Wikipedia:Teahouse

GoingBatty, 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

Citations

Can YouTube videos be cited? For example, if I'm building a Career graph of a news anchor, is a citation of the interviews he/she have conducted and which may be on YouTube permissable? Mommatwrk (talk) 02:51, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

@Mommatwrk: YouTube videos can be cited, but consider who is publishing the video (like you would consider who publishes a magazine or newspaper article). Also, Template:Cite AV media reminds us that we should not cite material that violates copyright law. GoingBatty (talk) 04:53, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

@Mommatwrk: you may want to check this out too, Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. - Bekkadn (talk) 07:57, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for these. Will check them out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mommatwrk (talk • contribs) 15:07, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

@Mommatwrk: – also check WP:YOUTUBE – cheers, Epinoia (talk) 22:34, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Olšina (Ralsko)

Hi, and thanks for the Tea-Room chat site.

I recently translated a Czech Wiki article about an extinct village. Based on my personal family research, a great-grandfather of mine was born in this village. Since the article only exists on a Czech wiki article, (with pictures), I made my very first attempt to translate the information using the Wiki translation tool. At the moment it appears only as a 'Draft'. I'm just wondering how long it will take until it will be reviewed and published online by the Wiki Editing Team.

Thank you for your time and efforts.

Kirk Haggerty Munich, Germany KPHaggerty (talk) 14:42, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

@KPHaggerty: To ask someone to review Draft:Olšina (Ralsko), please add {{subst:sumbit}}{{subst:submit}} to the top of your draft. It could take several months to be reviewed. GoingBatty (talk) 15:17, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi KPHaggerty. I have transformed two of the citations your used, taking them from naked URLs to fully-attributed citations. This should help with the review that will take place once you follow GoingBatty's advice. Best regards-Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:26, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you GoingBatty and Fuhghettaboutit. I hope I did it correctly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KPHaggerty (talk • contribs) 15:25, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

@KPHaggerty: Oops! I misspelled "submit" in my instructions above, which I've now corrected. Sorry about that! GoingBatty (talk) 17:03, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

@KPHaggerty: I have fixed it at the draft and also repositioned the images so that the text is not squeezed between. (Please remember to sign your posts on talk pages by typing four keyboard tildes like this: ~~~~. Or, you can use the [ reply ] button, which automatically signs posts.) Thank you. Eagleash (talk) 17:08, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

@Eagleash: I updated the template so it indicates the draft was submitted by KPHaggerty instead of you. GoingBatty (talk) 17:16, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Oh *****! I have to do that everytime a certain help desk regular adds it for another editor, so should have remembered! Eagleash (talk) 17:29, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Question about judging notability of current events

Hi all! I'm a fairly new editor, and while I think I have a decent grasp on WP:N, I wanted to ask: is an event like the ongoing power outage in Texas sufficiently notable in its own right that it deserves an article separate from February 13–16, 2021 North American winter storm or list of major power outages? I don't intend to create an article myself just yet, but I think this makes for an illustrative example. Moonjail (talk) 02:33, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Moreover, let me know if such an article already exists and my search game is just too weak to find it. Moonjail (talk) 02:37, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Moonjail! Ultimately, I think (this is highly subjective; others here may have different opinions) that this passes the WP:GNG and therefore could have its own article, but as it stands, I think it's worth it to contain the information in one article instead of splintering it off. While creating a splinter article could help to divide the content into subsections and allow the incorporation of more details, it could also mean that it's more difficult to navigate to and/or that it doesn't receive as much editorial oversight as a centralized article. If anything, I would try to stay within the framework of one article for the time being, and if the issue in Texas persists over a long time or otherwise becomes an ongoing ordeal (e.g. becomes a large, recurring political or infrastructure rebuilding issue), then reconsider splintering it off.

However, this isn't cut-and-dry. I would say that if essentially all you wanted to do was take what's in the article right now, add a few details, and push it off to a new article, then it should stay in the main article. However, if you and others would be willing to greatly add to the existing material and cover it in depth from multiple angles, it could be worth an article. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 04:05, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, TheTechnician27, that helps a lot. Unfortunately it's looking like this is going to be a protracted ordeal that demands separate inclusion, but I think I'd better defer to more experienced editors WRT starting a draft in the very near future. Moonjail (talk) 00:09, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

About Reliable Source

Are this 3 news portal reliable according to Wikipedia's policy asianage, Deccan Chronical, The Statesman ?? Jroynoplan (talk) 11:57, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

I assume that by "news portal" you mean a website that republishes or otherwise aggregates news stories from other sources- it is those other sources that would be the reliable source, not the portal itself. 331dot (talk) 12:03, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jroynoplan (talk • contribs) 12:06, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

@Jroynoplan: @331dot: I think the OP is asking whether the three news brands listed (Asian Age, Deccan Chronical, and The Statesmen) are reliable sources, to which I would reply that those news outlets are generally allowed by the Wikipedia community. They are established newspapers in India so it would be hard to argue otherwise. Geicraftor (talk) 09:27, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Hello @Geicraftor:, thank you. Really this information is helpful.

Is this a reliable source, or too biased?

While I share this site's viewpoint, I wonder if it is too biased to be considered a reliable source: https://www.zinnedproject.org. Dgndenver (talk) 18:01, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

@Dgndenver: That is a pretty POV heavy source, it seems to exist to push Howard Zinn's ideas. That's not a neutral source in my book. I think you could find a better source for almost anything it is looking to cover. Also, it seems mostly focused on teaching to younger school kids, whereas we are mostly looking to use college level or above sources. AdmiralEek (talk) 18:18, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Dgndenver It looks pretty biased. Just an FYI, another good place to ask (though a bit more formal) is at the reliable sources noticeboard, and there is also a list of many sources and their reliability that Wikipedians have made. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 18:50, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you both.Dgndenver (talk) 15:45, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Where should I write this piece

Hi, I'm a student from Queens, and I'm spending this semester researching pandemics across a few classes and fields. As of now, I have my research topic: The ways African-American communities in New York City have changed since the COVID-19 pandemic began, and hopefully, this research will help in making historical parallels between this pandemic and the 1918 Flu pandemic (Though, I'm unsure if I intend to include these parallels within my Wikipedia writing). So, I wonder where I would actually place this research on Wikipedia. I think I could add it on to COVID-19 pandemic in New York City or African Americans in New York City, though I can also see it being worthwhile to make the topic its own page, as it is a topic that could be expanded and widened beyond my own research question. Any help would be appreciated! Owenpayne2000 (talk) 18:31, 17 February 2021 (UTC) Owenpayne2000 (talk) 18:31, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Owenpayne2000, welcome to the Teahouse. Would these be findings that have come up from sources that you found for your research and are considered reliable by Wikipedia's standards? Those would be welcome, but something from your own paper would be considered original research, which is something that Wikipedia would not be looking for (not to mention a potential conflict of interest). —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 18:38, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

I will not be producing any of my own research, I have access to a lot of libraries and encyclopedias through my University library, so hopefully, I'll be citing those scholarly sources first. I would be writing this article as a collection of information without a specific agenda or POV I desire to push, I would be making those arguments in separate papers and assignments. I want to treat this article as an exercise in objectivity. Owenpayne2000 (talk) 19:06, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

@Owenpayne2000: I see. I suggest starting an article in draftspace (Your first article has a lot more information on the process, and you might want to take a look at good and featured articles to get an idea of how articles should be structured); I'll point out two things as you're gathering sources: secondary sources are preferred over primary sources, because they establish the subject's notability (plus Wikipedia is a tertiary source), and take care not to draw inappropriate conclusions from improperly synthesising content from different sources. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:33, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Alright! Ill keep that all in mind as I write. Thank you for your help and clarity. Owenpayne2000 (talk) 15:35, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

How can I properly demonstrate the notability of a topic?

Hi all,

I am very new to wiki, and have posted my first article, which has been published. I have added 3 references from newspaper articles to the subject, 2 of which, I feel, prominently feature my subject. I woke this morning to the following update from wiki: "The topic of this article may not meet Wikipedia's general notability guideline. Please help to demonstrate the notability of the topic by citing reliable secondary sources that are independent of the topic and provide significant coverage of it beyond a mere trivial mention. If notability cannot be shown, the article is likely to be merged, redirected, or deleted". I should hate for my article to be deleted, but at this time, I have limited sources for references.

I have 2 questions around this: 1: What is the deadline to find additional references? 2: What else can I add? I have tried the Wiki FIND feature, but nothing comes up.

Thanks in advance Gold 3350 (talk) 21:43, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Courtesy: Lance TV Ballarat David notMD (talk) 23:39, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Pinging Boneymau. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 00:31, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Well Gold 3350, my thinking was the Courier articles are borderline because that is the local Ballarat newspaper so not really reflecting wider regional or national notability. And the ABC article is mainly about broadcasting licences and uses Lance TV as an example rather than it being significantly about Lance TV. As usual, WP:GNG applies and there might also be a guideline that is more specific to the topic. It's skating pretty close to the notability standard and probably dipping below it, which is why I added the note. You should also declare a WP:COI if you have one. Boneymau (talk) 22:38, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Error Maybe

Hi I am a new user and I think I have made an error submitting my article. Can anyone please advise. I followed a source from You tube on submitting articles, But I am not sure if that was correct. I tried searching for the article through Googles search engine and could not find it. Willmajor1 (talk) 00:43, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Willmajor1 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. The article needs to be marked as formally reviewed, and once it is, it takes time for search engines to index it. It appears that you have written about yourself; though not forbidden, it is discouraged. Please see the autobiography policy. Any further changes will need to be made as edit requests on the article talk page. 331dot (talk) 00:48, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

@Willmajor1: You created the article Will_Major. It will not show up in Google or other search engines until it has been reviewed or after 90 days, whichever comes first. If you are Will Major, you should not be writing about yourself -- see WP:AUTO. RudolfRed (talk) 00:50, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Willmajor1 The article has been nominated for deletion. Standard practice is a week or two for discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Will Major, after which an Administrator will make a decision. The problem is weak references. You are welcome to try to add stronger references about Will Major's music career. Refs to his songs do not contribute to notability. This may be WP:TOOSOON. You can also leave a comment at the deletion page. (You should not add a "Keep" as you are the article's creator.) David notMD (talk) 08:23, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Newbie picture editor

Hello all, have been editing for 3 1/2 years in Indian films (saw hundreds) and now wish to picture-edit many of the film posters, beginning with early Tamil films. Thai Ullam of 1952 is a good example. Many aren't pictured squarely, have tattered edges, creases, stains etc. Have GIMP program and have used it on a couple hundred of my own pictures. I just want to restore original appearance as much as possible. As Lincoln said "It is above our poor power to add or detract. I may not be programmed for etiquette and protocol, but I wish to get the procedural stuff right. I've read that you don't have to be in the graphics lab list, but i'm announcing that I will be doing it. Comments? Suggestions? Menjobleeko11 (talk) 01:11, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

@Menjobleeko11: The thing about film posters is that they're non-free content and are used on Wikipedia under fair use for identification purposes. In many cases, this means that the rights belong to the creators of the poster, and Wikipedia does not have the rights to modify the image. Therefore, I'd suggest just leaving the images as is. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 02:52, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Won't be doing it.Menjobleeko11 (talk) 01:37, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

How Much is Too Much?

Hello Wikipedians, I'm new to editing and I'd like to know "how much is too much" when adding to a section dedicated to potential objections to a theory/idea/etc that an article is about.

