Wikipedia:Teahouse

Hoary, a Teahouse host

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

Ask a question

Question forumMeet your hostsArticles to improveBecome a host

New to Wikipedia? See our tutorial for new editors or introduction to contributing page.
Note: Newer questions appear at the bottom of the Teahouse. Completed questions are archived within 2-3 days.

Help Wikipedia

Harassed

A group of people instrumental in having a page taken down on my sisters murder are online here sending me messages cyberbullying me. Is there away to block them? Cha20raca (talk) 17:20, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Cha20raca Thanks for coming to the Teahouse, I'm sorry about what happened, I'm assuming that you are referring to the redacted edits from your contributions page on the Nicholas L. Bissell Jr. article. The editor that edit warred is currently involved in a sock puppet investigation, if the editor is found guilty of sock puppetry, they will be banned. If not, generally an editor needs to ignore a level 4 warning to be banned, but depending on the contents of the redacted messages, it might justify an immediate ban. Justiyaya (talk) 17:42, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Also, remember to be civil when communicating with another editor even when they are not being civil, thanks. Justiyaya (talk) 17:46, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Cha20raca. I have blocked an account clearly set up to harass you. I have also blocked you from editing the single article Nicholas L. Bissell Jr., because you have a conflict of interest and are repeatedly adding inappropriate content. You must gain consensus for any changes you want to make by discussing the matter at Talk: Nicholas L. Bissell Jr.. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:50, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

I blocked another harassment only account. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:29, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

There is one more. I am so sorry to bother you guys. The name is Jilleelean - this is one of the people cyberbullying my child. I believe they are writing to me now. I am again so sorry to bother you guys. Cha20raca (talk) 20:28, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Cha20raca, I do not see an account named "Jilleelean". Can you please double check the spelling? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:39, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi and thank you again. It is JilleeLean

The person has been stalking my daughter for 3 years. Articles have been written on this. It is extremely scary and frustrating. Like tonight. This person has emailed me 60 times at my gmail account. It is alot to emotionally handle. Cha20raca (talk) 01:53, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi Cha20raca. Unfortunately, Wikipedia is part of the WP:REALWORLD and there are some people who will try to use Wikipedia to fight real world disputes. There's not much anyone here can do if you're being harassed outside of Wikipedia except perhaps to suggest that you take a look at this. Real world problems typically require a real world solution; many social media platforms as well as many communties have taken steps to help people who are the victims of cyberbulling, which in some cases include criminal penalties or revocation of accounts. Problems taking place on Wikipedia can be dealt with as explained here, but you should seek outside assistance asap to help with problems outside of Wikipedia. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:32, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Cha20raca, I have already blocked User:JilleeLean. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:13, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

• @Cullen328: See the ANI thread (diff of my edit). @MarioSuperstar77: Hope you don't fuss too much about me removing your comments, they were in response to obvious harassment and I have zero tolerance for harassment. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:46, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

  I appreciate everything you did. No worries. Cha20raca (talk) 00:52, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

My edit count

Please help me with the number of edits I've done Shdjaoalxmx (talk) 12:37, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Shdjaoalxmx! You can use XTools for a fairly reliable count. Bsoyka (talk · contribs) 12:41, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Shdjaoalxmx! Please consider that edit count is not a good metric of the value of user's contribution to Wikipedia. Don't stress about your edit count and instead focus on quality over quantity. Anton.bersh (talk) 13:27, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Many of your edits, especially today, were small changes to wording that made the sentences read worse rather than better, and so have been reverted. Please stop inserting or deleting a word or two or three from existing articles. David notMD (talk) 14:15, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

You also appear to be in a slow edit war at List of political parties in Tamil Nadu. The proper step there is to start a discussion on the Talk page of the article rather than re-adding content you changed and another editor changed back. David notMD (talk) 14:21, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

@Shdjaoalxmx: Also, please use edit summary field to explain what the edit you are making is trying to acheive. You have one of the most non-transparent and in-descript edit logs I have ever seen. Anton.bersh (talk) 15:18, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

@Shdjaoalxmx: Please note that majority of your edits were reverted or required another follow-up edit to fix. These edits are not helpful to Wikipedia, they can be outright disruptive. Please do not worry about your edit count and do not try to artificially inflate your edit count by making lots of small edits which are actually making articles worse. Instead, please focus on making articles better. Thank you, Anton.bersh (talk) 16:49, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

