Wikipedia:Teahouse

AlanM1, a Teahouse host

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

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.

To read the newest questions, skip to bottom
About the Teahouse

Most recent archives
1221, 1222, 1223, 1224, 1225, 1226, 1227, 1228, 1229, 1230, 1231, 1232, 1233, 1234, 1235, 1236, 1237, 1238, 1239, 1240

HMCS Bonaventure

To Whom it May Concern:

My grandfather made the 10,000th landing on the aircraft carrier HMCS Bonaventure. I'm in possession of a plaque made to commemorate the event, a photo of which I posted to Wikimedia:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:HMCS_Bonaventure_10000th_Trap.jpg

I would like to update Wikipedia's page on the HMCS Bonaventure to reflect this information, but I was told that Wikimedia does not constitute a reliable source. What would be an acceptable way to cite the information on the plaque?

- RIPCaptainCWMillerJr (talk) 13:22, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello RIPCaptainCWMillerJr and welcome to the Teahouse! The plaque is a primary source. Primary sources can often be biased, so it would be preferred to use secondary sources. If you want to insert the image itself, then please use the format below:

[[File:HMCS Bonaventure 10000th Trap.jpg|thumb|HMCS Bonaventure 10000th Trap]]

which renders as the image to the right →

If you want to insert it to an infobox, then look at the template docs on how to insert the image. See H:IMAGE for more info. Sungodtemple a tcg fan!!1 !11 !! (talk) 14:39, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have reduced the image size here by adding "|100 px" to the image markup--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:12, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi RIPCaptainCWMillerJr. The plaque is not usable to verify this detail—in my view not because it is biased; indeed, were it reliable, I don't think its use would obviously be prohibited under our limitations for use of primary sources—but because it's not a reliable source for the information. While I'm sure it is what it purports to be, it's just not the type of thing that reliably verifies information in and of itself, e.g., a physical award is not a published source with editorial oversight and a "reputation for fact checking and accuracy".

A reliable, secondary, independent Template:Z21 source would be something like a (non-vanity) book, a magazine article, a newspaper story, etc., discussing the landing, that verifies the additional information you want to add, that could be cited in relation. Possibly, such a verifying source is already present in the article. Specifically, the sentence in the article that discusses the 10,000th landing ends with a footnote (e.g."^[1]"...), which cites to page 337 of the 2013 book British Aircraft Carriers: Design, Development and Service Histories. I can't check myself easily whether it mentions your grandfather's name in relation, as that page of that book doesn't appear to be accessible to me online (I did attempt some Google Books searches and some more general ones, but was unable able to find a usable source).

There is another issue here. I certainly understand the desire to commemorate a loved one, and that adding his name to the article as the actual person who made the landing would seem a natural way to do so – but your desire to add this is in conflict with the proper role of an editor. Should this detail be added? Would the article be improved by adding this person (your grandfather's) name? Possibly. Or would that be a bit too much detail for a tertiary source, encyclopedia treatment of this topic, that properly summarizes, without going into minute detail? That decision should be made based on whether adding the information (if and only if it can be properly verified) is desirable as a matter of editorial discretion, based on a variety of neutral precepts guiding our writing, and not because someone has a personal stake in seeing the person's name commemorated. You are not here for those reasons; you are not neutral on this subject but have a conflict of interest in seeing this added.

Still, in comparison to the problems we see of non-neutral writing here (a daily, raging stream of blatant advertisements written by business owners, et al.), this is a small matter. Anyway, finding a proper source for the addition might not be sufficient condition for its addition in light of the reasons I've discussed, but it is a threshold one. Nevertheless, If you can find that source, because of your conflict of interest, please post to the article's talk page asking for the change to be made (be sure to provide transparent details of the verifying source), rather than directly making the change. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:14, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All - thank you very much for the information and assistance, you guys make some really good points. Can't really argue with the conflict of interest issue. Stay safe out there! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:8C1:181:2C0:E865:C2B1:331A:9FBF (talk) 00:51, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Been Hacked

216.8.236.112 (talk) 13:24, 22 March 2021 (UTC) {{subst:Been Hacked. I have little to no computer knowledge trying to learn as I go. Your site is awesome,John thanks for the heads up! I plan to learn more as I go.. However right now I have someone that is disrupting my digital life. Every aspect cell phone, computers the whole thing is a pain. I don't have any use for much and I am a simple person. About to retire and drop off the grid, Life is short now all I want to do is enjoy what time I have left... In the good old days, a really good shot to the nose cured a lot of problems. But today our world is too violent to attempt lessons like that.. Any help would be greatly accepted.[reply]

Thank you all so much.

}} 216.8.236.112 (talk) 13:24, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You probably haven't been hacked. Try resetting your device(s) and see if that fixes the issue. Thanks, EDG 543 ^{(message me)} 13:48, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. This page is actually about questions specifically related to Wikipedia matters, and those who contribute here are not necessarily computer experts at all. We do have a forum, however, where general questions may be asked, that is specific to computer issues: the computing section of Wikipedia's reference desk <--that's a link>

So, if you restart your devices, and are still having the same problem, I suggest you post at that forum. However, your post gives no details that anyone who might have a solution to suggest could work from. If and when you post there, I suggest explaining in as much detail as you can exactly what is happening; the text of any error messages; that X happens when you do Y; what devices are affected; what operating systems you are using; which browser—anything that might be relevant given the actual nature of the problem.

To put it in more familiar terms, by analogy, your current post is akin to someone at a legal advice forum posting "I have a terrible legal problem that affecting everything in my life, please help me with it", and ending there, with no account of what the legal issue actually is. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:15, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@EDG 543 and Fuhghettaboutit: for future reference, I presume this person was just confused about why they had received a notification about having vandalised Wikipedia (hence the reference to "John", as John of Reading left the warning). All that's needed to answer this question is to point them to the information at the bottom of the warning template: If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices. There may be additional context to the message but not Wikipedia-related. — Bilorv (talk) 19:44, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Bilorv: Except that that your presumption does not comport at all with the person's message.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:13, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Fuhghettaboutit: (didn't get the ping due to a misspelling) What do you mean? I've seen similar questions before at the Teahouse and that was the question intended. — Bilorv (talk) 07:45, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Bilorv: Hey. I mean that the person specifically said they are having problems with multiple devices (that seem related to one hack). First they saoid that what was being "disrupt[ed]" was their "digital life", and then they mention, apparently as examples among others: "Every aspect cell phone, computers..." So, it's possible they misunderstood the vandalism warning as one more part of the supposed "hack", but it doesn't sound like if that was the spark for their post, it could possibly be "All that's needed to answer this question". Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:32, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How to request U1 CSD of a js page

Hey I'm curious how I would request the deletion of my common.js page. As it is a js page, tagging it doesn't really work. Does anyone know how to do this? βӪᑸᙥӴ • Talk • Contribs 19:43, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Bop34! You should be able to accomplish this by typing it as a comment like so: /* {{db-u1}} */. Thanks, EDG 543 ^{(message me)} 19:47, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh okay that's what I did I just didn't know if it was correct. Sorry for wasting your time. βӪᑸᙥӴ • Talk • Contribs 19:48, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not a waste at all, we're here to help! {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:12, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Making talk pages healthier, especially for newcomers

Is there a way to make talk pages healthier here, especially for newcomers? Some of the talk pages are so off-putting because of the way editors talk to others. Newcomers get the worst of it, from what I've observed. Or is the disrespect an expected part of the environment? I've read the talk page guidelines and the civility policy, but neither seem to have much of an impact on the unpleasantness occurring at some talk pages. New Sheriff in Town (talk) 22:09, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy, New Sheriff in Town and welcome to the Teahouse. Personally, I think simply trying to set a good example in one's own communications is the best way to slowly lift standards of civility, and never to get riled up, nor tell the other editor that "Wikipedia ain't big enough for the both of us". Of course, it's hard to include nuance and subtlety in talk page posts via a keyboard, and many active editors find themselves inevitably having to leave short, sharp messages for editors when they make a mistake that needs correcting, before moving on to the next problem, and the next, and so forth. Here at the Teahouse we try to offer a friendly face when we answer questions, and I don't see that you've personally encountered any problems yourself. But I can see you are interested in subjects which can attract strong opinions, so perhaps you've seen some blunt speaking on those pages. Either way, welcome again to Wikipedia and enjoy your own Wikipedia Adventure. Nick Moyes (talk) 22:34, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and thank you, Nick Moyes. I have been appalled by some of what I have seen. I plan to mostly stick to biology pages. After what I've seen at the more controversial pages, I'll try to leave those alone as much as possible. Even many pages people would conclude aren't going to be controversial turn out to be a hotbed of discord. I knew that female biology topics could be political, but the discord on the talk page can still blow me away. New Sheriff in Town (talk) 23:08, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, New Sheriff in Town, people do get hot under the collar for all sorts of reasons but, being a collaborative project, it's important to be able to debate different perspectives without insulting the other person and thus to reach a consensus. Sadly, many editors seem to forget that, and descend to attacking the other person, not the statements they want to add or remove. Sometimes, it's the old hands (who ought to know better) who go straight for the jugular. Even today I found this happening in a minor way on my own talk page, hence this comment. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:22, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I've seen senior editors being the worst offenders. Thank you for taking the time to talk to me about this. I'll do my best to not get hot under the collar. New Sheriff in Town (talk) 23:27, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi New Sheriff in Town. I'm a little late to the thread, but I notice that the article you're referring to is a Featured Article that is being actively edited by a team of senior editors. That might not be the best place for a newer editor to start. From my own experiences, sometimes I'll make a one word change to a featured article and it'll get reverted. The senior editors that work on those articles craft every word carefully, to conform not only to our complex Wikipedia policies and guidelines, but also to the written and unwritten norms of the Featured Article process. I consider editing Featured Articles to be an advanced skill, and you might have a better experience editing in a less stringent area. Hope that helps. –Novem Linguae (talk) 11:06, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Novem Linguae. It's a featured article, but some felt it wasn't the quality article it once was. So it's been undergoing what you guys call a review. Featured article or no, I feel confident in saying it's no excuse for how multiple editors there have been treated. From their own mouths with takes like this one (which was toned down afterward) and what is said in the thread as a whole, it hasn't been a pleasant environment. That's why those like me who are knowledgeable in the subject area are discouraged from taking part in discussions there. So are non-experts, even though an essay from you guys says Wikipedia doesn't give experts special treatment, and I don't see any experts in the subject area there. A newcomer can help out with advice or opinions on the discussion page. The newcomer doesn't need to edit the page outside of that. Still, if what the newcomer has to say will be dismissed or seen as lesser than because they're new, it's really discouraging. I didn't want to point to that thread because it's not the only page I've seen which colors the Wikipedia environment as rife with discord, but also because I'm not interested in hearing from those who have been rude there. So please don't call them here. I said my piece there. I said others and I observed that discussion page and other discussion pages to get a sense of how editors here collaborate. It's not one of the pages I was very interested in editing, but I know a couple of people who were considering contributing there and turned away when they saw the arguments there. Thank you for your opinions, but I don't want to linger on this. In addition to the crash course I've been given by others about Wikipedia, I've been reading up on Wikipedia's ways when time allows, and I will push forward with heavier editing once I feel more confident about doing that. For heavier editing, I will be starting with the circulatory system article and have said on the discussion page there that I will be expanding two sections. New Sheriff in Town (talk) 05:57, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

New Sheriff in Town, roger that. Thanks for the response. I hope your editing goes very smoothly and that you have a good experience. –Novem Linguae (talk) 06:02, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