To give a practical example, the article I think I'd like to edit is this one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain_in_a_vat

If you scroll down, there's two short paragraphs explaining potential objections to the thought experiment. I'd like to add one more that I recently learned about in my philosophy class. I think it is not only a fascinating objection, but upon subsequent research it seems to have had a considerable influence upon contemporary scholarship in the area, as many philosophers have either wrote about it or attempted to answer the objection itself.

My only fear is that it's inclusion in the article will make the objections section too long, perhaps longer than the lead section itself. I wouldn't want to unintentionally convey to the reader that this thought experiment is somehow invalid or bad on the basis of there being a lot of objections to it. I thought about asking the talk page, but that doesn't seem to have gotten attention since George Bush was President, and I mean that literally.

So, in general, how could I know without consulting anyone that adding to a section would not make it excessive?

Thanks everyone. Mmarinkovic5678 (talk) 02:29, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

@Mmarinkovic5678: It's hard to tell you without seeing the paragraph first. However, do keep in mind that everything on Wikipedia needs to be attributed to reliable sources, so you'll have to find those first. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 02:56, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Mmarinkovic5678. The concept that you are looking for is due and undue weight, which is a subsection of our core content policy requiring a Neutral point of view. In order to make a confident judgement, you need to be conversant with the range of opinion among mainstream philosophers about this thought experiment. Consider the quality of the reliable sources you would use as references. If you are acting in good faith, you are welcome to make a bold edit, with at least one good reference. But if other editors disagree, pay serious attention to their arguments. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:03, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Go for it. As long as you have references to add. The article gets >10,000 views per month (?!?!) and has an active edit history, so you should get responses that could range from deletion to addition. You should consider starting a new section on the Talk page at the same time, with a rationale for your addition. David notMD (talk) 08:37, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the responses, everyone. I think I will go ahead and make the addition, bearing in mind the necessity of discussing it on the talk page and using reliable sources.Mmarinkovic5678 (talk) 23:17, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Established band, has reviews - rejected for Notability

Hi there - I have been working on creating a page for a band I love - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Beequeen - It was rejected due to a notability issue. While they are not the Rolling Stones, Beequeen has been around for over 30 years and has been reviewed many times, played around the world, and has particularly notable member. I added in new references after it was initially rejected. I reviewed the Notability in Music Wiki page and feel I followed those directions.

I submitted back in October for the next review, and know it takes time. But I didn't enter in any keywords for the reviewers. I tried to enter things, but that process didn't make sense to me. And I can make more updates while I wait for the next review.

Please take a peak at the draft page and let me know if you can make any suggestions to make this smoother going from here.

Many thanks to all of you for the assistance! Don Muteelation (talk) 03:10, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

@Muteelation: Which of the criteria listed at Wikipedia:Notability (music)#Criteria for musicians and ensembles does Beequeen meet? I also suggest adding independent sources to the draft. Also see WP:ITALICS and WP:REFPUNCT. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 03:24, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

@GoingBatty: 1) When you mention which notability topic do they trigger - They certainly cover Criteria #1 - Coverage in non trivial manners in independent reviews. These are listed at the bottom of the draft page. #6 is a certainty, but I didn't cover that too much in the article to give the main focus to this band, Beequeen, not to the individual members. #7 is a sure thing - again, I didn't expound on the individuals, but one member is world famous for his work and stature in experimental music. So - how do I notate this in the article so it gets through the review? Nothing I see in other articles calls out how people are notable to specific criteria. So when you asked in your reply, how do I ensure this is covered?

2) Independent sources are already added in the draft. 3) When you pointed out the italics and punctuation articles - did you mean I needed to add italics or the article had punctuation issues? What was the reference to those 2 links for? Thanks!Don Muteelation (talk)

@Muteelation: Notability is important for every article. I suggest you change the list of reviews into paragraphs supported by those reviews. Album titles and magazines should be italicized, and punctuation should be placed before the references (not afterwards). Hope this helps! GoingBatty (talk) 05:08, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

@Muteelation: I have created several articles about fairly obscure bands which have been accepted. I am not familiar with Beequeen, but I've taken a quick look at your draft and I can see several areas where it could be improved fairly quickly and easily, particularly the formatting and referencing. When I get some time over the next couple of days I'll see if I can help bring it up to standard. Turner Street (talk) 10:39, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

@Turner Street: Many thanks for the assistance. Last night, prior to your review, I had updated many of the references to remove Discogs as a link and tried to avoid simple interviews as a reference, instead going to third party reviews where possible. I'd love your assistance.

As some background, one of the members, Frans de Waard, has been a major mover and shaker in the experimental music scene since the early 80's tape culture. He still publishes Vital Weekly which is a weekly experimental music review online zine of sorts, and a book was published of the past 30 years of reviews recently. He has collaborated with musicians around the globe and has, oh boy, several hundred releases.

Thanks! Don Muteelation (talk) 12:57, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Want to Create Page for "Dr. Vivek Bindra"

Want to Create a Page for "Dr. Vivek Bindra"

I know how to create a page on Wikipedia, I want to ask here that can I start creating the page about "Dr. Vivek Bindra"

Is enough for the article to cite?

1. https://in.bookmyshow.com/person/dr-vivek-bindra/1089394
2. https://www.businessinsider.in/india/news/from-carry-minati-to-bb-ki-vines-these-are-the-10-most-popular-youtube-stars-in-india/slidelist/76276240.cms#slideid=76276413
3. https://photogallery.indiatimes.com/celebs/celeb-themes/indian-youtubers-who-started-small-and-skyrocketed-to-success/articleshow/77215198.cms?picid=77216418
4. https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/topic/Vivek-Bindra
5. https://www.republicworld.com/entertainment-news/bollywood-news/vivek-bindra-early-life-achievements-and-other-details-revealed.html
6. https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/ratan-tata-on-bharat-ratna-campaign-by-vivek-bhindra-on-twitter-would-humbly-like-to-request-that-such-campaigns-be-discontinued-2364362 Digimarksomnath (talk) 07:27, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

@Digimarksomnath: No, it is nowhere near enough. None of those sources would be possible to use in a Wikipedia article. Many attempts have been made to use Wikipedia as a platform to promote Vivek Bindra (which is why Vivek Bindra, Dr. Vivek Bindra and possibly other titles as well are protected from creation), and it is clear that he is not notable according to Wikipedia's definition of notability. See also Draft:Vivek Bindra, and the information about conflict-of-interest editing on your user talk page. --bonadea contributions talk 07:49, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

According to the draft, his doctorate is from a fake university. That is not going to fool anyone.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 12:45, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Remove tags

I plan to remove a tag to my Draft, but do not know how to proceed. Henk Borgdorff (talk) 09:30, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Henk Borgdorff The unreferenced tag has been removed. The three Declined notices must stay as long as this is a draft. Given that your User name is the same as the draft Draft:Henk Borgdorff, the autobiography tag must stay, unless you are not Henk, in which case you must change your User name. David notMD (talk) 13:22, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Henk Borgdorff (talk) 13:47, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Henk Borgdorff If you are Henk Borgdorff, you should state that on your User page. Autobiography is discouraged (see WP:AUTO for reasons and how to manage) but not forbidden. David notMD (talk) 14:09, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

The Biography section needs references for all facts. Also, there are many hyperlinks in the article. These all need to be removed. Wikilinks are allowed (appear in blue) if there are existing Wikipedia articles. David notMD (talk) 14:12, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Dear David notMD, David notMD (talk) I have removed the hyperlinks in the article (and placed the references in footnotes). I thought I already stated my name on my User page, but I guess I have not...? Could you please tell me how to proceed with this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Henk Borgdorff (talk • contribs) 15:01, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Henk Borgdorff Click your username that you see on this page, that will take you to an edit window for your user page. 331dot (talk) 15:25, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Dear 331dot (talk), I have created a user page. Will this do? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Henk Borgdorff (talk • contribs) 15:30, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

On the User page, you should declare that you are creating a draft about yourself. Autobiography policy does not forbid this, but does discourage. David notMD (talk) 17:56, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

closed quotation mark and closed parenthesis on new line

In the Pietro Aretino entry, footnote 16 ends with a closed quotation mark and a closed parenthesis on a new line. That looks bad. In an effort to bring them up to the preceding line, I removed the parentheses--open and closed. That didn't work; it left the quotation mark on its own line. Therefore, I replaced the parentheses, because, all things being equal, I prefer them. Can this be fixed? Maurice Magnus (talk) 12:03, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi Maurice Magnus. What is your browser? It is your browser window and settings which determine whether something happens to be at the end of a line. It is usually your browser which determines where to wrap it to the next line. The text was People.″). Repeated many times:

People.″) People.″) People.″) People.″) People.″) People.″) People.″) People.″) People.″) People.″) People.″) People.″) People.″) People.″) People.″) People.″) People.″) People.″) People.″) People.″)

My Firefox browser never wraps between ″ and ) or between . and ″ when I change window width. Apparently your browser makes a different choice. We use straight quotation marks and apostrophes per MOS:STRAIGHT. I have applied this to the whole article so the text is now People."). Repeated many times:

People.") People.") People.") People.") People.") People.") People.") People.") People.") People.") People.") People.") People.") People.") People.") People.") People.") People.") People.") People.")

Firefox doesn't wrap between " and ) or between . and ". I don't know what your browser does. It's possible to disallow wrapping with {{nowrap}} but I wouldn't use it here. There isn't enough reason to clutter up the wikitext. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:49, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

PrimeHunter, thank you for fixing it. My browser was Edge. It looks good on Firefox as well, although I don't know whether it had been a problem on Firefox before you fixed it.

I've always clicked on the quotation marks at the bottom of this (and every Wikipedia) page, which come out curly; I thought that we were supposed to. If using the straight quotation marks on the keyboard is acceptable, then I'll use them. But, if they're acceptable, then why does Wikipedia have the curly ones at the bottom of the page? I suppose that one should use them for the sake of consistency, when editing an entry in which others have used them.Maurice Magnus (talk) 13:05, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

@Maurice Magnus: I have tested Edge with the same result as you. It may wrap between . and ″ but not between . and ", so all is good. ″ is not a curly quotation mark ” but a double prime. It has some valid uses in Wikipedia but not to quote. The straight quotation mark is on keyboards so we don't use space on it in the wiki markup menu. Same for single prime versus apostrophe. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:28, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

e/c @Maurice Magnus: FYI, you can see previous versions of most Wikipedia pages, articles among them, by visiting the page's history and chosing an appropriate link there. --CiaPan (talk) 13:31, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Let me make sure that I understand. I glanced at the Wikipedia page "Line wrap and word wrap," and I gather that wrapping is what we want -- it means to keep stuff on the same line, right? (I don't need to understand the technicalities of what it is.) Another question: How is that you two, PrimeHunter and CiaPan, replied to my post on TeaHouse so promptly? Did you just happen to check it this morning, or do you get notifications when someone posts? Maurice Magnus (talk) 13:39, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

@Maurice Magnus: Line wrap and word wrap is our encyclopedia article for readers. Help:Line-break handling is more useful to editors. Wrapping means to continue on the next line. Nowrapping means to keep on the same line. The Teahouse is on my watchlist but I have also added a TH link to the top of all pages, using code in User:PrimeHunter/vector.js. This page is frequently edited and often I just click the TH link, expecting new posts since my last visit. I also have VPT and HD links for other pages where I answer many questions. The links use the anchor #footer which is automatically added to the bottom of Wikipedia pages. I don't get notifications unless you ping me, and our replies weren't particularly fast. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:09, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

How Do I publish my userpage

FYI

 – combined sections by same person about same topic. GoingBatty (talk) 17:09, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm trying to publish a user page and it won't allow me to publish my page saying an automated filter is blocking me? Dr. Steve Perry (talk) 15:45, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