@Shdjaoalxmx: Once again, I'm writing this here in hopes that this message will reach you. Please consider this:

1. Once again, please don't stress about your edit count and focus on quality over quantity. Your edits are still being reverted (every single one except Talk page edits).
2. If you are trying to reach 500 edits to become "extendedconfirmed" user to edit some protected pages, then I want to let you know that other "extendedconfirmed" users will still be able to revert your edits as they do now. Most likely, your "extendedconfirmed" edits will come under extra scrutiny precisely because your past edits attracted the critical attention of other users. Anton.bersh (talk) 09:38, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

The 'Paris is the Capital of France' issue here

The Sovereign Military Order of Malta are not involved in jazz. That would be an uncontroversial statement which would not need citation I think. There exists a claim that in 1988 they awarded a knighthood to Miles Davis which cannot be true. Instead it was probably a prank. I have slightly altered the wording in the Davis article to say that there were 'reports' of this happening based on the objective fact that it is not possible. Otherwise, readers following the the link to the Order of Malta's article may be somewhat puzzled. It's an interesting edit conundrum and not without some dissent. Any comment would be valuable. Thelisteninghand (talk) 19:51, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi Thelisteninghand. I don't see why this would be impossible. It's common to give honorary titles to people in culture. The New York Times wrote it in 1992.[1] PrimeHunter (talk) 23:24, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks PrimeHunter especially for your citation which is from four years after the event - and which establishes just how vague this is. There is no reference from the period - try any search. I am saying the Knights of Malta are not involved in jazz. ie Paris is not the capital of Russia. Honours for the arts come from sovereign nations not sovereign Catholic military orders. This was a prank - if you know about the order and Miles Davis, it's funny. If anyone has a moment here's the website https://www.orderofmalta.int - the idea of this Catholic organisation even listening, for example to Bitches Brew, is highly amusing.Thelisteninghand (talk) 22:54, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

@Thelisteninghand: His 1990 autobiography says "I was knighted and inducted into The Knights of Malta". PrimeHunter (talk) 00:19, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

[Edit Conflict] Thelisteninghand, your assertion that the Knights of Malta do not acknowledge cultural achievements appears to be purely your own assumption: it may be so, but can you cite a Reliable source that confirms it? In any case, his admission to such an order (knighthoods are not "awarded", they are a membership) may not have been specifically for playing jazz, but for other matters such as charitable donations or activities.

You also appear to assume that Catholics must automatically disapprove of jazz. This seems to me to be another unsupported assumption: for what it's worth, I am familiar with (and if you wish can provide a link to) a Franciscan friar who is a great fan of Heavy metal and conducts erudite analyses of its structure and lyrics on his YouTube Channel. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.121.163.176 (talk) 00:32, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Thelisteninghand. In Miles Davis: The Definitive Biography, on page 496, it says: "On 13 November, at Alhambra Palace, Granada , Miles Davis, along with three African doctors and a Portuguese doctor, was inducted into what he describes as the 'Sovereign Military Hospitaller Order of Saint John of Jerusalem, of Rhodes and of Malta'." Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:16, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

OK Thanks everyone. Let me outline a few problems with this as I see them. Alhambra Palace is Islamic in origin and not listed here List of Knights Hospitaller sites. Also Miles Davis is not listed here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Knights_of_Malta. There are two articles for the Order on WP Sovereign Military Order of Malta and Knights Hospitaller neither mention honours for any jazz musician. There are no results for any searches containing 'Knights of Malta' and 'Jazz'. I am aware of the few later references to the knighthood - the autobiography, NY Times 1992, UK Independent 2014. No words quoted from Knights of Malta ANYWHERE - you might think they'd shout about knighting a jazz legend. I await a published statement from SMOM, might take a while!Thelisteninghand (talk) 18:19, 6 June 2021 (UTC) Addendum: Order pro Merito Melitensi is the order of merit from the SMOM and the only honour they have that does not require religious commitment. From this, Cullen328 (-and thank you, I just ordered it!) you can see that if Miles Davis was a Knight of Malta he'd have sworn an oath of obedience to the Pope. I would love to hear just one voice that will recognise that as problematic. It's also very important.