New Sheriff in Town thanks, interesting conversation! I'd like to add to the title of this section "making talk pages healthier, especially for newcomers and for women". Aggressive writing on talk pages is one of the factors that has contributed to Gender bias on Wikipedia (check out the recent discussion on the talk page there; the most controversial thread has already been archived for now). I don't know if there is something wrong about the way I write on talk pages or how I edit (or are people getting tenser because of Covid lockdowns?) but just recently I've copped quite a big of flack, mostly from experienced, long-term, male (?) editors (who sometimes refer to everyone else as "he" instead of "she" or "they"). I assume there are probably PhD theses out there somewhere that have analysed how people use talk pages, who gets aggressive when and why. I very much like the policy of WP:NOBITE. - Anyway, thanks to the friendly helpers at the Teahouse and let's keep supporting each other! EMsmile (talk) 08:29, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No. That kind of gender stereotyping is not helpful. Editors are editors. Male editors are editors. Female editors are editors. Genderqueer editors are editors. In each of these gender groups, and all others, the difference between individuals is going to be a lot more important than any similarities – especially since within each group, there will not be one single similarity that is not also shared with all other groups. In other words, a talk page discussion that is "healthier for women" is either going to be better for all editors, or better for some women and worse for others, and the mere wording is going to alienate a substantial number of female editors. --bonadea contributions talk 09:33, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Bonadea. Even though I requested that editors from that page not be called here, you made this post. Why? I didn't want this thread to become a part two of that one. For reasons I've said there and in this thread, I didn't reply there. I replied here (and only because Novem Linguae replied to me and I felt okay about expressing my feelings on that reply here). Now I feel unsafe in this thread. I posted to the Teahouse for uninvolved opinions from friendly editors. I don't want this thread to be a mouthpiece for why editors might behave in very subpar ways toward others when the page is a featured article or serve as an extension to say why an editor there may have been treated the way they were treated there. That will only lead to that editor arguing with the one saying that about them. I have gotten plenty of advice and insight already (thanks to friendly editors above and email), and this thread wasn't meant to be about just one discussion page. This isn't a knock on you, EMsmile. Your comment before this post is appreciated, and I can see from the article and talk page you pointed to that many agree with you about Wikipedia suffering from a male-female gender gap and partly due to bias. Still, count me out for saying anything more in this thread. New Sheriff in Town (talk) 09:45, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

When a discussion on one very high-profile and visible talk page links to a different talk page and criticises specific editors, it is a matter of basic courtesy to also create a link in the other direction. In some cases such a link is required – that is not the case at the Teahouse, but there is no reason not to connect the discussions, especially since the article talk page shouldn't be used to discuss editing behaviour anyway. --bonadea contributions talk 10:32, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note, bonadea; I think a careful review of the entire talk page by anyone concerned will be revealing. Meanwhile, WP:FOC is a key aspect of Wikipedia editing that can be pointed out. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:29, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi bonadea, in theory you might be right ("Editors are editors"). In practice, research has shown that - in general - women might be more averse to "aggressive discussion styles" than men. See e.g. here. I copy some bits from there: "Former Wikimedia Foundation executive director Sue Gardner cited nine reasons why women don't edit Wikipedia: Aversion to conflict and an unwillingness to participate in lengthy edit wars; Some find its overall atmosphere misogynistic; Wikipedia culture is sexual in ways they find off-putting; Being addressed as male is off-putting to women whose primary language has grammatical gender; Fewer opportunities for social relationships and a welcoming tone compared to other sites." That's what I was referring to. Of course many males find that kind of stuff also off-putting, whereas some female editors don't mind and are perhaps even more aggressive than the average male editor. But overall, the research has shown those kinds of trends. It's normal, that a working environment where 80% of editors are male, there would be a certain tendency towards certain communication styles that are more prevalent amongst men. (sorry - probably the teahouse is not the right place for this kind of discussion (?); if so, I'll be quiet now. :-) ) EMsmile (talk) 15:11, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All very interesting, but presumes to know whether the most offensive posts on that page are from men or women, so while an interesting discussion, not very relevant to that particular article talk page. At THAT article, we have a male engaging to help address a topic related to females (as one of the few Wikipedians competent to do just that), and it is not hard to see how he was treated (see WP:BLUDGEON); I leave it to you to guess which posters are male and which are female. And to speculate on whether anyone would ever want to put themselves through that again. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:26, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

EMsmile, no, I am not talking about theoretical constructs, but basing what I say on current research on empirical sociolinguistics (and not on a Wikipedia article). women might be more averse to "aggressive discussion styles" than men is true, but it is equally true that men might be more averse to "aggressive discussion styles" than women, depending on the context. There is a very slight correlation between gender and discussion style, which varies depending on the context, but the variation within gender groups (not only men and women but all other genders) is so much greater that we can say with complete confidence that there is no causation. And as Sandy Georgia points out, we don't know the biological sex or social gender of other editors in the vast majority of cases anyway. What is offensive is people such as the person quoted above presuming to be a spokesperson on what is "off-putting to women", or making it sound like women are incapable of intellectual pursuits – poor little flowers, they wilt without social interaction and we must protect them. How can she talk about aversion to conflict as if that is not significantly much more dependent on culture than on gender? Did she just shoot her mouth off without first consulting any research at all? Kind of sad, for a representative of an encyclopedia, and very sad indeed that her blog is used as a source in the article. --bonadea contributions talk 15:57, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bonadea, the Teahouse is supposed to be "A friendly place where you can ask questions to get help with using and editing Wikipedia." New Sheriff in Town said, "I didn't want to point to that thread because it's not the only page I've seen which colors the Wikipedia environment as rife with discord, but also because I'm not interested in hearing from those who have been rude there. So please don't call them here. I said my piece there." But you pointed the editors New Sheriff in Town has some unease about interacting with to this thread. And by doing so, you brought the same tension from there to here, which is unhelpful. That's not beneficial to New Sheriff in Town. One of the editors (above me) has even made this about the feelings of the editor others have felt uncomfortable talking to (with an inaccurate claim of WP:BLUDGEONING for good measure). Experienced users in this thread looked at New Sheriff in Town's edits and easily connected the two threads. So it's very likely that those at that page who read New Sheriff in Town's post looked at New Sheriff in Town's contribution history and would have seen this Teahouse section. What your post there did, though, was invite them here. Now this thread has become a gender debate. Unless we assume that most people on Wikipedia take on a male identity for appearances' sake, there's really no reason to doubt that most of Wikipedia is male and the reasons given for this when the data on it has been strong and stable. The data has also been strong and stable supporting the sobering point that the Internet is overwhelmingly male and the reasons for this.[1] So it's not just a Wikipedia thing. Sue hasn't said anything the women themselves haven't said. If we're going to talk about Sue Gardner, I say we point her to this discussion (through my notification and maybe through email). Sue, here's more material for your research. Count me out of commenting more in this thread too. ApproximateLand (talk) 22:35, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your points, ApproximateLand. The tone in this thread has changed which is a pity. It's gone back to that conversation at menstrual cycle which is unnecessary as this is a broader issue, not restricted to a particular article or particular editors. Regarding genders, I don't make assumptions who is who, it usually comes out quite naturally during the conversations (and if it doesn't I don't assume anything). I give you here an example that I experienced on the India talk page (see here) (I gave the same example on the talk page of Gender bias on Wikipedia, now archived): An experienced long term male editor (User:Fowler&fowler) addressed another editor several times as "he" even though the other editor pointed out several times that she is not a he. She said: "If you don't know somebody's gender, why not use the singular they?". He replied: "You could have simply said you are female. It is important to acknowledge that in an enterprise that is pretty much all male." My reply was: "I find that very offensive. You are implying that the onus is on us (yes, I am also female) to state that we are female in order to avoid being called "he/his" because you say it's an all male environment. [...] ." - This kind of stuff still happens far too often. And I agree that cultural differences are also important. It could well be that many people from Asian or African cultures don't enjoy the aggressive, argumentative style that people from Europe and North America are used to, and therefore rather stay away. So maybe the title of this thread could be "Making talk pages healthier, especially for newcomers and for people who prefer peace and calm". EMsmile (talk) 01:51, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. bonadea If you have time/energy please go ahead and improve the Wikipedia article on Gender bias on Wikipedia if you have more reliable sources than what is used there at present. I have no doubt that the article could be improved further to make it more accurate and comprehensive. EMsmile (talk) 01:54, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Block vs Ban

What exactly is the difference between a block and a ban? Lomrjyo (talk) 23:17, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bans can only be overturned by community discussion, appeal to ArbCom, or appeal to Jimbo. In addition, banned users' edits may be summarily reverted. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Takes a strong man to deny...} 23:21, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You can find more specific information at WP:BAN and WP:BLOCK.

The last paragraph of the lead section of WP:BAN states as follows:

Bans are different from blocks, which are used by administrators to technically prevent a user account or IP address from editing Wikipedia. Blocks are used chiefly to deal with immediate problems such as vandalism, disruptive editing or edit warring. A ban, on the other hand, does not technically prevent editing; however, blocks may be used to enforce bans.

On the other hand, the last paragraph of the lead section of WP:BLOCK states as follows:

Blocking is different from banning, which is a formal retraction of editing privileges on all or part of Wikipedia. Blocks disable a user's ability to edit pages; bans do not. However, bans may be enforced by blocks; users who are subject to a total ban, or who breach the terms of a partial ban, will most likely be site-wide blocked to enforce the ban.

I hope that helps. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:28, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have found this confusing. The explanation above concentrates on how ban and blocks are used, not on what they are. My explanation, maybe mistaken, is: a ban is an instruction to an editor to avoid certain topics or types of behaviour, while a block physically prevents them from editing. Maproom (talk) 08:08, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bans are formal editing restrictions, which blocks can enforce. A block is a technical prohibition from editing, meant to prevent disruption(such as violating a ban). 331dot (talk) 08:16, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Louis III of France

I made some substantial edits to Louis III of France and I was wondering if it can qualify to go up from its original class. (Start-class I think) Xdude gamer (talk) 23:46, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Xdude gamer: Welcome to the Teahouse! Each WikiProject has their assessment criteria and a way to request a review. See the following pages for more info:

Hope this helps - happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 00:51, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Xdude gamer: I've not yet done any content assessments specifically for WikiProject Biography, but their descriptions for quality grades are copied verbatim from the standard quality scale, so I'll take a crack at it. The absolute biggest (albeit only) obstacle I see to this reaching C-class is its contents' very poor verifiability. The reader experience for a C-class article reads as follows: "Useful to a casual reader, but would not provide a complete picture for even a moderately detailed study." I think this article would be a fine resource to a casual reader were it not for a glaring, multi-layered issue: putting myself in the shoes of a casual reader, I have basically no way to verify 90% of the content present in the article due to a lack of inline citations. I want to clarify before I go into this that this is neither your fault nor your problem, as this article has been like this for a decade; nobody's imposing any of this on you unless you want to go the extra mile and fix what your predecessors did terribly wrong. Say I – still a casual reader – read the text:

When Charles died in 877 and then Louis the Stammerer died two years later, some Frankish nobles advocated electing Louis as the sole king, but another party favoured each brother ruling a separate part of the kingdom. In September 879, Louis was crowned at Ferrières Abbey.

No inline citation, so maybe I scroll down to the section labeled 'Sources'. Now I have five sources to choose from: four books (one of which now has a link to archive.org; yay, progress!) and one journal article (the latter of which has the right year but the wrong volume; I'll fix that after this). Without inline citations, we already have a problem: which one of these sources – if any – substantiates the text? You, Wikipedia, want me to run out and find all of these just so I can hopefully find one that substantiates your claims? 99.9% of casual readers just quit at this point, but that's not even the end of it: three of these sources have no page numbers. So if I'm a casual reader who's actually bold enough to even try digging into this further using the sources I've been given, I'm now stuck digging through these books to find material that I believe may attest to what Wikipedia has said about it, and I'm not even sure some of these do. As an example, Charles Oman's The Dark Ages 476-918 (sixth edition, because our citation specified 1918) contains no mention of Louis III in its index, and a search for 'Louis III' returns nothing. As the icing on the cake, almost none of these have anything identifying them despite the fact that such identifiers exist. The journal article has no JSTOR or DOI despite both of these existing, and none of the contemporary books have ISBNs. The Charles Oman source, which understandably doesn't have an ISBN, didn't even have an edition number before today.