I was flagged and deleted for apparently self promoting so I took out a lot of my article and only left a bit in no resume is in my article just a few facts about notable coverage and my message to help spread positivity in the world. Do you think it will be flagged again? Dr. Steve Perry (talk) 17:04, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

@Dr. Steve Perry: Welcome to the Teahouse! I see you have a userpage at User:Dr. Steve Perry. Please note that the userpage is not a place for you to post your biography as if it is a Wikipedia article - see WP:UPNOT. What is the complete message that you are receiving? GoingBatty (talk) 17:07, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

@Dr. Steve Perry: The big red banner that is now on your userpage is not an automated filter, but was manually added by Pahunkat because it appears you are trying to promote yourself instead of helping to build the Wikipedia encyclopedia. Again, please see WP:UPNOT. GoingBatty (talk) 17:12, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

GoingBatty, thanks for pinging me here - by the looks of things there isn't much left to do now :-( Pahunkat (talk) 19:38, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

@Dr. Steve Perry: Please stop trying to create an article about yourself. Your content, currently (again) on your User page is self-promotional, and has no place at Wikipedia. Expect that it will be deleted again. If you persist, you will be blocked. David notMD (talk) 18:11, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Appears that Dr. Steve Perry has recreated User:Dr. Steve Perry after it has been Speedy deleted at least once. SP also had the content in a Sandbox that was Speedy deleted. UPDATE: SD'd again, and gone. David notMD (talk) 18:11, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

AND...Dr. Steve Perry blocked. David notMD (talk) 18:18, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Correction

Hello,

Recently I have made a correction to a Wikipedia entry but it didn't get accepted. I believe the information in the original article is bias and provides misinformation on the subject. What could I do under the circumstances? Shouldn't there be some option for balanced information presentation in Wikipedea?

Thank you for your soon response.

Lana

 2607:FEA8:7A5F:CD30:4064:6EEA:E63E:8ECB (talk) 15:48, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

In general, if one of your edits is deleted, the next step is to discuss it on the article's talk page. See WP:BRD for more info. You didn't state which article this happened on, so more specific advice is not possible. Also, you should not post personal details when asking questions. RudolfRed (talk) 16:28, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The first thing to do would be to tell us what the article in question is. A look at your editing history shows nothing apart from the above edit. Without that info, there's not much that we can do to help or advise. Chaheel Riens (talk) 16:29, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Can Joey Bishop and Larry Bishop, Jerry G Bishop be added in the category of american jews.

 Jack1578 (talk) 17:16, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

@Jack1578: Please see the reply to your previous question on this topic. They are in subcategories of that category. RudolfRed (talk) 17:20, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

WorkTime (software) article improvment

Hi,guys I want to post a new article (about employee monitoring software, named WorkTime) And need help with making it. Looks like there is not a lot of info about it,maybe you can help? Thank You! Joseph1993BLP (talk) 17:20, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

(ec) Honestly there's not much more to add than the comments made by Timtrent at Draft:WorkTime (2). Reliable, third party sources are key. If you cannot find any, then it's not an appropriate topic and the only advice would be to write about something else. --Paul ❬talk❭ 17:57, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

The first thing you should ask yourself before making an article is: Is it NOTABLE? If you can't find any reliable, independent sources that talk about this software, it shouldn't have an article. WhoAteMyButter (📨│📝) 17:54, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Draft:WorkTime was Declined three times and then Rejected. Draft:WorkTime (2) does not appear to be an improvement. David notMD (talk) 18:16, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Question from JESUS IS THE WAY123

So do I edit whatever I want or is there anything specific you would like me to be editing? I would love to have something assigned to me and can work with whatever you give me. -JESUS IS THE WAY123 JESUS IS THE WAY123 (talk) 18:57, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

JESUS IS THE WAY123 General rule is edit what you know. No assignment process. David notMD (talk) 21:37, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

@JESUS IS THE WAY123: We can always use some help at Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:51, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

@JESUS IS THE WAY123: You could also consider joining a WikiProject to work with editors with similar interests, such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 01:02, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

WP:TASKS may have something you like. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:45, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Singers notability

Hello everyone, If a singer has a verified page on Facebook, does it mean if i make a biography for him on Wiki, it will be accepted?

Best regards Bahastt (talk) 18:58, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Bahastt. Facebook's description of a verified user is: "The verified badge appears next to a Facebook Page or account’s name in search and on the profile. It means Facebook has confirmed that an account is the authentic presence of the public figure, celebrity, or global brand it represents." One of its qualifications is that the subject is 'Notable', and their definition of notability is: "Your account must represent a well-known, often searched person, brand or entity. We review accounts that are featured in multiple news sources, and we don't consider paid or promotional content as sources for review."

With that said, Facebook's notability standards may vary greatly from Wikipedia's. For a singer, these are WP:GNG and WP:SINGER. I would look at both of these, as while the singer may meet Wikipedia's criteria, being verified on Facebook does not confer notability, nor does it necessarily imply that it will meet Wikipedia's notability standards. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 19:14, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Bahastt. Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost entirely interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources. While a verified page on Facebook may meet the requirement of being a reliable source (unlike most things on Facebook), it will not be independent of the subject, and so can be used in only very limited ways, and does not contribute to meeting Wikipedia's criteria on notability. --ColinFine (talk) 23:25, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Dear theTechnician and Coline, thank you both very much, now i understand more. Bahastt (talk) 07:05, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Requests for MasterClass article

Hello! My name is Alyssa and I work for MasterClass. I've disclosed this on my profile and at Talk:MasterClass, where I've proposed some changes to correct and update the article. More specifically, I've asked to fix language about the company's founding and remove a sentence which is not specifically confirmed by sourcing. I tried posting at a few WikiProjects but still haven't received feedback. Maybe an editor who helps here could take a look? Thanks in advance! MC Alyssa (talk) 19:02, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

@MC Alyssa: Addressed on Talk:MasterClass page. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 23:25, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Template query

Is there a template that says something like "this article can be expanded using text from this related article... Cheers --Arcahaeoindris (talk) 19:30, 18 February 2021 (UTC) Arcahaeoindris (talk) 19:30, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

@Arcahaeoindris: It's not exactly quite what you want, but you can add a link to the other article in the talk page and add this template: Template:Missing information. But to avoid duplicating content in multiple articles, which may not be updated concurrently, sometimes it's better to just add a short summary of the info you feel is missing, and link to the other article in the "see also" section. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:49, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

How to italicize parts of an article title?

Mars Helicopter Ingenuity has "Ingenuity" in italics. How can I create an article, on Wikipedia, that has only a part of the title in Italics? User:Tetizeraz. Send me a ✉️ ! 19:34, 18 February 2021 (UTC) User:Tetizeraz. Send me a ✉️ ! 19:34, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

@Tetizeraz: Looking at that article, it uses {{Italic title|string=Ingenuity}} to specify the part of the title to italicize. RudolfRed (talk) 19:38, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

@Tetizeraz: You can also use {{DISPLAYTITLE}}. GoingBatty (talk) 01:08, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Suggestion for a correction

I noticed, what I believe to be a mistake in a page, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Block_cipher_mode_of_operation Below the table Summary of modes, there is a note about g(i). I believe this should be f(i). Before I make this change, how can I ask previous editors of this page if this is correct? Wi11iams (talk) 19:52, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

@Wi11iams: Welcome to Wikipedia and thanks for wanting to make it better. You can start a discussion on that article's talk page to ask other editors about it. Alternatively, you may be WP:BOLD and make the change. If someone disagrees, they will revert the change and then you can discuss it. See WP:BRD for more info. RudolfRed (talk) 20:27, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Reference

How do I bring a reference from a reliable source if there is no reference? Asaduk93 (talk) 20:07, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Click the cite button and then put the url of the reliable source into the automatic section. This might help WP:CITE. TigerScientist Chat 20:17, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Asaduk93. While I'm aware your question has already been answered by TigerScientist, I assumed this question was about Draft:fast Cell Repair Ltd. and hopped over to take a look. Upon closer inspection, whether intentionally or accidentally, you removed lines from the draft that were marked as 'Do not remove' (these lines were three instances of the draft's submission being rejected, plus a comment from SK2242). Additionally, you uploaded a high-res image of Fast Cell Repair's logo to Wikipedia without any sort of licensing, and you added unambiguous marketing to the draft – on top of how much was already there – namely: "[Fast Cell Repair] has a reputation through its reliable services." Because of this, I've left a message on your talk page asking you to please disclose any financial stake in promoting this or any other topic you edit about should one actually exist. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 21:09, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Requesting an Interview with a Wikipedia User, Editor, or Content Moderator

Hello, I am a student at IUPUI (Indiana University–Purdue University Indianapolis), studying Human-Computer Interaction, and a new Wikipedia user. We have a project regarding the social processes of communication, conversation, and collaboration online. We picked Wikipedia and its talk pages. Seeking a Wikipedia user or editor with moderate experience, we would like to interview you and ask some questions. It should take no more than a hour over Zoom and we greatly appreciate your help. Thank you.

This is relatively urgent, we would like to talk before Monday, February 22. Thanks!

Please respond and thank you! User:CheeseCommander, on at 2144 UTC on 18 February 2021. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CheeseCommander (talk • contribs) 21:45, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

@CheeseCommander: welcome to the Teahouse. Although this isn't really the right place to ask such a question (and I'm not actually sure where would be appropriate) I appreciate you seeking help from editors. If it's of use, I'm willing to spare you an hour over the coming weekend, assuming I fit your demographic. I've been on Wikipedia for 10 years, helped out here as a Teahouse host for the last 3 years, and have been an administrator for a year. I've done a few interviews for Wikipedia researchers in the past. But I'm in the UK and retired, so maybe I'm too advanced in years or too 'foreign' for your survey needs! I suggest you don't respond to me here (as you don't look like you know how to 'ping' someone) so instead please either respond on my user talk page, or send me a private email via the 'email this user' link on the left pane in desktop view when on my userpage. My local time matches UTC, and I can be available to help you almost anytime over the weekend (ecept mealtimes!), or after 7pm UTC on weekdays. (Please remember to sign your posts on talk pages by typing four keyboard tildes like this: ~~~~.) Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 23:12, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Talk Page Entries

I'm a new editor. I started with the WP article on Medicaid because it was listed as in need of copyediting. I'm considering a possible change but I wanted to first put my idea on the article talk page to get feedback. I've done this (see heading about Privitization towards the end) and signed my name, but my question is, who will see my idea? Will anything pop up somewhere that there is a new entry on the talk page for Medicare? Or do I need to specifically notify past editors of this article to solicit their input? Howbeit (talk) 21:42, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Howbeit. You're in luck - it's a well-monitored article! By going to the View History tab and clicking 'Pageviews' you see this page of stats which reveals it has 235 'watchers' who automatically get notification of any changes to the article. It also gets over 600 views per day, so many people will be aware of your post and of any changes you might make. I also see you've already had one feedback comment there, which is great. Had you posted and not had any response (especially if it were on a low-interest article, with few watchers) it can be best to go to a relevant 'WikiProject' (which you can see listed on the talk page at Talk:Medicaid) and then to post a comment there, pointing people to your post about that article (avoid posting questions in more than one place - just link to the discussion. Remember to 'Watch' the article by clicking the star icon to add it to your WATCHLIST so you are alerted to any replies. Does all this make sense? Good luck! Nick Moyes (talk) 22:05, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

– in the menu bar at the top left is a Preferences tab – click on Preferences and scroll down to "Watched pages" and make sure the "Add pages and files I edit to my watchlist" box is checked – every time you edit an article or Talk page it will be added to your watchlist – click on the Watchlist tab in the menu bar and it will show you if there are any new edits to the page – also, at the left of every page is a Wikipedia menu – if you click on Page information there is a field for Number of page watchers, which indicates how many people have that page on their watchlist – if you want to notify a particular editor that you have made a comment on the talk page, use the ping template: {{ping|Username}} template – cheers, Epinoia (talk) 22:15, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Article meets notability guideline, banner must be removed.