To IP address - I certainly do not assume that! And thanks, that's a wonderful story.Thelisteninghand (talk) 21:57, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Thelisteninghand, several published sources say that he received the award and here we have you, an anonymous Wikipedia editor, using your own perception of things to say that it never happened. In effect, you are accusing Davis of lying. Well, perhaps you are right and Davis made it all up. But we summarize what published reliable sources say, and an individual editor's original research is disallowed by policy. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:08, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Also, the fact that something is not mentioned in various Wikipedia articles is evidence of nothing. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:11, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

It is conceivable that Miles Davis made it up or misremembered it but multiple reliable sources have stated it and none have refuted it so it satisfies Wikipedia:Verifiability. There were few websites in 1988. Lots of things from that time are not found by Google and the order doesn't appear to have a public list of knights. Considereing you find it impossible, you may think it falls under Wikipedia:Verifiability#Exceptional claims require exceptional sources, but others don't find it exceptional. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:33, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Sir Miles. Fantastic. -Roxy . wooF 14:38, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Cullen328 Thanks. I do appreciate your point of course and it's why I bring the discussion here and have not edited. I have said I consider it a prank - it happened so there are accounts. I made no claims of lies. Trying to prove a negative is tough work. Roxy the dog -thanks- considers it 'fantastic' and I agree. Davis was made a member of the French Legion of Honour in 1991 - the real reason he is 'Sir' Miles. The claim that Miles Davis swore an oath of obedience to the Pope made me fall off my chair, and quite clearly is a 'surprising or important claim not covered by multiple mainstream sources'. So yes it's certainly a case of Wikipedia:Verifiability#Exceptional claims require exceptional sources. One from the Knights I would have thought.

Of course I'm not alone in finding it funny by the way https://groups.google.com/g/rec.music.bluenote/c/71NQxmlWaA0 Thelisteninghand (talk) 19:28, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

The full quote from the Miles autobiography is this: ".. or to use their formal name, The Knights of the Grand Cross in and for the Sovereign Military Hospitaler (sic) Order of St. John of Jerusalem of Rhodes and of Malta" There is no such organisation. It's a wonderful invented hybrid title. Knights of the Grand Cross are not Knights of Malta. Prank exposedThelisteninghand (talk) 20:07, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Why can't I file a dispute?

Why can't I file a dispute? Mark19651965 (talk) 08:25, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello Mark19651965. I'm assuming this is about your edits here: [2]. The first step in any WP dispute, is to attempt to talk to the editors you're having a dispute with, at the article's (Talk:Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth) or the editor's talkpages. See WP:BRD, WP:Communication is required and WP:DR. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:36, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Bonadea Courtesy ping. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:39, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. They won't address the substantive issues, they merely say I am in violation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark19651965 (talk • contribs) 08:53, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Noone has edited the article talkpage since 2020. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:56, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping, Gråberg. @Mark19651965: The reason you have been receiving multiple warnings is that you have been edit warring; once you stop doing that and instead go to the article talk page and bring up your arguments there, the actual content can be discussed. Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 09:01, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth do not "promote" or give publicity.  They "advocate", that is, they publicly support or recommend a particular cause.

They are 3,338 professionals in their relevant field.  And they do not proffer a "conspiracy theory".  They advocate an "educated hypothesis" -- a hypothesis that is now factually based.  Supporting this is the University of Alaska Fairbanks (UAF) study concluding that Bldg. 7 did not fall due to fire, thus profoundly contradicting official reports.  This is not an insignificant conclusion by an irrelevant institution, and it is worthy of entrance.  Accordingly, A&E deserve proper rhetorical respect and consideration.

University Report on 9/11 Building Collapse Contradicts Official Conclusions https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/university-report-on-911-building-collapse-contradicts-official-conclusions-301029854.html Allow the good faith, well-reasoned changes, otherwise address the issues directly, as I somehow cannot file a dispute: "Error: Unknown result from API." Mark19651965 (talk) 08:31, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Mark19651965 Please edit this existing section, instead of creating additional sections. As noted above, you need to discuss this with the other editors involved, on the article talk page, Talk:Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth. Please note that Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources state; if those sources generally refer to something as a conspiracy theory, then we do as well. If you have sources demonstrating that in general a different term is used, or that what you call a hypothesis is more generally accepted by the scientific or architectural communities, please offer them there. 331dot (talk) 08:57, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

I will further add that PR Newswire simply republishes press releases, which aren't generally acceptable as they are primary sources. 331dot (talk) 09:01, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