All of this takes this article from being "a fine resource for a casual reader" as I described above to being extremely frustrating at best for a student/researcher and practically useless for a casual reader. This is earnestly the only thing I think keeping this article mired in Start-class, but fixing it would be a pretty sizeable undertaking. GoingBatty, your thoughts? TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 02:46, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I found the page in disarray and I actually didn't place any other new changes other than a bit of grammar, some headings, and other such bits and pieces. Oddly enough, I didn't check the sources. I thought they were reliable enough.

In my thoughts, I believe that perhaps a little more stuff could be added. But until then, some reliable sources will have to be found. Xdude gamer (talk) 11:32, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blank draft

Please Accept My Article Shah Kinchitkumar Arya (talk) 07:57, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shah Kinchitkumar Arya, your draft Draft:Arya Kinchitkumar Shah was declined as it has no content. Are you trying to create an article about yourself? Maproom (talk) 08:17, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked as sock. David notMD (talk) 11:03, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

is the story about a women who lives lonely in toga(ilaheva)a legend or a myth?

45.117.242.251 (talk) 08:22, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse. This is a place to ask questions about how to edit Wikipedia. There are lonely women everywhere, but since there doesn't seem to be any place on earth called Togailaheva I would say it's untrue.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 13:42, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ARTICLES FOR CREATION ISSUES

I submitted an article Draft:Virony Nigeria please check it out for any issues. Also I need to know if it is still under review or had been remove Sharges (talk) 09:08, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Declined today. Reviewer gave reasons. David notMD (talk) 11:07, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sharges, welcome to the Teahouse. The current status of the draft is "declined". Please read the reasons given by the reviewer. The reasons given are that it sounds like an advertisement, and that it does not have enough high quality sources such as newspapers and books to meet our notability guidelines (notability = what is allowed to have its own article). Feel free to fix the issues mentioned, then hit the "resubmit" button to resubmit. –Novem Linguae (talk) 11:10, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please can you help me with the error and corrections? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sharges (talk • contribs) 14:26, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sharges, no. You are a paid editor, and we are not going to do your work for you. Read the resources that we have generously provided you with. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:10, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Muble Solutions Pvt Ltd

Is possible to create a company page for "Muble Solutions Pvt Ltd" Urogulfs (talk) 09:45, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Urogulfs. Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse. My advice would be to gather up three good sources (newspaper articles, books), and post links to them here. We can double check and make sure this topic passes our notability guidelines. If it passes, then you can move on and create a draft. There are some slightly different processes and advice that could be given, but in my opinion this is likely to be the smoothest process for you. Hope that helps. –Novem Linguae (talk) 10:57, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia newbie, would like to request a major edit to a page but am clueless how to

Hello, I am a common Wikipedia reader, although I have never edited anything nor am I really sure what I am doing with editing. I never really wanted to bother with it, as most things seem to be very accurate. I have found something however that is related to a subject I am passionate about that seems incorrect, if not inconsistent. I do not know how to properly request an edit with proof and what not though, and I don't want to do something wrong and cause any trouble for it. I'm an avid wrestling fan, currently we are in Wrestlemania season which is the time of the year people will be reading more about it's history than any other time. I have found an inconsistency with the Wrestlemania Wikipedia page in the "Final Match section" This section does not state the "main event", but the literal final match. For 2020's Wrestlemania 36, the final match was Drew McIntyre (c) vs. Big Show for the WWE Championship, an extra match added after the Main event which Drew McIntyre won. However, the page lists the match which was the Main Event, not the final match of Wrestlemania that year. The entire show was on tape delay, so even though this match was shown the next night on Monday Night Raw, it was presented by WWE as the final match of the WrestleMania 36, after the Brock Lesnar (c) vs. Drew McIntyre match that Wikipedia has listed. The entire event was on tape delay so, my argument is that this match was presented by WWE themselves in WWE-canon as the final match of Wrestlemania 36. That event was held via tape delay, and most of the matches were presented to us the first two days, however the final match was presented on Monday at the beginning of WWE's Monday Night Raw. It was however still shown as the official final match that took place! Anyone can go back and watch that show and see this to be factual. I'm not sure how someone would add articles to show this as fact but, any wrestling related article about the event would verify that this is factual. This causes an inconsistency because the Wrestlemania 9 listed Final Match, Hulk Hogan (c) vs. Yokozuka, was not the main event but was also an extra added on match after the scheduled main event ended (which was Bret Hart (c) vs. Yokozuka, and Yokozuna won). So Wrestlemania 9 lists the extra match as the final one on your page, and Wrestlemania 36 does not. I feel that this could be confusing for fans. People reading the page may assume it is the literal Main Events of each Wrestlemania, but if that is the goal of the Wrestlemania Wikipedia article, than the Wrestlemania 9 Bret Hart (c) vs. Yokozuna match needs to replace the current one. If the goal is to show the absolute final match, than the Wrestlemania 36 one currently listed needs to be changed to the Drew McIntyre (c) vs. Big Show for the WWE Championship. Either 9 needs to be fixed, or 36 does. I would love to be able to request an official edit on this and help out with the accuracy of Wrestlemania history. I have absolutely no idea how I would do this, but I figured I would make a Wikipedia account, ask for help, and explain what I would like to accomplish! Thanks for your time! MoneyTakerBaby (talk) 10:10, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MoneyTakerBaby Hosts here at Teahouse are volunteers. Your 'wall' of text makes it difficult to wade through. It appears you believe one or more (?) Wrestlemania articles contain errors. The next step is either to A) change the articles, or B) on the Talk pages of the articles, start a new section, and explain there what you think is wrong, so that an editor reaing your comment will implement the change. There is no such thing as an "official edit." We are all editors. David notMD (talk) 11:13, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MoneyTakerBaby, welcome to the Teahouse. My advice would be to post a much shorter version of this suggestion, in a new section on the page Talk:WrestleMania. An experienced Wikipedian will evaluate your request, and if they agree, they will make the change. I recommend writing your request in a "Change X to Y" format, and I also recommend including a URL to a reliable source that we can use to verify the change. Normally you can just fix articles yourself by hitting "Edit", but that particular article is semi-protected, probably due to recent vandalism. Hope that helps. –Novem Linguae (talk) 11:15, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. WrestleMania 36 has a description of Main event: McIntyre defeating Big Show, as an "dark match." There is a discussion about this on the Talk page. David notMD (talk) 11:22, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I will comment that one of the most common good-faith mistakes by new editors in Wikipedia is posting a very long post, either asking for help or expressing a view about what should be changed in an article. We need to remember not only that concise posts are usually better but to encourage other editors to post concisely. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:47, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Email query

Courtesy link: Glenmuir Water

Received the following A reviewer suggested improvements to the page ‪......‬. Tags: uncategorised, refimprove.

What does this mean? Rmwmaci5 (talk) 12:37, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The reviewer -- of which article? -- probably thought that categories should be added and that the references should be improved. (And how is this related to email?) -- Hoary (talk) 12:54, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if this is what the user means but sometimes new users mistake the notifications for emails, or they have the setting to be emailed when they have notifications turned on. βӪᑸᙥӴ • Talk • Contribs 13:00, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Rmwmaci5: The notification is about [2] which is a log entry created by this edit. It added two boxes with help links about references and categories. The second box has been removed because the page now has categories. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:49, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

how do I type

Excuse me but how do I type in roblox? 119.94.1.209 (talk) 12:50, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To start chatting, press the / key on your keyboard. This will open up the chat window, if enabled by the developer, and a chat-bar where you can type what you would like to say. Once you have entered your text into that bar, hit Enter on your keyboard to send it. This is also not the right place to ask such questions so please ask only Wikipedia related questions here. SenatorLEVI 12:53, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Follow Xx_SenatorLEVI_xX for more MLG Roblox tips and tricks. ;) TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 14:24, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

TheTechnician27, well my actual username is Awesomecross123, but I made that when I was 12. I'm fairly good at MLG, thank you. SenatorLEVI 16:16, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean the article Roblox, then you click the edit button to the left of the search bar. Please try to make your questions more clear in the future though. βӪᑸᙥӴ • Talk • Contribs 12:54, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notability regarding awards/recognition

Jumping from WP:GNG, is there any guideline or standard regarding being the recipient of awards? Essentially, if there is a BLP article which is mostly being propped up because of awards received, would that constitute notability? I don't see anything in WP:NOTE that touches on recognitions and awards.
Some context; I have noticed a handful of BLP articles that include the subject's position/role/title in some organization, their published works, some awards/recognitions received, some bio trivia, and nothing more. Would such an article be deemed notable? Obviously each article should be inspected independently, but just looking for general clarification. Thank you! PerpetuityGrat (talk) 14:22, 23 March 2021 (UTC) PerpetuityGrat (talk) 14:22, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, PerpetuityGrat, and welcome to the Teahouse. Whereas the GNG is designed as a general guideline for any subject, WP:BIO is probably where you'll find your answer, namely in WP:ANYBIO, which states that a factor which can contribute to notability is that: "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times." Depending on the article you're analysing, you may want to take a look at subject-specific notability guidelines. For example, WP:BAND has a whole slew of notability criteria not found in WP:GNG or WP:BIO. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 14:32, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c) Hi PerpetuityGrat. I am a bit conflicted because I believe that all of the subject specific notability guidelines should be deleted—because the only thing that matters is whether the sources exist upon which a verifiable article can be created, beyond a sub-stub, mostly based upon reliable, secondary, independent sources Template:Z21—and the SSNGs essentially function to provide alternative criteria for keeping articles where the GNG cannot be met, i.e., for topics for which insufficient sources cannot be located, and so no suitable article can be written but... "let's keep them anyway".

That being said, yes:

Wikipedia:Notability (books)—a page I created and wrote most most of, but would now have deleted if I could—says "The book has won a major literary award" (a criterion I don't mind, but only because it's utterly useless – since any book meeting it will inevitably meet the GNG anyway);
Wikipedia:Notability (films) provides: "The film has received a major award for excellence in some aspect of filmmaking";
Wikipedia:Notability (music) offers: "Has won or been nominated for a major music award, such as a Grammy, Juno, Mercury, Choice or Grammis award";
Wikipedia:Notability (academics) says: "The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level";

And there's more in others. See Category:Wikipedia notability guidelines. A common denominator of each of them is that the award be of special significance. You will find, for example, at many AfDs people will bring up some industry award as a basis for keeping, and then the discussion will properly turn to the fact that every industry has numerous awards at every level of significance, most of which do not confer upon the subject much "note" at all. (Sort of akin to the the fact that every movie poster has pull-quoted rave reviews. It's just that the good ones are quoting Rolling Stone and the The New York Times, etc., and bad ones quote some magazine you've never heard of, which functions solely to provide rave review quotes for shitty movies:-)

You can find numerous examples of this playing out in the results of a search like this. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:50, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Fuhghettaboutit: & @TheTechnician27: Hoping to get some insight here. Here are three articles that I believe may lack notability. Hoping to get your analyses on these, in effort to further improve my understanding the notability criteria: activist Gigi Raven Wilbur, academic Ann M. Mongoven, and journalist Tanya Gold. Are these worth deleting in your opinion? Are these notable? Thanks! PerpetuityGrat (talk) 15:00, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey again PerpetuityGrat. Unless someone is obviously notable, or obviously non-notable (i.e., for the former, a search that tends to concentrate reliable sources, e.g., Google Books and JSTOR each return scads of results with substantive treatment of the subject; and for the latter, the person is contemporary and their notability is tied to online activities but there's next to no results for a Google web search), determining notability for edge cases takes a serious time investment in WP:BEFORE activities. Doing that with the due diligence I would need to invest to give you any sort of definitive answer would require me to make that time investment, which I'm not going to devote.