The article for Legacy Five, a gospel group, has been flagged. Apparently, it "may not meet Wikipedia's notability guideline for music." It does, though.

The group has been recognized for many years by American media as one of the most popular gospel groups in the country. They've been awarded several times on the Singing News Fan Awards, and nominated for a few Dove Awards, the highest, best-known award in the gospel industry. I agree the article may need aditional citations, and I will be adding as many as I can in the next few days. But contesting the group's notability seems a little exaggerated.

I'm asking for help because, even though I'm not really a beginner on Wikipedia, I still lack knowledge on many topics. Editors with more experience may help the article more than I would. I believe it would be a good idea to remove the banner and justify clearly the reason for doing so, so that the editor who added it will not do it again.

I'll gladly do it myself if someone gives me a hand, or anyone might just check the article and do it at once.

Thank you for your attention. LucasBitencourt (talk) 23:44, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

@LucasBitencourt: Continue to work on adding the references to show the notability, then the banner can be removed. RudolfRed (talk) 00:01, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi LucasBitencourt, in general article tagging like that is meant to properly categorize the article so that later down the line, editors who are interested in resolving certain types of issues can find them. It's not meant to be a huge statement about the article itself. As you said, the article does need additional citations--note how the words "Dove award" does not appear at all in the article--and that's most likely what the tagger noticed when they tagged the article. I found this, saying that L5 actually won a Dove this past year, which would help with the notability question. Keep adding sources to the page as you suggested, and then that tag can be removed. Alyo (chat·edits) 00:03, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, folks. I will keep adding the references. LucasBitencourt (talk) 00:07, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Interested editors should consider commenting at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Legacy Five. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:00, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, please do. Let's save the article. Notability is definitely not an issue, except for the gentleman who wants the article to be deleted. LucasBitencourt (talk) 13:16, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Adding Notes in Visual Editor

FYI

 – Converting into header. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:40, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi. I cannot figure out how to add Notes in Visual Editor. Am I missing something, or is this not available? Thanks. Sunnycloudsocks (talk) 00:34, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

@Sunnycloudsocks: I assume you mean footnotes. In VisualEditor, they're created through the "Cite" button in the toolbar on top. If what you're working on does not have a references section yet, add a header titled "References", then go to Insert->Template and type in "reflist". ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 00:39, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

On the other hand, Sunnycloudsocks, if you're referring to explanatory footnotes and you want to make notes that use lower-alpha designations, it is possible, but source editor is better at doing that. You'd have to go Insert → Template, use the {{efn}} template and type what you want to say in the note. After you're done, you can create a new section, Notes, and use the {{notelist}} template to display them. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:44, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Embedding a citation in an explanatory footnote

Thank you for answering my other question! How do I go about embedding a citation in an explanatory footnote (in source editor)? Sunnycloudsocks (talk) 01:07, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Hey, Sunnycloudsocks! You would use a reference inside an explanatory footnote just like you would in the actual prose. So for example, if I want an explanatory footnote with a sentence, a reference, another sentence, and another reference, it would look something like this:

{{efn|name=genericName|This is a sentence.<ref>{{cite news|url=|work=|title=}}</ref> Next sentence here.<ref>{{cite web|title=|url=|website=}}</ref> }}

You don't have to name your efn, but it's useful for keeping track of and reusing it. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 01:42, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

This what I attempted to do, but it seemed to not work. It made the explanatory footnote disappear. Although I will note that my footnote, and 1 of the 3 the previously existing footnotes, use <ref group=n>, while the other 2 previously existing use <refn | group = n>. This seems to be different then the "efn" you used. Perhaps that is the issue?  Sunnycloudsocks (talk) 01:07, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

See note 2 in Bev_Facey_Community_High_School#Athletics for an example of a citation embedded in a footnote. Meters (talk) 06:48, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

How to find the most required articles to edit?

I want to be helpful. I need to know what articles are the most in need on Wikipedia. Doitthebestyoucandoit (talk) 05:19, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse! Thank you for looking to contribute! Head over to the Task Center to pick something to do. WhoAteMyButter (📨│📝) 05:28, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

New editors often find that very short articles (see WP:Stub) on topics that have knowledge about are a good place to help. Be sure to understand the requirements for references, as unreferenced factual content will be deleted. David notMD (talk) 08:31, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

I want to create an article

I want to create an wikipedia list article with "List of Indian Junior Records in Athletics". Can anybody help me?? Jejsiguoa (talk) 06:24, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for asking. First, think of (or quickly read up on) a dozen Indian junior records in athletics. Choose half a dozen among these. Can you find sources that English-language Wikipedia regards as reliable for each of these? If so, then a list may be worthwhile. But if you can't, I regret to say that it probably won't be. -- Hoary (talk) 06:41, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

I'd argue that it would be hard to justify an entire article for a single athletic record, but a collection of records is justifiable. For example, you wouldn't create an article about an Olympics win, would you? Geicraftor (talk) 08:19, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes. I have reliable sources about it from AFI (Athletics Federation of India). It's only records for U 20 Athletics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jejsiguoa (talk • contribs) 08:30, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

@Jejsiguoa: You might find the information at Help:Your first article helpful. GoingBatty (talk) 17:23, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Rowley Jefferson's Awesome Friendly Adventure

If anyone here has the right to delete pages, please delete Draft:Rowley Jefferson's Awesome Friendly Adventure, I already made the move to Rowley Jefferson's Awesome Friendly Adventure so please deleteDraft:Rowley Jefferson's Awesome Friendly Adventure thanks.Aviation160 (talk) 06:54, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

@Aviation160: Do not copy and paste content because we need to retain the page history in one place. Page moves are done through More->Move on the top next to the search bar. Right now your mainspace article is deleted because it was copied there prematurely, but your draft shows promise (ReaderofthePack thinks so). Please work on the draft some more, address some of the issues raised there, and move it into the mainspace at at later time. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 07:39, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

[EC] Yes, I have the right to delete pages. I deleted Rowley Jefferson's Awesome Friendly Adventure, which as you say you created. You don't mention that promotion to article status of Draft:Rowley Jefferson's Awesome Friendly Adventure was recently declined (by ReaderofthePack; her helpful comment was a waste of her time, it seems). I'm just the latest person to delete "Rowley Jefferson's Awesome Friendly Adventure": Tavix and Discospinster did so on earlier occasions. I'm surprised that the enthusiasm for creating an article on this subject -- by The Incognito Guy (already blocked as a sockpuppet) and yourself (twice) -- isn't matched by enthusiasm for providing reliable sources that would attest to its notability. -- Hoary (talk) 07:52, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

@Hoary: A quick Google shows that there does appear to be several notable sources. I wonder why the OP didn't bother citing them. Geicraftor (talk) 09:10, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for checking, Geicraftor. I have no opinion on the notability of the subject. Incidentally, my mention of "the right to delete pages", was of course mistaken. I have the technical ability to do so, an ability I can only use according to policy. -- Hoary (talk) 09:27, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

• @Aviation160: I'm more than willing to help you on this, but you need to be willing to work with us by following guidelines. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:12, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, so can any body move the draft to a (article) so it will be normal? I don't have permission, Thanks Aviation160 (talk) 17:58, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Aviation160, if you could bring yourself to improve the draft, then somebody might indeed move it. But you've ignored what ReaderofthePack wrote and haven't shown any interest in improving the draft. Referencing aside, there's a remarkable contrast between your writing style here and the writing style in the draft. Indeed, the draft looks as if it's somebody's little joke. -- Hoary (talk) 11:44, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Advice on Creating and Publishing, An Article On The Greatly Debated Subjects Of , "The Processes Of Elimination."

 Widgetfan8 (talk) 07:00, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

@Widgetfan8: We do have an article at Process of elimination. I suggest you improve that one first. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 07:16, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Primary sources

What should be done to primary sources in an article? Talking about articles like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Relief_Fund Should those be taken out? Malone98stockton (talk) 07:27, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Ideally one should refrain from using primary sources where possible, though on occasions it might be acceptable to use primary sources for generally fixed facts that can't be opinionated (e.g. location of foundation vs being the biggest charity in the world). If possible, try to find new sources which aren't directly tied to the charity and replace the citations. Geicraftor (talk) 08:17, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

To add to this, it can be a good idea to use primary sources to cite an instance of a subject saying something. So for example, if I wanted to say: "Al Gore has said that ginger ale is his favorite soft drink", I could link to his official webpage that has a quote: "Ginger ale is my favorite soft drink [this is a fake quote; pls no sue 4 libel]." TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 16:58, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Can default date style on the Edit Bar citation codes be changed in settings?

Is there any way to change the default date style (for the clickable Access Date) in the Edit Bar citation codes, via one's personal settings or preferences? It defaults to British date style, and has to be manually changed to American style with each use if American style is desired. Thanks for any help or advice. TerryBG (talk) 07:27, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

@TerryBG: Template:Use mdy dates and related templates will automatically render the dates inside the citations in the correct format. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 07:43, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

OK, thanks Ganbaruby. Is there any way to change the clickable default date-style that the edit bar uses? I like for the dates to conform to the national style of the subject I'm using, even if I forget to add the mdy code to the top of the whole article. TerryBG (talk) 07:51, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

@TerryBG: Me too, just for consistency if nothing else. I also noticed that, starting a couple weeks ago, the click-to-fill icon (whatever it was) for that field disappeared. Anyone know what to do about this before I dig into it after some sleep? —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 08:06, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

@TerryBG and AlanM1: Seemed to have figured it out. You just copy the following onto Special:MyPage/common.js:

$('head').one('reftoolbarbase', function() {
CiteTB.UserOptions['date format'] = "<monthname> <date>, <year>";
});

Hope this works! ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 15:16, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

@Ganbaruby: Turns out I had already found that (and other options) at Wikipedia:RefToolbar/2.0#Configuration, done it, and promptly forgot about it. BTW, the problem I had with the missing "fill-me" button (with the calendar icon on it) next to the "Access date" field was apparently caused by the name change of the field from "accessdate" to "access-date". I made the change to my common.js and the calendar button reappeared. I've inquired about changing the doc at the relevant talk page. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 04:47, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

McCarran International Airport soon will rename as Harry Reid International Airport

I saw the McCarran International Airport will be renamed as Harry Reid International Airport. Someone able to rename McCarran to Harry Reid it? Lkas123 (talk) 08:22, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

It *will* be renamed in the future, but hasn't been renamed yet. A short sentence saying it will be renamed should suffice. Geicraftor (talk) 08:25, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Lkas123, a short sentence accompanied by a published, reliable source. S Philbrick(Talk) 15:16, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Relativity between two same things