(Mark19651965 now blocked) ― Qwerfjkl | 𝕋𝔸𝕃𝕂  (please use {{reply to|Qwerfjkl}} on reply)Template:Z181 20:43, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Dubious References

Hi guys, I have a question about reliable sources. On the protected wikipedia page of a public figure, I see a rather malicious entry. I checked the references provided and they are questionable opinions rather than news reports. How do I get someone to look into it? Manatpeace (talk) 16:30, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Use the Talk page of the article and be specific about your concern. Or post in this thread and someone will look into it. Just make sure you tell us which article by linking to the page! Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:50, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

I published the Skip Search $O(n/m)$ pattern recognition algorithm at CPM98 (Combinatorial Pattern Matching 1998 conference, butchered algorithm by lecroq). I would like to include Skip Search on the String Matching page. Can someone help me with the reference details? I think the paper was "skip search, an O($N$/$M$) pattern matching algorithm, even on binary alphabets, with pattern size M and test size N. Golden eagle level zero (talk) 17:26, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

In search of: Good, Featured, or other instances of Impressive Timelines

I am looking for examples of quality timelines on en.wikipedia or any site of the wikimedia foundation. I am looking for timelines that are:

• highly rated
• personal favorites
• otherwise appeal

to your (subjective) measure(s) of quality

Though I hope I am wrong, I am pretty sure there aren't any interactive or dynamic timelines.

Looking forward to replies, CmdrDan (talk) 20:10, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

There are loads of timeline articles in Wikipedia. Just type "Timeline of (etc)......" into the search box. One of my favourites would be Timeline of chemistry (a featured list) but I don't suppose that would suit many people. I'm not sure whether you'll get a meaningful reply here at the Teahouse, which is mainly used by newcomers to ask simple questions about editing: I note you are not such a person. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:08, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi, CmdrDan, since you said any Wikimedia site, I’ll mention that results of Wikidata queries can be displayed on a timeline. (I can’t remember the syntax right now.) They look quite nice with items that have images, e.g. timeline of paintings by your favourite (pre-20th-century) artist. ⁓ Pelagic ( messages ) – (20:22 Mon 07, AEST) 10:22, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Why don't we create a page for rapper Dax

 Sandiey X (talk) 05:56, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

@Sandiey X: Welcome to the Teahouse. Is Dax notable by Wikipedia's standards, particularly for musicians? If Dax isn't, then it's likely an article about him isn't likely to be made. Are you sure you aren't talking about Dax (Rapper)? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 06:01, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse Sandiey X, why don't you make a page for the mentioned rapper your self? Please check WP:1st before you do so, and make sure the rapper meets the notability criteria. General notability guidelines are a great place to start. Justiyaya (talk) 06:04, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Dax (rapper) appears to be protected from creation, so I've submitted a technical move request as the page I mentioned earlier doesn't conform to standard disambiguation style. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 06:06, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

I think that if you have a Wikipedia account, you can make it yourself, or collaborate with others. L1RMEYEDU (talk) 17:52, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

A little further explanation for Sandiey X: You don't follow Justiyaya's (qualified) suggestion, no matter how well-intended it was, because you can't. And you can't because after the article on "Dax (rapper)" was deleted after discussion, various attempts were made to ignore this discussion, which wasted people's time. If you believe that Dax now meets WP:GNG, then you might start by persuading RL0919 of this (on User talk:RL0919). (It was RL0919 who closed the discussion with a decision to delete.) Provide convincing evidence, of course. (Normally I'd point you to Callanecc, as the user who "salted" the article, but they're not around these days.) -- Hoary (talk) 08:14, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Yea Hoary you're right, I didn't realize that the article is salted. -- Justiyaya (talk) 09:50, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

@Hoary: I can't view what the deleted article used to be, but are you able to check if the page I mentioned, Dax (Rapper), is the same one that slipped through the cracks? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 14:15, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Note: Dax (Rapper) now redirects to Dax (rapper). —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 03:49, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Receiving warnings

I received a level 3 warning template from an IP editor after reverting two of their edits due to them citing YouTube. I feel like this is unjust, but it might look bad if I casually remove warning templates from my talk page. ― Qwerfjkl | 𝕋𝔸𝕃𝕂  (please use {{reply to|Qwerfjkl}} on reply)Template:Z181 20:09, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Qwerfjkl Hello. You are permitted to remove posts from your own user talk page in most cases; be aware that doing so is considered an acknowledgement that the removed posts were read. See WP:BLANKING. In this case I don't think you'll have a problem. 331dot (talk) 20:12, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