Maybe saying what I just did, though, helps? Let me put it another way, that might provide some more clarity. Putting aside whether a person meets some criterion of an SSNG that circumvents the GNG (which, as I've indicated, is in my view a waste of time, because such standards are non-encyclopedic bullshit), finding out whether someone meets the GNG for an on-the-merits discussion at AfD (i.e., what actually counts toward notability) always looks to the existence of the rights types of sources, with a sufficient depth of treatment, and not what's currently written in an article. That is why the time investment would be necessary to provide an answer. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:25, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. A quick Google Books search returns a lot of results for Gigi Raven Wilbur. Again, I cannot really say without looking in more depth, but that is a facial indication that they are notable. Reinforcing the point above, whether the text of the article currently suitably demonstrates that notability is entirely irrelevant to the question.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:37, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, of the three, the weakest article is about Ann, as three of the refs are to the website of the university where she has an appointment, and the others are to her published works. Nothing there ABOUT her. David notMD (talk) 15:49, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle

Help, I have signed up at the proper spot indicating I want the news letter but I have not recieved it. Is there a period I have to wait until the recognize I joined or did I sign up wrong? Any help is appriceated. Gandalf the Groovy (talk) 15:38, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Gandalf the Groovy: I’m not familiar with The Bugle but I am the Signpost. Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:50, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Timtempleton: Get me WP:IMAGES of Spider-Man!

@Gandalf the Groovy: Well how about that - I randomly stumbled across it while looking on another user's talk page, and so I added it to Bugle (disambiguation). Now the next person can find it more easily. You might have more luck asking about delivery on the talk page. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 00:55, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Help! English-speaking reviewer who can read sources in French needed :)

I have submitted early december an article Draft:International_Association_of_Department_Stores which has been reviewed by SK2242. I have made changes, however he advised me to come and look here for someone who could review it top priority. I have submitted the draft 2nd of December, and I reviewed following his refusal on the following day. Any help would be appreciated. Thank you! --Perchsquirell (talk) 16:24, 23 March 2021 (UTC) Perchsquirell (talk) 16:24, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Perchsquirell: I can see why it was declined. It could also be declined again unless it is restructured and tightened up. I recommend you reorganize it into these sections: History, Operations, Membership. I've deleted the long list of managers and external links - that's too much, per WP:NOTDIR. Refs go after punctuation. Avoid unsourced promotional-leaning sentences such as "Of the many scientific management research groups set up in the 1920s, the IADS is practically the only body that has a record of continuing membership and activity since then." Also, please read WP:COI if you have a connection with the organization. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 01:08, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Timtempleton: Got it, thank you. I have followed your advice and restructured / shortened quite a bit the article. I am not directly or indirectly compensated for this article, let me know if there is a procedure to show so. Regarding the list, I removed it - your edit was not published yesterday and I got confused between the long list of managers (that was shortened yesterday) and the long list of presidents (that were just removed). let me know.

Above all, thank you for your time. --Perchsquirell (talk) 12:37, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

HELP ON A DECLINED ARTICLE

please can anyone help me with Draft:Virony Nigeria. The article was declined. Please help me with the corrections on the issues raised Sharges (talk) 16:27, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Sharges. I don't claim to speak for everybody at the Teahouse, but there are a few huge, interconnected issues with your request that I think will disincentivize basically anybody here from pitching in.

The first is that there's a very good chance this subject doesn't meet Wikipedia's general notability criteria or its notability crtieria for companies. Wikipedia editors can't create notability out of thin air, so there's a chance this article can't possibly be fixed until more coverage is given to it in reliable, independent sources (see: WP:TOOSOON). Essentially, an editor could throw hours of their time down the drain if the subject turns out not to be notable.

The second is that, at the end of the day, Wikipedia is a community of volunteers. If nobody anywhere is interested in going onto Wikipedia to create a functional article, that article just doesn't get created, and given how much could potentially be covered in a project like Wikipedia (and its sister projects, etc.), editors usually already have a ton on their plates.

And the third is that this article has been paid for and is wholly an advertisement. I don't want to use your disclosure against you, as that's the right thing to do; it would've been completely evident to almost any experienced editor that this article was paid by the sort of corporate 'dialect' it uses. Wikipedia was founded as a space where corporations don't get to just throw cash at a platform to advertise their products or represent themselves more favorably, and therefore editors give articles on active corporations the utmost scrutiny. Moreover, even assuming editors didn't care about the project's integrity whatsoever, there's still the matter that this would involve unpaid volunteers fixing the work that you were, well, paid to do, and for the express purpose of generating profit for a company. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 17:05, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What TT27 said. You are asking for free help because you failed to complete what you were paid for. Teahouse hosts advise, and on occasion will help with good faith, non-promotional efforts by non-paid editors. David notMD (talk) 17:18, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An idea based around Simple Wikipedia.

So there is a Simple English Wikipedia. What if they made a Simple Spanish, or a Simple French Wikipedia?

Would it make sense or would it be a waste of time? Just a simple question, is all. xdude (talk) 16:50, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There will never be another simple Wikipedia because the policy changed since simple wiki was created. Ruslik_Zero 17:32, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ruslik0: Out of curiosity, I went to that page and there's nothing about Simple Wikipedia. I did find this though, which suggests that the groundswell of support for closing the largest Simple Wikipedia discouraged others from starting a foreign language version. You'd think that policy would be clearly spelled out somewhere though. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:15, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The rules are written a little squishy without hard boundries, in my opinion. It says the language must "ordinarily have" its own ISO 639 code (but not that it MUST) and it also says that "in most cases" it excludes written forms of the same language. Perhaps there is enough wiggle room there to convince someone that a "Simple French" Wikipedia should be approved, but it seems unlikely. RudolfRed (talk) 18:53, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Timtempleton and Xdude gamer: meta:Proposals for closing projects/Closure of Simple English Wikipedia (3) is the most recent attempt to shut down Simple English Wikipedia. The way I'd boil it down is that creating the Simple English Wikipedia was an experiment that has clearly failed, but not quite so badly for efforts to shut it down to succeed. Still, there is zero appetite to repeat the failure in another language. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:07, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Huh. I didn't really know they had that proposal! I can see that going on though. Simple Wikipedia is a bit dumb and it doesn't have enough articles to make it worthwhile. It has everything there (infoboxes, templates, etc.) and yet most people don't use it. And it doesn't have much of a fan base...

I guess I learned something :) xdude (talk) 00:48, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Xdude gamer: most people with the competence to write for any Wikipedia have little interest in writing for simple Wikipedia. Readers should be editors but our audience of readers there is inherently different from the audience of editors. Elli (talk | contribs) 08:29, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Xdude gamer: If there was enough motivation, someone could fork Wikipedia and create their own (not sponsored by WMF) encyclopedia based on a "Simple" version of a language. RudolfRed (talk) 18:54, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Translation of an article

I've submitted an article that has just been created : Thanks. I had this article transmated into Spanish and Russian. How must I proceed so that the reviewers know that it's a"simple" translation (without going trought the whoe process of a review) ? Thank you. Pariswasafeast (talk) 16:56, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Pariswasafeast: Welcome to Wikipedia and thanks for working to expand it. The article still needs to be reviewed because each language Wikipedia is a separate project with different requirements for articles. RudolfRed (talk) 17:32, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm too scared to edit

I've come across many statements which were provided with almost valid sources while editing Wikipedia articles.But they usually represent personal opinions or partial point of view. Since I am a newcomer to Wikipedia, I'm hesitant to edit and remove these statements in the fear that I might be banned permanently from Wikipedia. What should i do in such a situation .RonaldWeasley.voldy gone moldy (talk) 17:28, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't want to make the edit yourself, you can start a discussion on the article's talk page suggesting that the material be improved or removed. RudolfRed (talk) 17:33, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Consider WP:BRD. Use editsummaries, and discuss as necessary. Opinions are not necessarily wrong to include in a WP-article, it depends on the context, see for example WP:BIASEDSOURCES. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:54, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, don't be afraid! Seriously, the worst that will happen is you'll get reverted and you can discuss things. It's really hard to get blocked permanently the first time, you've got to really try for that to happen. Showing good faith, and using edit summaries to explain reasons and discussing on the article talk page goes a really long way to making other editor welcome your edits, presence and thoughts. Ravensfire (talk) 18:03, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah really remember just to be bold. If you think that it will improve the encyclopedia then do it. There's no reason to be afraid, especially as a new editor. βӪᑸᙥӴ • Talk • Contribs 18:25, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, Wikipedia:Be bold is written precisely for people thinking what you are thinking. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:03, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Being bold is important on Wikipedia" , Wikipedia:Be bold - do not be afraid, you will not be banned that quickly and if there will be plenty of warnings before. CommanderWaterford (talk) 22:07, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ADD HEADING I NEED HELP

how do yu adding head JohnSmith43526 (talk) 18:35, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

JohnSmith43526, hello, friend! You add a main heading by surrounding the text with double equal signs, like this: == Heading text ==. You can get a subheading by typing three equal signs instead of two: === Subheading text ===. You can add up to 8 equal signs (I believe...) for increasing smaller subheading. Thanks, EDG 543 ^{(message me)} 18:52, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnSmith43526 (talk • contribs) 19:37, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Question from New Editor About Irish Twentieth Century Charts

I have been asked a question by a new editor that maybe someone here can direct them toward. User:Waldenhorse submitted Draft:Andy Cooney, and I declined it, and he is trying to improve the draft. He says that Cooney charted in Ireland in 1986, and is asking for help in finding popular music charts for Ireland in 1986. So my question is where to tell him to look, as in, for instance, what WikiProject could help him. I am sure that he would appreciate any other advice about getting his draft approved. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:39, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Robert McClenon, Waldenhorse ---> Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland and ��WPCOUNTRYMUSIC ??! CommanderWaterford (talk) 22:05, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Translated source lists

I am translating from the French wikipedia here, and I am not sure how I should translate the reference list. Most of the references look like they're from French language reference books that I doubt would have English equivalents. Any advice? Night S H I F T (49) (talk) 19:30, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Nightshift49: Its fine if you don't translate most of the sources. Keep the original titles, publishers and the like in French. That way readers can easily go find the sources by searching the french title. Obviously translate dates. AdmiralEek (talk) 19:37, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Nightshift49:. The basis for this is WP:RSUE. Best regard--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:46, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Nightshift49: I recently translated perhaps ten articles from fr.wikipedia on French women artists. I would not assume that the French sources or article claims are correct. I stopped using fr.wikipedia as a translation source because I discovered too many factual errors and exaggerations in the French Wikipedia that would not survive on en.wikipedia. When I did use the French text and sources, I would try to use the URL of the source in the cite web template to expand the source. This is preferable to simply translating the parameters of the "lien web/titre/auteur" template to the English version. I'm not sure what you can do about verifying the short refs without a URL that you mentioned above, but I would give it a try if possible, perhaps in Google Books. --- Possibly (talk) 02:39, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Nightshift49: I suggest you use the |trans-title= parameter when creating references to publish the English translation of the French title. GoingBatty (talk) 03:26, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Article Declined