Wikipedia auto-filter of source is, and well very good, for, well blackish-source-interception. However, is it because of political stand-point, or is it really "a bad new source", to eventually restrict user against citing Global Times source. If you want to go further arguing with me, why not let me interpret and explain to you the reality. Is that when I cited Global Times source and confirm my publish of edit, one nuisance would pop-up, saying clear that the source I'm citing is not reliable or whatever, who impose this restriction? Gosh, second step I took, was however, tried to find Global Time's trace in other article, I found a bunch of it. Like India News citation, as in 2020 China-India Skirmishes, the news was directly sourced from global times, acting s third party, then, why not you, together, restrict the website's citation availability. Besides, being one of one of the only, well state-owned news media, it has full coverage of everything, that is, well, possible to be covered by their news team. Lots of Chinese (mainland)-news-sources is based on Global Times as reference (full-copy) while being cited through third party websites, like SCMP, India Times etc., to source news form Global Times. Who can explain this? If Global Times is unreliable, I think third party could not live, then, as of now. Hypersonic man 11 (talk) 13:00, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

INFORMATION FROM WIKIPEDIA'S ARTICLE ON Global Times: "The Global Times is a daily tabloid newspaper under the auspices of the Chinese Communist Party's People's Daily newspaper, commenting on international issues from a nationalistic perspective. The newspaper has spread unfounded conspiracy theories and disinformation related to the COVID-19 pandemic." And, per Global Times, disinformation about other topics. David notMD (talk) 13:19, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Every news has its on views on cases, it doesn't mean it has a joint-conspiracy theory of doing things, even though "you" hate the ideology of CCP doing things, leaded by leaders in your "own country", accept this as a controversial point of view. Just accept and justify it. For fake spreading of news, you can't prove it clear, I can say this statement is false, and is brought up by western community to counter CCP. I believe a lot didn't cared about news transparency and unpropitious/incorrect of it, but as part of their country's worldwide efforts to destabilize all communist governments, they ramp up against CCP, like as news agency such as BBC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hypersonic man 11 (talk • contribs) 14:17, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

This is a reliable sources discussion. Anyone want to weigh in? David notMD (talk) 14:59, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

There is near unanimous agreement, per this discussion [1] that the Global Times is a tabloid propaganda rag, and is thus a "deprecated" source. AdmiralEek (talk) 15:15, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

If, Global Times, per anti-ideological "editors", is a tabloid propaganda rag, and is thus a "deprecated" source, then why we cite third-party source that is copied and sourced directly from Global Times, isn't this indirect distribution of propaganda. Say it steadily for your self, Wikipedia is for everyone and is free for everyone to share their thoughts, and censorship does not occur under political standpoint or ideological-prejudice. If Wikipedia wants to play political propaganda censorship, why not BBC, CNBC et. cetera. get banned, as they follow western ideology and is on the conspiracy of Western propaganda. These are the inequality of news availability, and I request fellow Wikipedia to remove the restriction. Within the limits, I can also say BBC spread fake Chinese deprecated news out and is a tabloid propaganda rag, and this is why it gets banned. SO, IF YOU WANT TO PLAY THIS CARD WITH ME, GO DO IT TO BBC, #EQUALITY AND FREEDOM OF NEWS AVAILABILITY AND NON-POLITICAL-"SIDE VIEWS" OR STANDPOINT. So, you see, the Western accused G.T. of spreading fake propaganda, and thus, G.T. is restricted, then, on the other hand, China accused BBC of spreading fake and "counterfeit" propaganda in and around China, so, why not, we restrict BBC citation. With such, I DON'T THINK EITHER G.T. OR BBC IS WRONG, BUT POLITICAL JUDGEMENT AND CRITICAL POLITICAL BLACKISH/ENVIOUS OF THE CHINA ERA THAT causes G.T. TO GET THIS TREATMENT, AND, POLITICAL REFRAIN AND avenges/TIT-FOR-TAT caused BBC TO GET BANNED. SO WHY NOT, IN THIS COMMUNITY, LET'S CREATE POLITICAL-FREE ENVIRONMENT, and stop the restriction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hypersonic man 11 (talk • contribs) 04:55, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

You said "Wikipedia is for everyone and is free for everyone to share their thoughts". No, Wikipedia is definitely not for everyone to share their thoughts. Our articles report what reliable sources have said. We have judged that Global Times is not reliable and BBC is. It's not about which ideology a source has but whether their claims are considered reliable. Western sources can also be unreliable. The British Daily Mail was the first source to be deprecated. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:04, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

@Hypersonic man 11: There is also a big difference between the Chinese state censorship banning media from the whole country, and Wikipedia, a privately run website, choosing not to report what somebody claims. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:16, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

It's unclear to me how allowing use of a source that apparently disseminates propaganda would "create a political-free environment", Hypersonic man 11. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:38, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

@User:PrimeHunter, this is per Wikipedia, not form me @User:PrimeHunter, if the whole state media team is banned, BBC and others should get banned for Eastern's violation and controversy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hypersonic man 11 (talk • contribs) 11:38, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

The two cases aren't remotely comparable: the BBC is editorially independent of the British government. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:14, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

@Cordless Larry, stop arguing and interpreting in a political standpoint, the "independent" means non-sate-own, and you are credibly just going recklessly against CCP AND communism ideology like other Wikipedians to destabilize Chinese presence in the growing world. BBC, i know, it isn't backed by state, however, it is whirled inside the case, of spreading of fake news, and, is considered a "deprecated" source, as per China. Neither of them is wrong, I know, "but" they are just dragged by political tensions. Say it your self, BBC also spread fake and unapproved news. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hypersonic man 11 (talk • contribs) 13:02, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

@Cordless Larry, no, I didn't credibly mention disseminating propaganda would create political free environment, but, I meant Western Wikipedians follow a conspiracy of destabilizing growing Chinese presence, instead of saying it is a propaganda spread-room, we can say it is an insightful source of Chinese article. For the propaganda, every government has it, and you're gonna adapt to China's today, in 21st century. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hypersonic man 11 (talk • contribs) 13:10, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

If your beloved Chinese dictators conquer the World then they can close Wikipedia or use it in their propaganda. Until then, the editors decide what to do. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:29, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Whoa, don't go any further with this, I first mention news availability, not pro-parties, why do you have to meddle with politics against each-other in Wikipedia? Do you want to go any further? Until then, your snubs are deleted and you are round-up-ed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hypersonic man 11 (talk • contribs) 13:47, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

AdmiralEek pointed out that in 2020 there was a month-long debate on Global Times as a reliable source and the decision at that time was "Result: Global Times is deprecated and is now considered an unreliable source; WP:SNOW close. ~Anachronist (talk) 15:39, 4 September 2020 (UTC)" A new RfC discussion could be started, but for now, that decision stands. David notMD (talk) 15:51, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

How to warn a user

If a user is continuously vandalising Wikipedia then how do I give warning to the user, also after how many warnings should we ask an administrator about blocking the user? ExclusiveEditor (talk) 15:11, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

I suggest using Twinkle to give users warnings, its a nice interface. In terms of warnings, if someone has recieved a level four warning you can report them to WP:AIV for prompt action. I usually give a level one or two, but not both, then three, then four. Sometimes I skip three if its egregious. AdmiralEek (talk) 15:13, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

I make the opposite suggestion. There is no requirement at Wikipedia that specific warning templates, or a specific number of them, be used before an admin will take action. All you need to do is tell someone that they are violating Wikipedia policy, and that if they continue, they could be blocked. The best way to do that is to write, on their user talk page, a short, succinct statement to that end. --Jayron32 16:15, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Situationally, depends on whether the User is exclusively vandalizing an article or articles, with care needed to distinguish between good faith edits and obvious vandalism. If solely to one article, requesting temporary article protection is an additional remedy to consider. David notMD (talk) 16:18, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Vandalising and disruptive editing

What is difference between vandalising and disruptive editing? ExclusiveEditor (talk) 15:44, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Its a fine line. Vandalism is done in bad faith, and is usually trolling, adding bad words to articles, intentionally being an asshole. Disruptive editing is problematic, but mayy be in good faith, may be constructive initially, but is ultimately causing issues. Things like repeatedly reverting, tendentious editing, not playing nice with others, making obscure style changes just for the sake of change. Anything that disrupts the smooth functioning of the encyclopedia. AdmiralEek (talk) 15:50, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

It's a fat, dark, and easily discernable line. Vandalism is editing that has intent to harm Wikipedia as its goal. Something is only vandalism if the person doing it is not (in their minds) trying to improve Wikipedia and make it better written or more accurate, but is instead just trying to mess things up. Disruptive editing, on the other hand, is behavior where the editor believes themselves to be doing what is best for Wikipedia, but is doing so in a way which runs counter to the collaborative nature of the work we do here. Good faith disagreements over content are never vandalism, but they may spill over into disruption if the behavior of the parties involved makes it hard to work smoothly. --Jayron32 16:13, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

If this is about Karan Bajaj, I consider what happened there closer to disruptive editing than vandalism. The IP wants to contribute, but has no concept of Wikipedia requirements for references or encyclopedic style being neutral point of view. IP editors often vanish after a day or two, but if returns, may benefit by more explanation on Talk page versus 'vandalism' warning. David notMD (talk) 16:27, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Why doesn't Wikipedia label disturbing/graphic images?

I do hope that Wikipedia can label disturbing/graphic/nudity images, as the encyclopaedia is for everyone and it should be considerate of those unwilling to see such images. Tony Zhao (talk) 16:02, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

See WP:CENSORSHIP. Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia for children or for those who are most easily offended, it is an encyclopedia for everyone. --Jayron32 16:08, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

No. Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED. Does that mean we sometimes show graphic images? Yes, to illustrate a point. We have images many find unpleasant, but what is considered unpleasant varies by culture. For example, many in the Muslim world do not want us to show images of the Prophet Muhmmad, because they believe that to be offensive. But we are an encyclopedia, not a religious publication. For a different angle, we also show some pictures of dead bodies, such as on our article about Lynching in the United States. Graphic? Yes. But is it what happened and the subject of the article? Also yes. Now, we aren't trying to shock people, we follow the principle of least surprise. But we would do our readers a disservice by not including such images. This has long been the subject of discussion on Wikipedia, and we have repeatedly decided against warning labels on articles or images, because we do not want to be in the business of censorship. AdmiralEek (talk) 16:11, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm creating a new English wiki page for a German-American Scholar

I'm creating a new English wiki page for a German-American Scholar & just realized that he has already has a page in German. should I translate that or copy links over to my sandbox. this is my first attempt at writing a bio Karxpava (talk) 17:39, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Karxpava, you can bring material over from the German Wikipedia (WP:TRANSLATION has more details), but just be aware that because each Wikipedia project has policies and guidelines (particularly notability) that differ from each other, the entire translation is most likely not going to make it over. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:45, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

How can I edit semi-protected articles

How can I edit semi-protected articles? I want to update the "Education" section on the page of "Lebanon" on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lebanon link. Of course, I will use reliable sources. Samirtohme (talk) 17:46, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Samirtohme. As you have an account, the page will be available to edit after you have become WP:AUTOCONFIRMED. Alternatively, you can make a suggestion on its talk page at Talk:Lebanon. Mike Turnbull (talk) 18:38, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Question

FYI

 – New Section -Maresa63 (talk) 17:57, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Draft:Ricky Glaser

Can anyone review my article? Cheers!

--Sk8Wiki (talk) 17:54, 19 February 2021 (UTC) Sk8Wiki (talk) 17:54, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Well, yes, we all can — although it would have been courteous to provide a link to it. I think it unlikely that anyone will accept it into the main encyclopaedia in its present state with little to show the subject is WP:NOTABLE. Mike Turnbull (talk) 18:34, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Sk8Wiki, a person is notable and eligible for a Wikipedia article only if they have been the subject of significant coverage in multiple independent, reliable sources. None of your four references meet that standard. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:46, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Large unsourced sections

What are the rules regarding dealing with large swathes of unsourced text in articles? For example, on the page Badhan, Sanaag the vast majority seems to be original research and has no citations e.g. "Badhan has the largest hospital in Sanaag region, built by the Diaspora of the Region, sadly the hospital is closed since February 2009 due lack of funding and now the local community is left to face the daunting task of taking their sick to Bosaso in Bari region."

