to determine if an article should exist has to do with wikipedia's Wikipedia:Notability guidelines. SnazzyInfinity (talk • contribs) 20:07, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

How to deal with evident errors in sources

I have been editing Wikipedia for a while but would appreciate thoughts on the best way to deal with this. The page on Alma Thomas has a significant number of issues. Among them, it included two incorrect statements citing old and current versions of a webpage from the National Museum of Women in the Arts, saying that in college two professors (Jones and Herring) influenced her to change her painting style toward abstraction (and extrapolating from those pages to say further things that are not stated in them, such as that she had further (post graduate) education at Howard University). This source, the NMWA webpage, is contradicted by numerous other sources, and obviously wrong on one point - Jones was not "her" professor, but was 14 years younger than her and only became a professor at Howard 6 years after Thomas had graduated. I thought just deleting the incorrect statements would look baseless and result in their coming back. I deleted one of the two incorrect statements and corrected the other, with explanations of my edits and adding a note at the place of the deletion explaining why the previously-cited source was wrong. Is there a better approach to deal with an incorrect factual statement in an article supported by a source that is obviously and demonstrably wrong?

Thanks. Sullidav (talk) 20:13, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

The best way is to see if there exist other sources that contain the accurate information, and removing the inaccurate source for one of those. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Takes a strong man to deny...} 20:16, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Specify PDF page number

I want to update the image on Panama Canal fence to reference the 5th page of the pdf file (the one with the map), but I can't figure out how to - there doesn't seem to be an option on the visual editor and there's not an attribute for page number in the source editor Condimentary (talk) 20:37, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Condimentary The problem is that the "image" is actually the entire multi-page pdf document. You should upload the relevant page seperately to use it in the article. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:46, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Updating the photo for a Russian monument

Hi there. This regards the page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alyosha_Monument,_Murmansk

The photo there is quite low resolution, and I thought the article could do with a higher resolution photo that shows more detail, so I was going to replace it with one I took while visiting this year. (Of course it's debatable whether my photo is otherwise better.)

However, when I go to the photo, it seems there is some copyright issue with sculptures according to Russian law.

What should I do about this? Is it OK for me to upload this photo and use it on the wiki page?

Sorry for writing about such an insignificant issue. I'd like to learn to contribute better and get a bit more involved. Aapeliv (talk) 21:02, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Why has such a simple thing become such a user-hostile experience?

• List_of_recognized_higher_education_accreditation_organizations#United_States includes a broken link to WASC_Accrediting_Commission_for_Community_and_Junior_Colleges. The proper target for this link is the page Accrediting_Commission_for_Community_and_Junior_Colleges.
• This seems like it may be a common mistake, so I sought to add a redirect. The "Wikipedia does not have an article with this exact name" page seems to indicate that the Wikipedia:Article_wizard is the place to do this.
• The wizard is excessively long and forgets the name of the page the user was originally at, potentially requiring the user to go back in history in order to copy the desired page name. Actually entering the code for the redirect is trivial, but submitting the text is for some reason a multi-step process including lots of boilerplate for who-knows-what-reason.
• Then of course the request is denied, because I'm supposed to know to use some different wizard that isn't linked from the "Wikipedia does not have an article with this exact name" page.

By this point I have spent far more time on this task than it was worth, and I regret even attempting it. I've made multiple anonymous edits to Wikipedia over the years, but I suspect I'll be much more hesitant in the future. 108.246.204.20 (talk) 21:14, 10 December 2020 (UTC)