An article which I wrote was declined. [[3]]. This person was not considered "notable." They were a prominent model in the 1980s, having been on the cover of Cosmopolitan Magazine three times, being the subject of four full pages in Francesco Scavullo's 1982 book "Women," appeared on tv talk shows, being notably young to be on the cover of a magazine as referenced in an issue of New York Magazine, and having two articles in the Philadelphia Inquirer written about them. Additionally, they were given the first offer to appear as the main actress in the 1980 eight time Academy Award nominated Martin Scorsese film Raging Bull, though this is not readily verifiable. Is there more required to be notable than 8-10 independent published sources? Cjc716 (talk) 20:00, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Cjc716. Your draft has only three references, so the rest of the 8 to 10 you mention are not relevant to this discussion since they are not included. The first is her obituary. Most editors agree that obituaries are not fully reliable sources because the content is usually provided by friends or family unless the person is very famous. In this case, her brother was the source for much of the content. The second is a book by a photographer she worked with which includes an interview with her. The third is a magazine story about "hottest models" featuring a photo of three other models on the cover. The anecdote about Scorsese is also not relevant because it cannot be verified. Models are not notable for appearing in advertisements because that is what they all do. Models (like anyone else) become notable as a result of significant coverage in reliable sources that are entirely independent of the model, the photographer, the advertiser or the publication the ad appears in. The Scavullo book adds nothing to her notability because it is not an independent source. In conclusion, the references now in the draft do not establish notability. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:24, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) @Cjc716: I just reviewed Draft:Lisa K. Cummins. The closest guideline is WP:NMODEL, which is really more general entertainer notability. With that in mind, the New York Magazine article listed as a source doesn't seem to mention her at all. I also Googled her and didn't find any significant coverage except her obituary. Appearing on several covers of notable magazines in itself isn't enough - someone has to write about her doing so for it to be notable and usable in an article. There's unfortunately not enough coverage to demonstrate notability (as defined by Wikipedia). TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:28, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I read the New York (magazine) article and it mentions Cummins in one sentence. That's a passing mention, not significant coverage. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:56, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I definitely missed it. Uncomfortable subject to linger over. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:46, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

how to get better at editing

i am just starting out and i don't know how to edit properly if there are any tips i can get from people that would be a great help Key word once (talk) 20:13, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Key word once: Welcome to Wikipedia. Check out the interactive learning game at WP:ADVENTURE. There is also the WP:TUTORIAL. RudolfRed (talk) 20:20, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Edits like this one here [4] at Paronymic attraction are unhelpful though, the spelling was correct before and I have reverted. Theroadislong (talk) 20:30, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Locking an article

How to lock my article? Wiki orb2 (talk) 20:56, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If there is a problem such as ongoing vandalism, you can request protection at WP:RFPP. John_Felix_Raj which you edit a lot, does not seem to have that issue. You might want to read WP:OWN. RudolfRed (talk) 21:00, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Wiki orb2, and welcome to the Teahouse. If you mean that you want to lock an article (whether John Felix Raj or anything else) to your version, the answer is that you can't. Doing so would be contrary to everything that Wikipedia stands for. --ColinFine (talk) 21:05, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And it worked as it should! Had it been locked, this hagiography advertisement/CV masquerading as an article would have remained that way, but it's much improved since you've posted.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk)

Not being able to edit any page

I have been editing various articles, and now have completed 7. For some reason, all Wikipedia pages now only allow me to "edit source" or "view source." There are no "edit" tabs available to me. Can you help me on this? Caribou J (talk) 21:03, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Caribou J, and welcome to the Teahouse. Which page are you having trouble with? 'Edit source' is just editing directly in Wikipedia's markup language, and some pages (such as the Teahouse) only allow source editing. However, when on an article, you can go into 'Edit source' and freely switch back to the Visual Editor at any time by clicking the pencil icon in the upper right and selecting 'Visual editing'. It could just be that you ended your last edit in source mode, so the next time you went to edit, Wikipedia provided you with the option 'Edit source'. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 22:28, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks much for your quick response. That did it. I have been surprised at how many articles are semi-protected or more, and one can only "view the source." I was able to do what you said with "edit the source" tabs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caribou J (talk • contribs) 23:50, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Caribou J: You are only one edit away from being able to edit semi-protected pages. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:11, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How long would you think it takes to make a general Wikipedia page on a person?

Maybe something around this length? Thank you!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Schur Isaacrsmith (talk) 00:17, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Isaacrsmith, and welcome to the Teahouse! This answer is so variable based on the editor(s), the subject, the quality and quantity of sources about the subject, etc., that there's almost no way to give you an answer that's not wildly incorrect for your specific circumstance. Personally, I would call "several hours" a conservative estimate for one experienced editor. Assuming you're looking to write a biography yourself, maybe just knowing who the subject is would help us give you a better answer. If this is the case, I want to advise you that creating an article is one of the most difficult tasks for a new Wikipedia editor, so much so that we generally recommend it for advanced editors. Nevertheless, we obviously don't discourage new editors from trying their hand at article creation, and the page on your first article is worth a read if you want to, so to speak, dive into the deep end. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 00:39, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Isaacrsmith, hello, friend! In addition to the information kindly provided by my fellow editor, I would suggest that, if you choose to try your hand at creating this article, you create it as a draft. By doing this, you can work on the article without interruption (except for the occasional nosy bum like myself) and without any pressure to create it quickly. You can also then submit it for a more experienced editor to review and offer you feedback of any necessary changes. Good luck on whatever you choose and have a nice evening! Thanks, EDG 543 ^{(message me)} 01:01, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are many. many valid biography articles much shorter than that. Tend to classified as Stub (the example you chose was next higher rated Start). What is essential is having at least three reliable source references that are about the person. David notMD (talk) 01:37, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Isaacrsmith: 100% agreed with what David notMD has said here, and I really should've brought it up when you mentioned the biography's length. Stubs are much easier to create than a medium-length one like Michael Schur, and there's room to expand upon them in the future. Creating a solid foundation is much more important than creating a sprawling article right off the bat. There's no stigma at all – not even a little – to making a short but informative, high-quality article and then expanding upon it. As an example, let me show you how the article for the star Sirius started back in 2001 versus how it is today. Obviously that 2001 version would need citations to independent, reliable sources with significant coverage to survive on today's Wikipedia, but an article of that length and quality of prose would be entirely admissible into the project today. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 02:08, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@TheTechnician27: Got it! This is all very helpful! Seeing the growth of the Sirius article definitely helps me get a better grasp of what I'm trying to accomplish. I appreciate the help.Isaacrsmith (talk) 02:38, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The important thing is to create a solid foundation, which means to provide enough evidence of notability that the article cannot be deleted. Generally that implies reliable references not connected to the subject. When filling out the details, the standard for references is more variable depending on the nature of the content they support. Starting with a well supported stub is quite acceptable.
If you can list your references and the name of the subject here, I am fairly sure someone here will be able to advise you if the article is likely to be accepted before you go through the effort of creating it. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 11:08, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Use of Press Releases and Social Media

I am on a quest to update and create pages on minor state legislators in the US. My next target frequently posts on Facebook. To what extent can I paraphrase his (or his staff’s) posts to use on the page?

Thanks, FlyingKitten2024 FlyingKitten2024 (talk) 01:05, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FlyingKitten2024, welcome to the Teahouse. We should try to avoid this as much as possible. Using WP:SELFPUBLISHED sources in articles is not ideal. This is one of the reasons that WP:GNG exists: to ensure that there is enough quality material to write articles. As much as possible, you should try to use WP:GNG type sources to write the article. If your choice is to leave the article as a stub, or expand the article with WP:SELFPUBLISH, it is usually preferable to leave it as a stub. Hope that helps. –Novem Linguae (talk) 01:16, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Novem Linguae It does, thank you!Followup: what about press releases advocating for something? The guy put out a press release urging WV Congress members to oppose dc statehood. Should I include that?

FlyingKitten2024, anybody under the sun can crank out as many press releases as they want. If reliable independent sources report on his stance regarding DC statehood, then it can be included. It is not up to Wikipedia editors to decide that a given press release is worthy of mention. We summarize what reliable independent sources say, not self-serving press releases. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:39, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cullen328 Sounds good!

@FlyingKitten2024: To add to what Cullen328 stated about the use of press releases, I think they can be used to complement reliable sources but shouldn't be used wholly in place of them. So for example, maybe there's an article in the Charleston Gazette-Mail about a statement in this representative's press release. So maybe in the article you could say: "XYZ stated that they believe Pluto should be made a planet again." And then cite an article from the Gazette-Mail and another subsequent one of the actual press release attesting to this information. Primary sources aren't always bad, but we never want Wikipedia to become overwhelmed with what subjects have to say about themselves. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 01:47, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Adding chronological history and material to Surf Etiquette article

Courtesy link: Draft:Surfing etiquette

Hi Wikipedia editors, I submitted the Surf Etiquette article, and it was denied as a "How to" article. I had reviewed all the writing rules and format.

My question is if I am able to find historical reference (chronological dates of certain rules posted, legal cases, articles and books) will this be adequate to add to the article and be published?

Why do I think this information is necessary. Surfing is seen an explosion of interest, growth and expansion. Yet, there is really no "written" rules outside of magazine or online articles regarding these surf rules-of-the-road. I've seen and experienced more rules broken these last three months than in the last 6 years.

Thank you, Lisa H. Navymom9194 (talk) 03:17, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Navymom9194: I suggest you reword each sentence with the second-person pronoun "you" or "your" per WP:PRONOUN, and any other sentence that is written as a direct order (Do this, don't do that), and any sentence that starts with "And". I don't understand why the draft states "There are certain unwritten codes of conduct", as you provided pictures and references of various codes of conduct. GoingBatty (talk) 03:45, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Navymom9194. I'm not sure that a draft like the one you're working on will ever be OK for a stand-alone article per WP:NOTGUIDE, but perhaps some of the content might be able to be incorporated into Surfing if rewritten in a more encyclopedic way as suggested above by GoingBatty. This might be something worth discussing at Talk:Surfing. Finally, please take a look at c:User talk:Navymom9194surfer because there are a number of problems with some of the images you've uploaded to Commons to use in the draft. Basically, you've uploaded some photographs of copyrighted works that appear to have been created by others; such photographs are likely WP:Derivative works and Commons cannot keep them unless it can be demonstrated that either (1) the photographed works are no longer eligible or not eligible for copyright protection (i.e. they fall within the public domain) or (2) the consent of the copyright holders of the works has been obtained and verified. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:17, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is a lack of information on surfing etiquette in the Surfing article, and a considerable amount of useful information in the draft. I recommend merging the relevant content into the main article and copyediting it so that it states what surfers do,which is encyclopedic, as opposed to what you, as a surfer, should or should not do, which is a 'how to' guide or advice in Wikipedia's voice. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 10:50, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My article

Hdfhsdgav (talk) 06:07, 24 March 2021 (UTC) why did you canceled my article[reply]

If you mean User:Hdfhsdgav/sandbox, that is not a WP-article, it seems to be a story you wrote. Take the time to read WP:YFA. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:04, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hdfhsdgav, please make a few evidence-based, constructive edits to an existing article or two, and thereby persuade me that your purpose here is to improve the encyclopedia. (NB I do not want any barnstars.) -- Hoary (talk) 08:45, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How do I add references to an articles and how do I create my own user page?

N Jeevan (talk) 08:42, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

N Jeevan it looks like you already have a userpage at User:N Jeevan. To add references, see Wikipedia:Citing sources and Help:Footnotes. Elli (talk | contribs) 08:45, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Article on new info

New info not on the internet Hey, I have tryed to write an article on Jamiscus Cubensis, a rare psychedelic mushroom that there is no info on the internet about yet. I tried to write an article but was told that i should edit the original psilocybe cubensis article putting Jamiscus cubensis as a subsepecies. I did this but got denied because I have no refrences but there are none to use. What do i do Thanks Bigbobbycarter (talk) 09:11, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bigbobbycarter Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. If a topic has no independent reliable sources with significant coverage, it would not merit a mention on Wikipedia at this time, and unfortunately there is nothing you can do until such sources exist. 331dot (talk) 09:15, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How is it possible that Jamiscus cubensis is subspecies of Psilocybe cubensis when both have different Genus ? Parnaval (talk) 09:46, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The information does not have to be "on the internet", Bigbobbycarter, provided that it is in a reliable source such as a publication in a scholarly journal. I could find no entry at all at Google Scholar, so how are we to verify that it even exists, never mind that an article about it would be useful? Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:46, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Any Draft Reviewers here?