Thank you (talk) 18:22, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Jacob300. WP:GEOLAND suggests that this town will past the test of notability but I agree it sadly lacks citations. As the article was created in 2007, it is unlikely to be a single editor's original research. Maybe adding a template along the lines "need more in-line citations" would help attract attention to it: the page is said to have 32 watchers. Mike Turnbull (talk) 18:30, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi Mike Turnbull, thank you for your response. I will add a template requesting for more in-line citations. Are there rules against removing such large swathes of text all together in light of WP:BOLD guidance?

Jacob300 (talk) 18:37, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

No, bold action is always OK but make sure you provide a good edit summary and don't get in to an edit war if someone else reverts your change. See WP:BRD. Mike Turnbull (talk) 18:40, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi Mike Turnbull, thank you for your advice. I greatly appreciate the assistance.

Jacob300 (talk) 18:49, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

First option should be to try to find refs, second to point out lack of refs. David notMD (talk) 19:39, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

My edits are no longer automatically accepted

This edit of mine was automatically acccepted. [[2]] However, these subsequent ones on the same page were not [[3]] and [[4]], as may be seen from the edit history. [[5]]. Why is this and to what extent will this continue? Thanks. Jontel (talk) 20:01, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

@Jontel: I think what happened here was that the software treats your edits as auto accepted, but if someone reverts to your version, that's now considered as manually accepted (even if it was automatic in the first place!). There doesn't seem to be any issue with you though :) Sometimes the software works in mysterious ways... CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:37, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

@CaptainEek: Thanks for the swift response and the reassurance. Yes, I think I saw this mentioned somewhere and there was a reversion to my version on 14.2, five days ago. The problem is that, now, my edits are not being automatically accepted and I am being treated as a new or unregistered user. How can I regain the rights I have been awarded as an extended confirmed user? Jontel (talk) 21:01, 19 February 2021 (UTC) Note: My rights have been abrogated on all such pages.[[6]] Jontel (talk) 21:28, 19 February 2021 (UTC) I can still edit Extended-protected and Extended-confirmed-protected articles. Jontel (talk) 21:57, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi CaptainEek, I just had to accept their most recent edit to the article (diff), it was highlighted in yellow and marked as requiring review. Pending changes protection also does not show up in the page's protection log, even though I can see the box with the protection rationale when reviewing. Do you think I should submit a ticket to phabricator? Best, Caius G. (talk) 21:05, 19 February 2021 (UTC) Yes, the Page protection fields in Page information, which say for Edit and Move, "Allow all users", is positively misleading.Jontel (talk) 21:37, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

This looks like phab:T233561. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 21:31, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia has no page for Professor Gul Rahman Qazi

Afghanistan became like a candle of fuel and water, others took advantage of its light, liberated themselves and their country, and became one fist and one piece. Now, in the villages of our war-torn land, we need the sincere cooperation of others, but in any case, we must become the architect of our country. Speech by the Judge at the fifty-first anniversary of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Turkey in 2013.

If you search on google you can find many interviews and topics about this person, we respect him because he is a true patriot for peace, education, and ethical politics, I have listed his name and also gave the links of websites that wrote about him, let me know please why is that someone who spends his whole life doing good for others is not even on Wikipedia??? his past works: 1-Former Professor at Kabul University for more than 30 year 2-Former Head of Political Science department at Kabul university 3-Elected former head of lawyers union of Afghanistan 4-former head of Independent Commission for Overseeing the implementation of the constitution 5-founder and elected head of Afghanistan Peace and Salvation Council 6-Joint Front for Peace and National Unity 7-Hamid Karzai Political Adviser 8-Founder and CEO of Qalam Institute of Higher Education

https://www.google.com/search?q=professor+gul+rahman+qazi&rlz=1C1CHBD_enAF926AF926&oq=professor+gul+rahman+qazi&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l4j69i60l3.4658j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 Mahmoodqazi (talk) 20:21, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Mahmoodqazi, that's probably because no one has started an article on him. If you have sufficient reliable sources that establish his notability for Wikipedia's standards, you could consider drafting an article. If you are unfamiliar with the process (or Wikipedia in general), read Your first article and try the interactive tutorial. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:17, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

How to make biography show up in category list under last name rather than first

Hello! I'm a somewhat new editor and I just made my first article, Morgan Bullock. Everything looks fine, but the page is listed in several categories under M rather than B. It looks like it's supposed to be listed under her last name, since every other article is ordered that way. Is this just a glitch, or is something else I need to do to get it to show up properly? (I'm not terribly concerned about the order on the Category page, but I have a feeling it might be a sign that I missed a step in creating the page.) Aerin17 (talk) 21:14, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

@Aerin17: You were missing Template:DEFAULTSORT. I added it. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:32, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

@Timtempleton: Thank you so much for your help! Aerin17 (talk) 02:00, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Templates

Hi, just a quick question about templates. When I add a template to an article, is anyone notified of its appearance? Or does it differ between templates? Thanks, Gageills (talk) 21:39, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

@Gageills: It depends on the template, and whether you add it correctly. GoingBatty (talk) 22:19, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Reusing References

I am trying to reuse a reference in an article. I am editing an article on Madeleine Colani. I click on the "named references" but I do not see the reference that I used before. In fact, i only see one of the four references. How do I reuse my reference if it does not appear in "named references"? Edwin Hustead (talk) 21:50, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

@Edwin Hustead: In the Madeleine Colani, reference #4 is already used multiple times. The first time it's used as <ref name="NYT-2012">, so subsequent times it can simply be reused with <ref name="NYT-2012" />. If you'd like to use the other references again, you'll first have to name them. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 22:23, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

How to get one on one help with building my first wiki page

Can I build my new page in the Sandbox and have it be reviewed. I am sure that my subject will pass the notability standards but I just want to make sure I am citing it correctly. Can I get help with that?

Thank you

-Sepia Dog Sepia Dog (talk) 22:22, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

@Sepia Dog: I suggest you follow the instructions at Help:Your first article. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 22:25, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

[Comment made without heading]

Dear wikipedia, the infinity symbol that i have made in the infinite page was necessary. so i have no idea why the message i got was not constructive. please write back, in regards, Sean Chand. 67.181.61.140 (talk) 22:52, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

If someone reverts an edit of yours, then discuss it on the article's talk page. This is the normal process, and you can learn more at WP:BRD. RudolfRed (talk) 22:59, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

In this instance, the Infinity article has an infinity symbol as a figure and also at the end of the first sentence. Your adding a third use of the symbol did not improve the article, hence reverted, and you cautioned. David notMD (talk) 23:01, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Same for your addition to Christian Cross. David notMD (talk) 23:24, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Photographs/ Captions

Hi, is there a certain rubric for photographs that can be added, especially for first time editors. If I want to add graphs or pictures of the topic of my article are there specific guidelines to those captions, other than not placing anything unrelated or inappropriate? As for captions that are added underneath these photographs, do they have any rubrics, guidelines, or restrictions. Will photos be removed like weak information will be removed? Are photographs and captions up to our own discretion or do Wikipedia editors prefer and specific type? Alexaneybold (talk) 00:45, 20 February 2021 (UTC) Alexaneybold (talk) 00:45, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Alexaneybold. Begin by reading Wikipedia:Image use policy and the section of the Manual of Style that can be found at MOS:CAPTIONS. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:56, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Why is Typhoon Haima not included in the costliest Philippine typhoons?

It left a damage of 972.2 million USD. It struck Northern Philippines last 2016. The local name is Super typhoon Lawin. 49.150.48.8 (talk) 02:00, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi, 49.150.48.8; welcome to the Teahouse. I believe you're referring to Template:Costliest Philippine typhoons. I could be mistaken here, but I believe the cost is only to the Philippines itself. So for example, whereas Typhoon Rammasun is listed as #3 at $885 million, the overall damage as described in the article's infobox is $8.08 billion. Therefore, if this is correct (unfortunately, the documentation on the template page doesn't ostensibly answer this question; its creator, Renzoy16, might be able to shed some light on this), we would have to find some reliable source which states the damage caused to the Philippines.

Moreover, at a glance, I can't find any source attesting to the figure of $972.2 million USD, so regardless of the list of costliest Philippine typhoons, it would be good to find a source for that figure so we can add it to Typhoon Haima's infobox. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 02:28, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Redirect Discussion

Can someone take a look at this and make sure that I did it right? Thanks https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2021_February_20#State_farm AntoineHound (talk) 04:05, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

@AntoineHound: Looks fine to me. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 06:09, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention

I wanted to report a username, and I went to Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention, but I did not understood how do I report, means after going to Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention how do I report.  ExclusiveEditor (talk) 04:09, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

@ExclusiveEditor: There's a link at the top of the that page to Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention/Instructions. GoingBatty (talk) 04:41, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

wikipedia:NPOV violating user page

I think the user page of User:Wipro International is made for a promotion, and violated wikipedia:NPOV. ExclusiveEditor (talk) 05:07, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

I would think that since it’s not an article and it’s a user page, he can put whatever suits him on the page. He may have been using the page as a sandbox for an article that was never finished. AntoineHound (talk) 05:12, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

ExclusiveEditor, as it is a userpage, NPOV doesn't apply, but it is WP:PROMO and is a violation of the pillar policy WP:NOT (particularly WP:NOTWEBHOST and the content guideline for userpages, WP:UP. BTW, AntoineHound, you should probably read UP too. You are most assuredly not allowed to put "pretty much whatever you want" there, and you are specifically not allowed to draft an article there. As creating that userpage is the only edit that editor has made, the userpage should be marked up for speedy deletion by placing Template:Db-U5 at the top. 174.212.238.134 (talk) 05:28, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

username of User:Wipro International and content of the userpage indicates that the account represents a business or other organisation or group, which is also against policy, as an account must be for just one person. ExclusiveEditor (talk) 05:20, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

You are correct, and since it's pretty much the same topic, I merged this section and the section above. You can report the user at WP:UAA. If you haven't enabled Twinkle, you should. It semi-automates thinks like reports at noticeboards. 174.212.238.134 (talk) 05:32, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Short description question

Currently writing a short description for Jangid and I put in a new short desc over at Wikidata. I have it set to none, but does this appear as the Wikidata description for everyone else, or do I manually have to copy it in? And if it doesn't show, is there an option to let it use the Wikidata entry automatically? WhoAteMyButter (📨│📝) 05:37, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

@WhoAteMyButter: I currently see "Caste in Hinduism known for producing furniture and arts" through Shortdesc helper on my desktop, but nothing on my phone. However, I don't know why you want to set it as none; per WP:SDNONE, a short description is helpful here. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 05:56, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

@Ganbaruby: I want to "link" the short descriptions between WD and WP. Can I do that? WhoAteMyButter (📨│📝) 05:59, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

@WhoAteMyButter: The English WIkipedia has chosen to not use Wikidata descriptions. PrimeHunter (talk) 09:47, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

IP address as host

Can a ip address be host? ExclusiveEditor (talk) 06:09, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

I think technically no, though we have a few regular IP respondees, such as "The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195", as he or she states before the standard Wikipedia signature. Victor Schmidt (talk) 06:20, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Editors do not need to be hosts to answer questions here at Teahouse (although sometimes non-host err in their answers (as, sometimes, do hosts)). David notMD (talk) 11:00, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Feature help

Can anyone please tell me how to on auto patrolled feature ??? DasSoumik (talk) 10:21, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Hello, DasSoumik, and welcome to the Teahouse. As a general tip, if you want to find out about a feature of editing Wikipedia or the Wikipedia community, it is often helpful to try searching for "WP:the topic" in the search bar. I entered "WP:autopatrolled" and it took me to WP:Autopatrolled. That page starts "Autopatrolled is a user right given to prolific creators of clean articles and pages in order to reduce the workload of New Page Patrol." Thus it is completely irrelevant to the 99.99% of editors who have not already created many successful articles. I hope this is not a violation of the principle of assume good faith, but my impression is that when inexperienced editors ask about this sort of user right, it is often because they are trying to do something that more experienced editors have stopped them from doing. --ColinFine (talk) 12:57, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

ColinFine thank you for your reply. I am asking auto patrolled feature cause I am not able to find article which is need more ref, more information. So if I get this feature then I can easily find those article and can contribute more on wikipedia. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by DasSoumik (talk • contribs) 17:40, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

@DasSoumik: You have mis-understood the autopatrolled user right – you don't need it to be able to edit existing (or even to create new) articles. If you want to see various categories of things to work on (including articles needing citations), please see Wikipedia:Community portal#Help out. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 20:59, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Accuracy of entry on True Story of the Kelly Gang film

Right after watching the 2020 film "True Story of the Kelly Gang" I read the current entry under this tile in Wikipedia. I don't understand this, but many of the facts related in the second paragraph in the Plot section are not included in the film ... or at least they aren't in the 130 minute version of the film I saw on Showtime on 02-20-2021. For example, there is nothing in the film that would lead anyone to believe that Ned Kelly's family had settled northwest of Melbourne or that his father (Red Kelly) had numerous run ins with the legal authorities prior to the point in time at which the film's narrative begins. While these claims may be true background information my question is: is it appropriate to include such details in the Plot section in the entry on a film that aren't mentioned or verified in the film? When I read a summary of a plot of a film I assume that all that information is contained in the film itself, and is not information extraneous to the film. Maybe this information should be included in another (new) section of this entry titled "Historical Background" or something similar. Radphilosophe1 Radphilosophe1 (talk) 10:38, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi Radphilosophe1, welcome to the Teahouse. I guess you refer to the 2019 True History of the Kelly Gang (film). It's based on a novel which sounds largely fictional although inspired by real events. Whether the mentioned events are real history or from the novel, the film plot should indeed say what is in the film. It may occasionally mention other things, e.g. to help readers who know the novel and may misunderstand the film plot, but should be clear about it. A separate section may have more content about significant differences from the novel or history. I don't know the film, novel or history here. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:59, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, there are articles on the film, the book and the person. Each article can and does refer to the other two articles. Each should correctly represent its subject alone and there is no real need to replicate material between them, unless it is to highlight differences, in my view. Jontel (talk) 11:13, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Political Bias

I'm not sure what to do about a disagreement over wording I've had with another editor on 2020s in fashion who I think is trying to push a political cause. Llewee (talk) 11:56, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Llewee, and welcome to the Teahouse. Does dispute resolution help? --ColinFine (talk) 13:14, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Regarding article on Nest Man of India

Regarding the article on Nest Man of India I would like to enquire that, can I write an article with title 'Nest Man of India' which is very famous title given to Rakesh Khatri, who is also know as Sparrow Man. The Nest Man (talk) 12:10, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Hello, The Nest Man, and welcome to the Teahouse and to Wikipedia. The simple answer is, Yes, you may write an article on any subject you like, provided that the subject meets Wikipedia's criteria for Notability. If you cannot find the sources that are essential to establishing the Nest Man as notable by Wikipedia's criteria, then it will be a waste of your time trying to create an article. (I had a quick search on Ecosia, and got no hits at all for "Nest man of India", and all the hits for "Sparrow man of India" were for somebody else, called Mohammed Dilawar.)

But there are two caveats. First, creating a new article that is accepted into the encyclopaedia is much, much harder than it looks. For a new editor to try creating an article is like trying to play a violin concerto when you have just picked up a violin for the first time: not only will it be hard, but your first few (or your first few dozen) attempts are likely to be dreadful, and you will probably get upset and disillusioned when you don't succeed in such a hard task. I strongly advise any new editor to spend a few weeks or months improving some of our six million existing articles, and learning how Wikipedia works, before you eventually read your first article and try it.

Secondly, your user name suggests that you might be connected with Khatri. If this is so, you need to know that creating an article when you have a conflict of interest is even more difficult, as it is likely to be hard for you to forget everything you know about the subject and write a neutral article based on the independent sources (that you must have found to establish notability). Also, many people have the mistaken idea that writing about themselves or their concerns in Wikipedia is a way to get known: this is fundamentally wrong: using Wikipedia to tell the world about somebody or something is called promotion, and is forbidden. Finally, if you are Khatri, then you are strongly advised not to write about yourself in Wikipedia. --ColinFine (talk) 13:29, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Intent here appears to be an article about Khatri making nests for sparrows. See https://www.newindianexpress.com/thesundaystandard/2019/oct/13/from-hobby-to-pursuing-a-cause-delhi-green-activist-builds-nests-to-save-sparrows-2046706.html David notMD (talk) 15:09, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

How does one become a confirmed user to be able to edit semi-protected pages?

 Bootpalish (talk) 12:15, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Wait and edit - see Wikipedia:User_access_levels. Jontel (talk) 12:21, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi Bootpalish, welcome to the Teahouse. Your account has been autoconfirmed since 2013 so you can edit semi-protected pages. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:51, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Sigh

What to do!? Keep it up Kenzie021 (talk) 13:17, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi Kenzie021. Hmm. You're at Wikipedia. You've made two edits only, to a sandbox where you said "hi!" and here, where all you've said is "Sigh What to do!? Keep it up ?" Are you maybe looking for our article on Viagra?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:43, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

@Kenzie021: Okay let's get serious. Joking aside I'm not sure what you're post regards, but to the extent you might be looking for something "to do" at Wikipedia, please visit the Wikipedia:Task Center. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:26, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Infobox editing

I'm new to Wiki editing. I've edited text in an infobox but it's now just sitting at the top of the article. How do I get it back into an infobox? Any help gratefully received. SMBraund (talk) 13:41, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi SMBraund. <nowiki> opening and closing (</nowiki>) tags are used to tell the software not to interpret wiki markup, so that when you save, the display of the page will show the code, rather than having the code propagate to its function. Wherever you copied the infobox from, you copied its code by clicking edit first, and then took the content with the nowiki tags included, instead of from the page in "read mode". That's the main reason for the problem. There was one other issue, which is that you enclosed the name of the website in curly brackets – template markup. I've fixed it all with this edit. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:03, 20 February 2021 (UTC) P.S., as to the second issue, I think you meant to use {{URL|Insert URL}}, so I've now changed that as well.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:08, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Q.

How can I leave a block request? $'YEG.talk.contribe.'$ 14:05, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi 윤은강. Please see Wikipedia:Blocking policy#Requesting blocks. This might be entirely irrelevant, but I've noted in the past that ocassionally new users say "block" when they're actually talking about page protection (probably because the vernacular meanings of the words can be easily confused if unfamiliar with their technical meanings here), so for that, please see Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. By the way, in order to request a block, you usually need to have done certain things first, so for the details of that, please see {{Reportvandal}}. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:17, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks.

$'YEG.talk.contribe.'$ 14:33, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Suggest you modify the appearance of your name, talk and contribution links, as near-impossible to see. David notMD (talk) 15:11, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

David notMD, I agree S Philbrick(Talk) 17:01, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Article edit

Hello fellow editors:) I had published an article about Ibrahim El Khoury, and then someone put it back as a draft because: "looks too much like a cv" after looking at it from another angle, I think that he was right; I now have made important changes and have added many resources, and I would like to know what you guys think, and if it can now be put back as an article? Thank You 😊 Carlhatem (talk) 14:11, 20 February 2021 (UTC) Carlhatem (talk) 14:11, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi Carlhatem. You probably would be better off submitting the draft to Wikipedia:Articles for creation (or AFC) for review than trying to move it back to the WP:MAINSPACE yourself. Submitting the draft for review will allow an AFC reviewer to look it over and and assess it to see whether it's ready to be an article. You're not required to do this, but drafts approved via AFC tend to have a better chance of surviving a deletion nomination than those that are moved to the mainspace by their creators.

Finally, you've uploaded a number of photos to [:Wikimedia Commons]] to use in the draft and you're claiming them (except one) to be your own work. Did you take all of these photos yourself? Did you create the "National Order of the Cedar" certificate yourself? Basically, "own work" means you are the person who originally took the photo or created the work; if all you did was scan the photos or found them somewhere online and they were taken by someone else, then you can't really claim them as own work. You might want to take a close look at c:Commons:Licensing and c:Commons:OTRS because if you didn't take these photos yourself, then you're going to need to get the consent of the person who did. The one photo you didn't claim as "own work", you uploaded under a "CC-zero" license, but it seem highly unlikely that a photo taken in 2003 (even if the author is anonymous) would be considered to be OK under such a license because that license implies that the person who took the photo is known and has agreed to waive their copyright ownership over the photo. If you just made an honest mistake regarding the copyright status of the photos, then that's OK; however, in that case you probably should tag the files for speedy deletion as explained here before someone else nominates or tags them for deletion. -- Marchjuly (talk) 15:12, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi Carlhatem. Agreeing with everything Marchjuly wrote above, please see also WP:OWN WORK.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:42, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Hello, thank you very much for your advice, I will work on it right now.Carlhatem (talk) 16:50, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Proposed deletion

How do I let a user know, that a page created by him is Proposed for deletion. ExclusiveEditor (talk) 14:31, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

@ExclusiveEditor: at the bottom of the box that's placed in the article when you propose it for deletion, there's some text saying "Nominator: Please consider notifying the author/project:", followed by a template code that looks something like this (but with the actual article title and concern) : {{subst:proposed deletion notify| article name |concern= your concern.}} ~~~~ Copy the template code from that box, and paste it to the user's talk page. --bonadea contributions talk 14:39, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

ExclusiveEditor, the same here, please take a moment and make yourself comfortable with WP:PROD before doing so, thank you. CommanderWaterford (talk) 15:46, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Blocking user

A user is vandalizing pages and even after getting Level 4 warning he is vandalizing wikipedia, then how should I report the user to administrators and get them blocked? ExclusiveEditor (talk) 15:13, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

You can ask for assistance at WP:AIV if you've tried discussing things with the other editor and they haven't stopped; however, before you go to AIV, you might want to look at Wikipedia:Vandalism#What is not vandalism just to make sure their edits are likely going to be seen as "vandalism" by an administrator. You might also want to look at this if you're not familiar with how the administrator noticeboards typically work. -- Marchjuly (talk) 15:34, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

ExclusiveEditor, before reporting a user you should make yourself comfortable how to fight against Vandalism at WP:RVAN since you warned a User directly with the highest warning template w/o proper previous warning. CommanderWaterford (talk) 15:45, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Also, if this is about Karan Bajaj, in my opinion those were rightly reverted edits (no refs) but were in good faith rather than vandalism. David notMD (talk) 17:29, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Right edit?