Hello everyone, I'm new to Wikipedia. Draft:Divya Gokulnath (The co-founder of BYJU'S), this is my very first draft. Kindly any reviewers please go through this. Regards YogeshWarah^Talk 09:35, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Yogeshwarah: welcome to Wikipedia. The draft has been correctly submitted for review, and it will be reviewed in due course; as it says in the yellow information box on the draft, that may take days, weeks, or in some cases months and I'm afraid it is not possible to predict exactly how long it will take. Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 11:23, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

STATUS: Declined and resubmitted. As written, the draft has nothing to say about her except that she and her husband started a company. David notMD (talk) 15:05, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Last of the summer wine

I was looking at the individual characters pages for LOTSW and notice they are no pictures of the characters is it possible to added them it is the following pages

Nora Batty

Norman Clegg

Compo Simmonite

Fan Of Lion King 🦁 (talk) 10:52, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Fanoflionking. The answer, I'm afraid, is "probably not". Unless you (or somebody) can find free of copyright images (very unlikely for a fictional TV character), or unless you can use a non-free image in a way that satisfies all of the non-free content criteria, then no image is possible in those articles. --ColinFine (talk) 13:22, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Black and White in black and white; guidance on capitalization.

It has recently become fashionable to capitalize "Black" where it refers to race, which also has predictably sparked a countertrend to capitalize "White" in similar circumstances. Where could I find community guidance on this? I looked at WP:MOS/CAPS and found nothing except for an undecipherable closed discussion on the talk page. Thanks! Jacona (talk) 12:33, 24 March 2021 (UTC) Jacona (talk) 12:33, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jacona - You asked a good difficult question. There has been lengthy inconclusive discussion. I think that some of the non-conclusions are that if "Black" is capitalized, "White" should be too when they are used as demonyms, and that the capitalization of adjectives identifying groups of people may be a North Americanism, subject to the guidelines on regional varieties of English, but that the discussion has been inconclusive. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:07, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Jacona! That page does say "only words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources are capitalized in Wikipedia". I assume that's not the case yet, but if you find majority of top sources have started doing it consistently, you could start a discussion at the talk page of that page. It has close to 400 watchers, so someone should answer. Best, Usedtobecool ☎️ 16:08, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalization of title

I feel like a bit of an idiot in that I created a page of a person and forgot to capitalize the last name. How do I fix this? FlyingKitten2024 (talk) 12:58, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FlyingKitten2024,

Done. You're not an idiot, it was just a simple mistake! Have a nice day! Thanks, EDG 543 ^{(message me)} 13:06, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

EDG 543 Thank you so much!

Unrelevant sources and wrong information in the article

What can be done in order to remove wrong information from unrelevant sources from the published article? Dejanmilic (talk) 13:27, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dejanmilic, see WP:BOLD and WP:BRD. Bringing better WP:RS can help. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:37, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You were blocked at Predrag Bošković for edit warring before, and risk being blocked again. You were advised to start a discussion on the Talk page of the article, which you have not yet done. Invite the other editors to join you there, in an attempt to reach a consensus. David notMD (talk) 15:09, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Quote, Pages, and Chapter Parameters

If I'm using a long source to support multiple sections within a Wikipedia article and I would like to use the quote, page, or chapter parameters to indicate where and what I'm citing how would I do it correctly. For instance, what if I use the quote parameter, but there are two different quotes I want to use, one for each section. Do I create an entirely new reference/citation? TipsyElephant (talk) 13:50, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@TipsyElephant: You can create separate references, or use {{sfn}} to specify the quote/page/location parameters. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 15:05, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Elijah Chinezim Onyeagba

How can I restore this article which was deleted? I have made necessary adjustment and wish to republish it again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Torksimlife (talk • contribs) 14:09, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Torksimlife: Welcome to the Teahouse! Once you have understood all the feedback you received on this article, you can follow the instructions Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 14:34, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notable sources

Hi there, I'm writing a biography page for an international artist and designer, and I'm unsure of how many sources I will need to support the article. Do I need sources for every piece of information? Or just a minimum of three sources? Would interviews count as reliable sources?

Thanks for any suggestions! Mamiecolfox (talk) 14:13, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it would be best if you add a source for everything. Also see Wikipedia:Interviews. Kleinpecan (talk) 14:30, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Mamiecolfox: Welcome to the Teahouse! Gather your reliable sources, summarize what they say, and use the sources as references. If you're considering including information that doesn't have a source, then I wonder if you have a conflict of interest that you should disclose on your user page before proceeding. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 14:36, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How and what do I exactly do when you nominate an article for ITN?

I'm trying to nominate 2021 Boulder shooting for ITN, but I don't exactly know how to nominate it. 🔥LightningComplexFire🔥 14:16, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

LightningComplexFire, The procedure is outlined at Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates. Thank you! ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 14:22, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, however, you'll see that the request was already made and discussed a lot at the section #(Closed) 2021 Boulder shooting, with no consensus to add it. — Bilorv (talk) 01:50, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Inforboxes

Hi guys, I'm new to Wikipedia, but have a few pages I'd like to try and tackle in the near future. One of which is a company page so I'm just learning how to do this - can anyone advise on creating small sideboxes which usually contain company picture and general information, such as website, employee numbers etc. Any help greatly appreciated. Thanks Keeptothefacts1988 (talk) 14:32, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

– Combined sections by the same user on the same topic. GoingBatty (talk) 14:54, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello - can someone please help me identify how to create company page sideboxes, which usually contain employees, turnover etc Keeptothefacts1988 (talk) 14:33, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You will need to use some kind of template to do it (or create one), but please be warned, if the article is about a company, please keep a neutral point of view, as documented at WP:NPOV. Thanks. EGL¹²³⁴ 14:50, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Keeptothefacts1988: Welcome to the Teahouse! Try using {{Infobox company}}. You can see the instructions at Template:Infobox company. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 14:55, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Keeptothefacts1988, and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm afraid that, in respect of Draft:Phoenix Games, asking for help in adding an infobox is like asking how to install the windows in a house you're building without having surveyed the land. Not one of the references in that Draft meets the requirements of being a reliable independent source with significant coverage of the subject, and so at present the draft does nothing at all to establish that the subject is WP:notable: in housebuilding terms, you haven't shown that the ground is firm enough to build a house on. If you don't find such sources, then your house is going to fall down, and all your work on the draft will be wasted. --ColinFine (talk) 17:07, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How does someone make a team?

So something like a Typo Team or a Guild or whatever.

Kind of want to make one :) xdude (talk) 14:34, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Xdude gamer Hello and welcome to the teahouse. Do you have an idea of what you would make a guild for Starman2377 (talk) 14:43, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would advise against this so early on in your Wikipedia editing. It takes a huge amount of knowledge of the existing community to work out what doesn't exist but should, and how that gap can best be filled and organised. I'd stick to joining projects and drives for now. — Bilorv (talk) 01:49, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How to change my signature??

I don't like the classic default signature. How do I change it? AwesomeHurricaneBoss (talk) 14:39, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Signatures § Customizing your signature. Kleinpecan (talk) 14:41, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Make sure to keep it simple and readable though βӪᑸᙥӴ • Talk • Contribs 15:09, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@AwesomeHurricaneBoss: But don't make it look like Bop34's though! - oh the irony - theirs is one of the most illegible signatures you'll find on the Teahouse at the moment (and I keep thinking of asking them to consider changing it, but have never got around to it until now.) Nick Moyes (talk) 21:31, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I had been wanting to change it but I was too lazy. I have a better one now. Sorry! bop34 • talk • contribs 22:10, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Nick Moyes is the shadow too much? bop34 • talk • contribs 00:40, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Bop34: It's certainly easier to read with normal characters, though I do find the shadow still makes it a bit hard to read, and especially so on a small mobile phone screen where it makes me think I'm wearing the wrong glasses! Nick Moyes (talk) 01:17, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

... Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:37, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok but how do I change the signature like make it visible to other editors? AwesomeHurricaneBoss (talk) 21:54, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See the link that Kleinpecan sent in the original comment. bop34 • talk • contribs 22:20, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Creating Pages for Supervisors

Hello! I have a question regarding a request made by my internship. My supervisors want pages created for themselves, but I feel like I run into a wall each time I attempt to create it. (Copyright, bias, etc you name it.) Is there any way I can connect with someone, give them the information I have on my supervisors and have this individual create the pages for me? 65.30.179.142 (talk) 14:51, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You can make a request at WP:RA, but there is a long wait. Or, you can work on a draft article by following WP:YFA, which will outline the steps to create an article, and there is a wizard there to help you create the draft for review. You will need to disclose that you have a conflict and that you are being paid. RudolfRed (talk) 14:57, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Welcome to the Teahouse! You can show them Wikipedia's inclusion criteria at Wikipedia:Notability (people) and the essay Wikipedia:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing. If they still think they want articles, you can use Wikipedia:Requested articles and include the independent reliable sources you have gathered. GoingBatty (talk) 14:59, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your attempt at Draft:Suzanne Jurva had no inline references. No refs is an automatic decline. If you intend to try again, I recommend you create an account, declare on your User page the draft article(s) you are being paid to work on, and use the above-recommended YFA process. Model your content on existing articles about people in the film industry. Learn what are considered reliable source references (for example, not IMBd). David notMD (talk) 15:18, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The real problem is that you, unregistered Original Poster, are being asked by your supervisors to do something that isn't what Wikipedia is for, probably because your supervisors don't understand two of Wikipedia's main policies, neutral point of view and notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:51, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we, the hosts and experienced editors at the Teahouse, need an essay to provide to editors who are being asked by their employers to create pages about them. The next post to the Teahouse is almost the same. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:51, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Robert McClenon: If you'd like to start an essay, I'd be happy to give my suggestions. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 20:28, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

how do I create a profile on wikipedia?

I need to create profile on wikipedia for my boss who is a celebrity trainer, what is the process for this and who can help assist? Indiadiamond (talk) 15:39, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Indiadiamond Hello and welcome to the Teahouse Your use of the word "profile" suggests that you have a common misconception about what Wikipedia is. Wikipedia does not have "profiles", not a single one. Wikipedia has articles. Those articles summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about a person, showing how they meet Wikipedia's special definition of a notable person. Wikipedia has no interest in what someone wants to say about themselves, only in what others completely unconnected with them choose to say. Wikipedia is not like social media where people tell about themselves, either directly or through a representative. If you just want to tell the world about your boss, you should use social media.

Please understand that a Wikipedia article is not necessarily desirable. There are good reasons to not want one. You should review conflict of interest and paid editing. If your boss truly meets Wikipedia's special definition of a notable person, someone will eventually take note of them and choose to write about them. 331dot (talk) 15:49, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, there are no "profiles" on Wikipedia unless you mean user pages. I'm curious why you need to create a page for your boss. You most likely should not do this, as paid editing is generally discouraged, and your boss may not be notable. βӪᑸᙥӴ • Talk • Contribs 15:49, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

how to do I create a wiki page?