Is this edit right? ExclusiveEditor (talk) 15:59, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi ExclusiveEditor. That edit has already been reverted by Theroadislong with the edit summary "Unexplained content removal". See also Wikipedia:Vandalism#Blanking, illegitimate.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:56, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

(e/c)That editor removed referenced content without explaining why, so it was correctly reverted.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 17:00, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm Sorry

Hello everyone I am very sorry for disturbing Wikipedia, I just don't know what to edit. I am new and I'm sorry — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stawberry Poptart (talk • contribs) 16:05, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Stawberry Poptart Start by learning that your User page, your Talk page and Talk pages of articles are not places to compose content or express your own thoughts on a topic. The last has already been deleted. I suggest you delete the other two. I will leave some general guidance information on your Talk page. The goals include improving existing articles. Article talk pages are for discussions about how to improve articles (not personal experiences or opinions). David notMD (talk) 17:34, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

How To Add Credits for Film and Television Projects in Main Credit Box?

Hello! How can we add a citation to all film and television projects so that all Production Designers are credited along with the Director and Cinematographer in the main credit box? Production Designers are part of the primary "trinity" with the Directors and Cinematographers, responsible for the look and feel of the film and as important as they are and the Editor. In the film (or tv show itself) we are credited with full page title cards in the same way that the Director and DP are. We are often credited BEFORE the Cinematographer in the film itself. In addition, we should be able to credit the Costume Designers in this main block. All of our roles are responsible for the look and feel of the project.

I have attempted to add myself on some of my film projects and it has never shown up. Here is the history of my attempts to add myself to my projects: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Dhiwish11 In fact, my most recent attempt to add myself was blocked and deleted by someone you can see it here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dhiwish11#Welcome%21

Because there are so many film projects on wikipedia (and I have personally designed over 40 projects you can see here https://www.imdb.com/name/nm1120039/?ref_=nv_sr_srsg_0 ), please consider these page links of some films that I was the Production Designer for, as examples only to show how we are credited now. Each Wiki link is followed by an imdb.com link (you have to scroll down to see the crews' credits) so you can see how this definitive film and tv website credits both Production Designers and Costume Designers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_in_Love https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1079980/reference https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/He%27s_Way_More_Famous_Than_You https://www.imdb.com/title/tt2076216/reference https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreplaceable_You https://www.imdb.com/title/tt6119856/reference

Appreciate this consideration and change to the wiki! Dara Wishingrad dhiwish11 16:53, 20 February 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dhiwish11 (talk • contribs)

Hi, Dhiwish, and welcome to the Teahouse. For starters, I believe you're referring to the Infobox, which appears at the top right of an article and gives basic information about a subject. The infobox templates Infobox film and Infobox television do not have a production designer parameter. Therefore, if I'm not mistaken, you would first have to visit their respective talk pages and make a proposal to add such a parameter.

Second, it appears you made those edits about yourself. Wikipedia strongly discourages conflict-of-interest editing and furthermore expects editors with such a conflict to disclose it when editing articles about a subject they have a conflict of interest in, be it financial or not.

Third, while it's true that IMDb credits you and that I don't personally doubt that you were the production designer on these films, IMDb's use as a source is often disputed due to the presence of user-generated content.

I believe the first point is the biggest factor in why your edits have been reverted, as Bovineboy2008, the editor who reverted your edit on A Very Senior High, stated: "Reverted good faith edits by Dhiwish11 (talk): Not a parameter in this template". TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 22:18, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Please delete redirect 'Ahmed Kamel'

Dear community, I finished my draft for the german-egypt artist Ahmed Kamel (here) and would like to delete the redirect (here), that goes to another guy with a second name. Is there an admin who can do this for me? Btw - is the submit-queue really 4 months? Thanks guys and greetz from germany! Gnomad (talk) 17:18, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

The redirect will be removed if and when your draft is accepted. Yes, there is a long queue; more that 4500 submitted drafts awaiting review. David Biddulph (talk) 17:25, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Gnomad, Actually, it is NOT a queue. Reviewers look at the submitted drafts and decide what they want to review next. Can be days, weeks, and (sadly) sometimes months. David notMD (talk) 17:36, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

It appears that all of the images are from Kamel's website. If true, this means they are copyright protected, and should be removed from the draft and from Commons. David notMD (talk) 17:39, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

There are descriptions of his artworks. Who's words are those? David notMD (talk) 21:58, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

new article for dental occlusion ties

I invented dental occlusion ties (brand name: Minne Ties)about 8 years ago. They are a tool that can be used for surgeries related to the jaw/teeth. Academic articles have been published about them and they have been the subject of a number of articles in the lay press. These devices were FDA cleared in 2017. They are available and in widespread use across the United States. There are no articles in Wikipedia that reference them. Is this something I can write/contribute? I obviously have a conflict of interest as the lead inventor, but I use them clinically and I know their story better than anyone.

Thanks, Alan Johnson, MD Facial trauma MD (talk) 18:01, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Facial trauma MD, and welcome to the Teahouse. Thank you for asking rather than just going ahead. As you surmise, you have a conflict of interest in editing anything relating to your devices. In fact, if you are the inventor, then Wikipedia will regard you as a paid editor, and you must make the declarations specified in that link.

The general rule is that you should not directly edit any article anywhere in Wikipedia in connection with these. What you can do in relation to an existing article is make an edit request on that article's talk page: be precise about the text you would like added or changed, and provide a reliable published source - preferably one wholly unconnected with you, your institutions, and your brand - for any information you wish to be added to the article. If you attach the template {{edit request}} to your suggestion (as explained in the link above), in time somebody will come and look at your request and decide what to do about it. They may implement it as you request, or change it, or reject it, but they will tell you why, and if you disagree, you can continue the discussion with them and make your case. Like everything else on Wikipedia this is done by volunteers, so there is no guarantee about how long somebody will take to get to it.

If you are asking about an article devoted to Minne Ties, that is a bit different. You are discouraged from writing it yourself, but not forbidden; but if you do must use the articles for creation process, so that it gets reviewed. Be aware that writing a new article is one of the hardest tasks for inexperienced editors, and most drafts are declined several times before they ever get accepted. You will need to start by finding the sources (reliably published, and wholly unconnected with you, your institution, and the manufacturers or marketers of the device; note that articles based on interview and press releases are not independent) to establish that the product meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability. If you can find them, then you may create a draft: see your first article. You will then need to forget everything you know about the product (you see why this is difficult with a COI)? and write a draft based almost entirely on what those independent sources say. --ColinFine (talk) 19:09, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Having Trouble adding previous teams played to infobox basketball Biography

Im having trouble adding the previous team played to infobox basketball biography. The field name is Years and Teams

Hello, questioner. You have not signed your post, nor linked to the article you're asking about. Please be clearer and much more specific in your posts if you want us to answer you. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:27, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Maneesha Kukkapall

I think I messed things up, Can someone fix it ? apologies GrahamHardy (talk) 18:28, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

There we go. It's been moved back again. No problem there :-) --SimmeD (talk) 18:41, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Interlanguage link

Does interlanguage link work in templates, wikitables, and infoboxes? Like what I did in 1970–71 Paris Saint-Germain F.C. season for some reason it didn't remove the external language link even though there is an article. Paul Vaurie (talk) 20:20, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Paul Vaurie. As to your first question: I'm pretty sure {{ill}} works in all three. I'm afraid I'm a bit unclear as to what you then ask. You've made a lot of edits to that article (summarised here). They all look OK to me (apart from not needing the lt= parameter when the target article name is the same as the text you're putting in that parameter ...and the fact that you don't need to repeat the same person's wikilink innumerable times, as with Michel Prost and many others. You might however find that purging your browser cache gives you a better view of the changes you've made. There's a link in the 'More' tab at the top of the page in desktop view to let you do that. Regards Nick Moyes (talk) 23:25, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Talk Page Suggestions/Recommendations

Hello All! My name is Benjamin Aviles and I am a new editor here on wikipedia. My question is: if I ever decide to create a whole new article, how do I decipher on my talk page which recommendations/suggestions to take into consideration when changing my original article? Is there a general rule of thumb to follow? I ask this because sometimes I am going through the Talk Page's of some articles and some suggestions seem like it would not be a valuable contribution to the article. For example, this link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Violent_crime is a Talk Page of an article that has a lot of suggestions. How can I determine what are good suggestions? Thank you volunteers for taking the time! Benjamin.aviles1 (talk) 22:17, 20 February 2021 (UTC) Benjamin.aviles1 (talk) 22:17, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Benjamin.aviles1 and welcome to the Teahouse. That's an interesting question, and it often really comes down to common sense and Reliable Sources. In the example you gave, all the comments dated back many years, and I don't see anything there to act on. Just random views thrown up in the air, so I would ignore them. We don't act or edit upon opinions, but improve the encyclopaedia if good sources are provided or available to base our editing on. If you were to start an article from scratch, it would first have to meet our Notability criteria and be based upon proper, reliable sources. Once in 'mainspace', if either that article's talk page, or your own talk page received feedback about it, it would require a critical assessment to determine how to respond. If another editor warns you that you've added inappropriate content, then you can either check and accept their assessment, revert the edit (just once, and with a good edit summary), or, better still, ask them to explain their concerns so you can constructively discuss how best to improve the article. This is a bit of a "how long is a piece of string" question - I hope I've at least managed to give you a steer towards the best approach to editing. If you ever need specific answers about an edit you have made, it would help enormously if you'd provide a DIFF to show us what your concerns relate to. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 23:46, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Considering a possible edit in the article "Comal (cookware)."

The article states that the Comal was used by the Aztecs to "toast coffee." As coffee was introduced to the New World for centuries, I think this statement is not correct. Any thoughts welcome. 100.15.180.14 (talk) 22:42, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi, welcome to the Teahouse - the best (and right) place to discuss this and ask for comments would be the talk page of the article, you will find it here Talk:Comal_(cookware). CommanderWaterford (talk) 22:52, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Editing a page that is currently protected so that only extended confirmed users and administrators can edit it

Hello Teahouse,

I would like to update this page as it is out of date - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Children_of_Peace

However, I am unable to as it has been protected and there is a reference to 'extended confirmed access'

In the History Page it says:

21:08, 29 May 2018‎ Renamed user mou89p43twvqcvm8ut9w3 talk contribs‎ m  6,918 bytes 0‎  Protected "Children of Peace": Arbitration enforcement; WP:ARBPIA3#500/30 ([Edit=Require extended confirmed access] (indefinite) [Move=Require extended confirmed access] (indefinite)) 

The user mou89p43twvqcvm8ut9w3 doesn't seem to exist and I don't know who to go to in order to get this changed.

Many thanks, Clare Bolt (Iamclarebolt) --Iamclarebolt (talk) 23:29, 20 February 2021 (UTC) Iamclarebolt (talk) 23:29, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

The key words in that username are "Renamed user". This is an ex-administrator who's since left the project and requested a rename to get his username out of public logs. I'd ask about making the edit on the talk page. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Takes a strong man to deny...} 23:35, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

You have had an answer to the identical question which you asked at WP:HD. Please don't ask the same question in multiple locations. David Biddulph (talk) 23:37, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Regarding Reliable Sources for esports articles

Hello, i am very confused about what kind of references could be considered as reliable sources for esport related articles according to wikipedia GNG? For eg:- the article i created earlier Stalwart Esports has major coverage because of their India x pakistan thing, but here in india we have much more major organisation but they don’t have enough links, they have references in indian media houses only, For example:- Orange Rock Esports is a very famous esport organisation and they’ve won many tournaments and i want to do article on them but they have references in websites like (SportsKeeda Esports) (Dot Esports) (Talk Esports), I wanted to confirm will these articles be accepted as reliable sources for wikipedia? I can confirm that they are very major esport media houses in india, but wanted to confirm from some experienced editor/ admin as per wikipedia GNG. Also if you reply to me, kindly tag me. Thanks Hums4r (Let's Talk) 23:51, 20 February 2021 (UTC)