I need assistance to create a wiki page this website is impossible to understand! Indiadiamond (talk) 15:51, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Indiadiamond We have answered you above. Creating a new Wikipedia article is the absolute hardest task to perform here. It's even harder with a conflict of interest. Please review either the information here, or on your user talk page, User talk:Indiadiamond. You have some formal disclosures you must make. 331dot (talk) 15:57, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Indiadiamond - The problem is that your employer, in good faith, has asked you, in good faith, to do something that isn't consistent with what Wikipedia is. This is comparable to the situation if your employer asked you to go to a library and bring back books that were disposed of by the library, but the library wasn't giving books away. Everyone is acting in good faith, but there is a fundamental misunderstanding as to what is possible. You can't create a Wikipedia page for your employer just because your employer has asked you to do that. It isn't your fault. It isn't their fault. It isn't our fault. It just isn't. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:00, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We, the hosts and experienced editors at the Teahouse, need an essay for the new editor who has been asked by their employer to create a Wikipedia page about them. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:02, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~:Honestly in my opinion this user's actions constitute disruptive editing or maybe even vandalism. I am reporting them right now to WP:ANI~~ βӪᑸᙥӴ • Talk • Contribs 16:02, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad this comment was struck through - in no way does a confused user asking a question twice constitute bad faith editing. Nick Moyes (talk) 21:33, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you It was a computer error asking twice. I think that answer is a little harsh I'm just trying to find out how to write an article or some assistance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Indiadiamond (talk • contribs) 10:27, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Indiadiamond And we have told you that doing so is not advisable, as it seems that you and your boss do not understand what Wikipedia is about. Please review the comments here, and feel free to show your boss these messages. If you just want to tell the world about your boss, you should use social media or other alternative forums with less stringent requirements where what you want to do is permitted. Writing an article is difficult under ideal circumstances- it's even harder with a conflict of interest. Wikipedia is not interested in what your boss wants to say about themselves, only in what others say about them. If you have reviewed the notability guidelines for people and truly feel that your boss meets the definition, and you have significant coverage in independent reliable sources to support it(not interviews, his own website/social media, brief mentions, routine announcements, etc.) you may use Articles for Creation to create and submit a draft article. You would need to forget everything you know about your boss and everything he tells you about himself, and only write based on what others say about him. Most people in your position have great difficulty doing that, and are unsuccessful with their efforts. I advise against you attempting to do this, but if you must, you should review Your First Article and use the new user tutorial first. 331dot (talk) 10:35, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thank you for your advice — Preceding unsigned comment added by Indiadiamond (talk • contribs) 10:49, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Citing Wikipedia content (text) in a mobile application

I am developing a mobile app, where I show different flowers to user. I want to get data from Wikipedia to show some info about them as well. However I don't know how to properly cite the text. I get it from Wikipedia API, so pre-writing the citations is not an option (I don't know which flower the users will see and there is too much of them).

Question: Is there a universal way of writing citations for Wikipedia articles in mobile app that I can write under every data about flower? (e.g. "Data was taken from Wikipedia") Or is the citation different for every atricle? In that case is there a way to get a citation from Wikipedia API as I get the text about flower? (so that I could get a citation text and add it to the info text)

P.S. I read a lot of citing info about Wikipedia, but it's just to information for me. That's why I am asking here. 90.157.166.45 (talk) 18:05, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! Since you didn't get a satisfactory answer here the last time you asked this question, I suggest you try the WP:Village Pump (technical). Good luck! GoingBatty (talk) 20:24, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit confused about the question. Is it, "How should I cite Wikipedia in an external project?" If so, the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License is what we use and attribution of "Data was taken from Wikipedia" is sufficient, but you might also like (e.g.) "Data was taken from the page "Flower" at revision number 1010385350" (with the appropriate URLs) for prose. (You can get the revision number from the API, I'm sure, and the link to a page is just the URL prefix followed by the page name, with underscores or codes for special characters where necessary.) The images themselves come from Wikimedia Commons e.g. File:Flower poster 2.jpg, where you can find the name of the user who uploaded the image. — Bilorv (talk) 00:58, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What is the best article on Wikipedia?

I just want to know what the best article is. It would more than likely be in FA-class. xdude (talk) 18:45, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Based on what criteria? RudolfRed (talk) 19:04, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's the article I most recently wrote, of course (which makes it Hell Is a Very Small Place at time of writing, and what an interesting topic it is!). — Bilorv (talk) 19:46, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Best. You may find Wikipedia:Top 25 Report interesting. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:14, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can I also recommend Wikipedia:Unusual articles? Elli (talk | contribs) 08:34, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Toilet paper orientation. -- Hoary (talk) 23:22, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good choice. And don't miss This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations: at the talkpage. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:13, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image

I am trying to update the "Coverage of Google Street View" page, I am researching information regarding the new location additions. At the moment, I have found this image, whose information is represented in blue lines and red lines on a map of the world. The blue lines represent the existing Street View and the red lines represent the new Street View. In this image the red lines are in different parts of the world, including Turkey, which shows several red dots representing the urban centers of the cities or towns of Gaziantep, İslâhiye, Nizip, Birecik, Sanliurfa, Siverek and Viranşehir. The process and result of these comparisons is explained on this page, in which it works by comparing different Google Street View "snapshots". My question, can this image count as a valid source to add the information of these places to the article?--JSeb05 (talk) 20:10, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@JSeb05: Welcome to the Teahouse! The best place to ask about improving an article is the article's talk page. I see you're already involved in a conversation there. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 20:21, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User Warning Notices

Hey, it's HelenDegenerate again. For the past few days, I've been patrolling the Recent Changes and reverting vandalism, using the User Warning templates each time. I notice that there are multiple levels of warnings. The page said that you could skip levels if needed. This is going to sound silly, but is that true? Since I've been done it for a few really destructive vandals, I'd love to be sure I won't get into trouble for it. HelenDegenerate (talk) 23:01, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

HelenDegenerate You are not required to go through all the warning levels, or even in rare, extreme cases, use warnings at all, if it is warranted. 331dot (talk) 23:12, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's true, but you should try to think about whether it's actually helpful to use a higher-level warning. Sometimes someone vandalises an article in a joke they regret, someone was doing a test and didn't realise they changed how the page looks for everyone, someone is a troll looking to get a rise out of a volunteer etc. It's often helpful for someone to be blocked without all the levels having been used, but I don't often find it useful to jump a level when giving a warning. Lower-level warnings are often more effective in that if you use the harsher wording, the user is more likely to reply "well f*** you then" rather than to think, "actually maybe I'm not too proud of the edit I made". I make an exception when I see something and think, "no person can have done this in good faith, and there is no reconciliation to be had with someone who writes this". — Bilorv (talk) 01:08, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Someone please help me with my page

Hi :) I really need help. I'm in college and I was assigned to write about a person of my choice and I get major extra credit for contributing to wikipedia page for that person, but my teacher said she'd give me more if I created this page for an artist who I believe is established but he's not mainstream. Anyways, I went about this the totally wrong way. I thought it would help to make the artist's name my user name and even created a gmail so I can show my teacher the steps I took. I was overthinking everything. Anyways - my page keeps getting declined. I've come this far on research on this music artist and I could really use that extra credit.

I've made edits to the page, viewable here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Lydell_Birch

I've made sure to only use publications from interviews I could find on the web, and took out any links to his website that I used as sources. I believe it's set and ready. I've already ready resubmitted it today.

Can anyone give me any feedback on how it currently is...Should I start over with a new account maybe? I'm so lost and I need to have this finished before my semester ends and I could just cry. Any advice is truly appreciated. Please and thank you ~ Meagan Beamer.Backdrop (talk) 23:08, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Beamer.Backdrop Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Interviews are considered primary sources and do not establish notability. To merit a Wikipedia article, this musician must receive significant coverage in independent reliable sources that have chosen on their own to write about them, showing how they meet Wikipedia's special definition of a notable musician. The draft currently just tells about the person. Which of the notability criteria do you assert that this musician meets?

It's kinda unfair to you as a student to ask you to write a new Wikipedia article as part of your grade, as you have little control over the process and are under pressure to deliver. Is the professor aware of the education program materials? 331dot (talk) 23:20, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

+1 on the last paragraph—even if the draft was spotless, it could take up to months to be reviewed because we have so few people working the very long queue. And if the person is not notable then that is not your fault and there is nothing you can do to change that. It's tough advice to give but I would advise you to work under the assumption that you will not be receiving the extra credit for contributing to Wikipedia, and to plan your other college work and target grades in accordance with this. An alternative might be to make your professor aware of the draft you have made and see if any extra credit can be awarded on the basis of that, unconditional over whether it is accepted (you can point them to my talk page if they want someone to talk this over with).

A small point on the image you uploaded, File:Lydell-birch.jpg. If you took this somewhere from the internet then it's (almost certainly) copyrighted and we can't host it on Wikimedia Commons. We have very, very restrictive policies on using images in order to maintain the "free" part of "free encyclopedia that anyone can edit" as much as possible. Let me know if so and I'll nominate it for deletion. — Bilorv (talk) 01:23, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see the image is from a magazine cited in the article. Nominated for deletion because regrettably we can't use it. — Bilorv (talk) 01:34, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Robert McClenon added the autobiography template on 6 February; I wonder if he still believes the template is appropriate. -- Hoary (talk) 00:04, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The poster says that they used the artist's name as their user account name. That was a mistake on their part, and I also see that they have since then renamed their account. I added the autobiography template because the draft name and the account name matched. The autobiography template can be removed. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:06, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the autobio tag. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:13, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We (the Wikipedia community) have a problem with professors who grade based on getting an article into Wikipedia. Assigning extra credit for getting an article into Wikipedia is "not as unfair" as requiring a student to get an article into Wikipedia. Giving extra credit for making a reasonable effort to get an article into Wikipedia is another matter. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:06, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Question on editing

Hello,

It is not easy to figure out how to edit a section.

I read the wikiedit help page but it was not helpful.

I want to insert this paragraph under Hope Hicks’ personal life and cite the Boston Globe.

In his book, Fire and Fury: Inside the Trump White House, Wolff reports that Cory Lewandowski and White House communications director Hope Hicks had a romantic relationship that ended, according to Wolff, unhappily with a fight on a street. Later, after Trump fired Lewandowski, Wolff writes that Hicks was sitting with the Donald and his sons when she worried aloud how Lewandowski would be portrayed by the media. “Trump, who otherwise seemed to treat Hicks in a protective and even paternal way, looked up and said, ‘Why? You’ve already done enough for him. You’re the best piece of tail he’ll ever have,’ ”

            -By Mark Shanahan Boston Globe Staff ,January 4, 2018, 9:54 a.m.

https://www.bostonglobe.com/lifestyle/names/2018/01/04/book-claims-trump-made-crude-remark-about-hope-hicks/Ho3SETyiS6xWS2j2FVRhYJ/story.html

Apparently, Hicks is paying someone to monitor and censor her Wikipedia page. Roysox65 (talk) 23:37, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Care to take a mulligan on the topic area you want to edit? —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Takes a strong man to deny...} 23:49, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Roysox65: it looks like six minutes after you wrote this, you found out how to add it. (This is the only edit to the page that you made.) I've edited it to improve the formatting. What do you mean by the last sentence, Apparently, Hicks is paying someone to monitor and censor her Wikipedia page? — Bilorv (talk) 01:41, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

[EC] Aside from the (important) matter of discretionary sanctions, if I understand correctly you, Roysox65, want to paste a paragraph copied from the Boston Globe. (I don't know if it comes directly from there, as I can't be bothered to jump the hoops set by the Globe in order to read the original.) If this is indeed what you want to do, don't attempt it. Don't quote, summarize. Another problem with the paragraph (whether it's by Shanahan or by you) is that it's as much about Trump as about Hicks; and stuff about Trump, if encyclopedic, should go in one of the articles about Trump. Yet another is the allegation of Wikipedia-laundering. I wouldn't be surprised if a large number of well-financed US political people did indeed pay for this; but I also wouldn't be surprised if they had so many dedicated [conventional] supporters who'd do the job for free that payment would be unnecessary. If you can present convincing evidence for an allegation that this or that user is paid to whitewash one or more articles and hasn't come clean about the payment, then go ahead and allege it (though the Teahouse is not the place); if not, say nothing about it. And certainly don't preface a suspicion with an airy "apparently" and no evidence. Now, if you still want to make a suggestion for the article Hope Hicks, go ahead and make it, on Talk:Hope Hicks. -- Hoary (talk) 01:54, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

LTA 1105

Hi, I'm wondering who is LTA 1105? Firestar464 (talk) 01:41, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"LTA" implies to me that it's a long-term abuser identifier, but I don't know what identifiers we use (in fact per WP:DENY we try to avoid speaking of LTAs when we can). Where did you see this? — Bilorv (talk) 01:44, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bilorv In an edit filter. Firestar464 (talk) 04:10, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

1105 is yust a reference to the filter ID used internally by the software. In this case it would be Special:AbuseFilter/1105, which may or may not refer to a single LTA, though I am pretty sure no admin will tell you how it works exactly. Victor Schmidt (talk) 06:29, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Firestar464, I'm afraid you won't get an answer because the EF guideline generally prohibits sharing details of private filters. LTA filters are named the way they are to deny recognition and because more descriptive names would make reverse engineering (and thus circumvention) easier. For what it's worth, almost all filters have false positives, so someone may well trigger them without being (one of) the individual(s) targeted by any given filter (or a bad-faith or disruptive user at all). Blablubbs|talk 10:22, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to change my screen display to black background and white characters

As the title says. thanks!--SilverMatsu (talk) 01:48, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SilverMatsu. I have heard good things about the Vector-DarkCSS skin (though I've never used it myself). In order to apply it, you can copy the contents of this page into your vector.css page. Another option is to go to Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets and check the option for "Use a black background with green text". Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:30, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Fuhghettaboutit:Thank you very much! I tried both. I thought it would be very convenient to use a cudget because it can be turned on and off. It's not dazzling, so it's good on the eyes.--SilverMatsu (talk) 10:19, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@SilverMatsu: Great. Glad to help. By the way, what's a "cudget"? (I did a quick Google search and I only found pages asking if I was misspelling cudgel.)--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:20, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Fuhghettaboutit: oh… This is a gadget typo (miss touch).--SilverMatsu (talk) 14:10, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wee Willie Keeler

Referencing what an Americanized name is? Anglecized is a known thing. "Americanized" on the other hand is not something I'm familiar with. Are we to have "Frenchacized" names? "Italianized"? "Zamibianacized"?? Shouldn't "he changed his name to Keeler" suffice? My mother thought he was a Keeler all her life. When in fact he was of no relation to the Keelers. 69.207.44.132 (talk) 04:09, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse! See wikt:Americanize. If you have any suggestions on how to improve the Willie Keeler article, you can make them on the article's talk page: Talk:Willie Keeler. Or just be bold and make them yourself! Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 05:26, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And see Americanize at Merriam-Webster. I'm intrigued by your "Zambianacized": Simultaneously Zambianized and Namibianized, with an additional syllable tossed in just for fun? -- Hoary (talk) 06:51, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How active are wikiprojects?

I have been looking at some interesting Wikiprojects, but they do not seem very active (eg, a couple of days between replies on the talk page). Is this normal? Thanks. Cobbunt (talk) 04:37, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Cobbunt: Welcome to the Teahouse! Some are more active than others, and that is normal. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 05:27, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@GoingBatty: ah, thank you! I was wondering if anyone else was actually around :P Cobbunt (talk) 05:35, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How do I obtain a picture of a person for wikipedia without infringing on copyrights????????

How do I update this photo with out copywrite issues? I don't get this at all. dO i DO A GOOGLE SEARCH AND PICK ANY PICTUIRE? sOMEONE PLEASE LET ME KNOW. Beamer.Backdrop (talk) 04:59, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Beamer.Backdrop: You can take a picture yourself and donate it. You could also ask someone to donate their own photo - see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. GoingBatty (talk) 05:29, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Beamer.Backdrop Please, no multiple "?", no ALL CAPS: people here are trying to help. No, you definitely cannot pick any picture. GoingBatty's recommendation is good. Please do not frantically read the opening paragraph and the first section; it's a page that you have to read and digest in its entirety. (For example, there's no point following the advice under "Granting us permission to copy material already online" if the material isn't yours: You have to understand the section "You cannot donate what someone else owns" as well.) Getting a photo of your biographee into your now-draft, later-article is going to be difficult (though not impossible). Unless you can photograph him, somebody else is going to have to negotiate Wikimedia Commons's formalities. I imagine that they'd be more willing (less unwilling) to do that once they know that there is an article. I urge you to put all your effort into improving the text of the draft and getting it approved; once that's done, you can work on adding one or more photos to it. -- Hoary (talk) 06:46, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

how do i challenge a statement, find editor of statement?

i noticed references are used for dob, educational qualifications, etc.. excellent. out of curiousity how do i politely point out missing reference for dob, etc.. i have noticed there are several edits for popular articles. how do i find editor of a particular statement or sentence? btw, its cool to know for providing important parts about editing, tasks, etc. of wp on landing page. Givian (talk) 04:59, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Givian. It would be useful to know which article you are talking about, but in general, you should raise this type of issue on the talk page of the article. If you want wider input, use the Edit request process. If you are sure that you are correct based on what reliable sources report, then boldly make the edit yourself, being prepared to explain your edit. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:07, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Givian: Welcome to the Teahouse! I like using WikiBlame to find who added a particular statement or sentence. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 05:31, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If it's simply an unreferenced date of birth, you can remove it without further discussion per WP:DOB.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 07:57, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Article Design Help: Living person bio article design

Hello,

I am trying to understand if content related to both a living person and the organization they are part of should be placed on both articles.

In particular, I've made quite a few edits to Max Schrems. Over time I began to realize that most of my edits might be better suited under NOYB, as they are related to court cases through NOYB (Schrems co founded NOYB). However, when the public hears about these cases, they hear about Schrems first, which is why I originally placed all the case related info on Schrems' bio, and its also work he takes part in. My intuition says that the Schrems page should have a brief summarization of the work NOYB does, but not the somewhat in depth examination of the court cases (that my edits and other edits have added); the in depth examination might be best suited for noyb, as Schrems and others directly take part in the court cases through noyb.

Insight is greatly appreciated. MrSirGuyFriendBuddyOlPal (talk) 05:21, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@MrSirGuyFriendBuddyOlPal: Welcome to the Teahouse! I suggest you post your question on Talk:NOYB, and also post a link from Talk:Max Schrems to the discussion on Talk:NOYB. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 05:33, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback permission

Hello, after 3 months of counter vandalism i'm aiming to request Rollback permission, put they're saying Applicants with fewer than 200 mainspace edits are unlikely to be granted this right. So how could i know if i edited in more than 200 mainspaces ? Also they're saying the ccount should be old, how old should my account be to be granted Rollback permission ? Whatsupkarren (talk) 08:27, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Whatsupkarren I think you misunderstand. That means that you should have 200 edits to articles - articles are in "mainspace" (so for example, edits to talkpages or userpages would not count). this is a decent edit counter - you have 600 edits to articles, which is more than sufficient. Elli (talk | contribs) 08:39, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draft Delete

How to delete a draft which is not edited for more than 6 months? Lemme know the templete to put there? Ghxhb (talk) 09:00, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ghxhb: the template you are looking for is {{Db-g13}}. Elli (talk | contribs) 09:09, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Child Model

Hello, let me know what are the important things to know before writing an article about a child Model who did more than 50+ international advertisements? Ghxhb (talk) 09:03, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ghxhb: make sure you read Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons as well as Wikipedia:Minors and persons judged incompetent for information on writing about them - living people and especially children require special care given the potential legal and reputational consequences. I'd also recommend reading WP:NMODEL to make sure they qualify for an article. If you can find significant independent biographical coverage of them from reliable sources, they likely do. Elli (talk | contribs) 09:08, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not quite sure what an "international advertisement" is; but whatever it might be, even verifiably having appeared in two hundred of them does not bring notability in Wikipedia's sense. See WP:PERSON. And if this is about Draft:Izin Hash, note that Indian news websites (even those with serious-sounding names) are notorious for their paid-for profiles of celebs. -- Hoary (talk) 09:32, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good suggestion to correct a article

Hi , Sureshdada Jain article's heading is wrong. The person about whom this article is written is a politician. In Maharashtra the followers and sidekicks of these politicians call them as Dada (means Big Brother in Marathi) And sometimes newspaper's also repeat this Honouring suffix. It is like a title. I know WP don't allow to write titles as Heading of article. I think his official name is Suresh Jain or Sureshkumar Jain but it ain't Sureshdada Jain. I suggest it to change to just Suresh Jain. I suspect a admin , extended editor from India who now say by his user page to live in US altered this title. Possible he know this person personal. But tweak this title. 106.195.7.163 (talk) 12:17, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse! I see that CommanderWaterford moved Sureshdada Jain to Sureshkumar Jain. For other comments or suggestions about this article, you can post on the article's talk page: Talk:Sureshkumar Jain. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 13:01, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Because I worked at great length on the housing scam article, I looked at numerous newspaper articles talking about this individual. Given how they refer to him, the common name appears to be Suresh Jain. I have completed the move.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:10, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

final check before submitting

hi and good evening I've been working on an article for a couple of weeks and I would like some help and advice to improve my article so it won't be rejected . I've read the manual script and I think all of the documents are cited and has links and references . In my previous article I used the words such as great and ..... numorous ... and now I've edited it . my I know is there anything that I should edit ? thanks for giving me your time best regards Neda Sajedi Neda.sajedi (talk) 13:57, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy: draft is at Draft:Masoud Shafaghi Declined 24 March. Not yet resubmitted. As mentioned at the draft's Talk page, many of the refs are to IFIA website, and as Masoud is an employee of IFIA, these are considered primary refs, and thus not contributing to confirmation of his notability in a Wikipedia sense of the word. David notMD (talk) 14:04, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please help, about "Zhou Chengzhou"

Dear Wikipedia editor,

Recently I came across such a problem, do not know how to deal with, ask everyone's help.

The questions are as follows:

I established "Zhou Chengzhou" English wiki entry "Zhou Chengzhou" has passed the audit. This is an article about Chinese mainland people. Here I would like to thank the wiki users who have passed the audit and edited together. However, after that, I received a discussion reminder that the page was deleted.

His user page is here: Chwiki page: https://archive.is/oLPpt (https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:AINH) ,

Please take a look at the comments on this user（AINH）page, he said: （Page Translation: “Ainh expressed strong dissatisfaction and strong opposition to frequent talks about Hong Kong affairs among Chinese Mainland users, and demanded that such persons stop interfering in Hong Kong affairs immediately What about the fight? Open the whole simple encyclopedia directly! Pink to hide your ears: you don't want to face the problem, I'll be with you. "Yellow and blue are political opinions, black and white are conscience") I come from Chinese Mainland.

His English p.: https://archive.is/yigjl (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:AINH) , which is the same user name, presumably a person.

This is the relevant page of "Zhou Chengzhou" article,

chinese: https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%91%A8%E6%89%BF%E8%88%9F

english: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zhou_Chengzhou

I have had some discussions, but I really don't know much about the terms of Wiki. Maybe I don't know how to deal with such a situation. I sincerely ask all experienced editors to help me and ask for help. Thank you very much.

I respect the standards and guidelines of Wikipedia very much, and I will try my best to cooperate if the items need to be improved.

Best and have a good day. Armidazhou (talk) 15:22, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion is at WP:Articles for deletion/Zhou Chengzhou. To bring it here could be regarded as forum shopping. --David Biddulph (talk) 15:35, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries

Hello, I've forgotten to edit the summary in few parts of my article. How to recover that. Can I publish my article with that mistakenly done error? TahiraY.Awan (talk) 15:40, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries are not particularly important when you are the only person editing your own WP:userspace draft. What is important, before you submit your draft for AFC review, is to provide references to reliable sources independent of the subject. At present all of the references are to primary sources, so your draft would have no chance of being accepted in its current state. --David Biddulph (talk) 15:48, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Making an article

How do i make an article? Arezoner the best (talk) 16:49, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Help:Your first article. It's kinda hard to explain within a comment. bop34 • talk • contribs 16:59, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How to retrieve reference for an article

I have read through other articles on Wikipedia and noticed the retrieved attached to references cited with media sources for articles. What does that mean? How can that be created? Torksimlife (talk) 17:20, 25 March 2021 (UTC)Torksimlife[reply]