@331dot Personally I prefer to strike out sections instead of removing them, to retain a copy. ― Qwerfjkl | 𝕋𝔸𝕃𝕂  (please use {{reply to|Qwerfjkl}} on reply)Template:Z181 20:14, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Qwerfjkl That's certainly a valid option. You don't have to remove them, but you are permitted to. 331dot (talk) 20:15, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi Qwerfjkl. Removing posts from one's own talk page is a very ordinary practice, and as already noted, is merely taken to mean one has read them. (All edits are not only retained in the page history, but many regular users archive their talk pages.) Strikeouts are something usually done to one's own edits, mostly because they are faitly seen as an alteration of the original edits, rather than some external comment on them, and we generally don't alter other people's posts. Moreover, they usually are meant to indicate invalidity, such as that the original post was incorrect/you've changed your mind based on new evidence, etc. When rarely done to another person's edits, it is almost always also meant to mark them as invalid (e.g., crossing out a person's second vote by a sockpuppet at an Afd). All this is to say, there are places where striking another person's edits may be warranted, but I think the advice above could be taken as advising this practice as a mere ministerial and alternate way to mark a post as read/log it to be retained, when it is anything but. I am not saying don't so this, nor that it might not even be warranted here, but I thought you should be aware of how striking the post might appear – especially since your original post is about a concern with appearances vis-à-vis these edits. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 19:06, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification! ― Qwerfjkl | 𝕋𝔸𝕃𝕂  (please use {{reply to|Qwerfjkl}} on reply)Template:Z181 19:41, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Edit reverted with no discussion or justification other than "POV edit"

Hello everyone, I just made my first edit to Wikipedia. I added some sources and citations for some randomized trials and systematic reviews to an article that contained only low-quality evidence. It was immediately reverted with no explanation other than "POV edit". What does that even mean? It's this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feldenkrais_Method

Can anyone help me understand what happened? It is because I made a visual edit? Thanks.

I put some effort into accumulating some relevant evidence to put on the page and it's unfortunate that it was reverted without explanation. Edinburghpotsdam (talk) 00:21, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Medical/health articles have a standard of allowed evidence described at WP:MEDRS. Content referenced by individual clinical trials is not allowed. If, in your opinion, there is valid content to add to the article, start a discussion on the Talk page of the article and invite the editor who reverted you changes, to a discussion. David notMD (talk) 00:36, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

David notMD Thank you I appreciate your time. So I should summarise the RCTs in my own words? And what about systematic reviews which was what I led with? Also do you think this is what is meant by "POV edit"?

The RCTs cannot be mentioned at all! In looking more carefully at your proposed changes, your first reference was to a Wikipedia article. This is not allowed. On a much more serious note, you deleted large swathes of referenced content that was critical of the Feldenkrais Method. This is not allowed. The meta-analysis can be added, but do not over-do the conclusions. Within that journal article, only a limited amount of the analysis was true meta-analysis of multiple trials. The other evidence was from individual trials with different populations and outcomes. David notMD (talk) 00:45, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Actually, I disagree - Hindawi is a known predatory publisher of journal articles which has virtually no peer review process that makes it reliable. See the CITEWATCH entry for it under its doi of 10.1155 and related. While yes, that's a "systematic review", it's really not even more reliable than if I start a website and publish something myself under the words "systematic review". The edit also removed quite a few references to published books and government sources. Some of the information that was removed was cited to other less-than-perfect sources, but replacing all of the governmental health agency sources with a non-reputable article is why it was considered pushing a specific POV. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 00:52, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

David notMD (User/say hi!) I thank you both for the information. I can see the publishing practices on Wikipedia are far removed from common practice in peer-reviewed scientific research, at least as far as literature review goes. But, I will try again.

Thanks to Berchanhimez for identifying predatory journala as not a reliable source. To Edinburghpotsdam - yes, MEDRS is a shock to people used to medical writing. David notMD (talk) 01:26, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi Edinburghpotsdam. Though more importantly, the underlying issues are discussed above, regarding your original and follow-up inquiries for the meaning of "POV", it is short for Point Of View, and when used, is usually intended to invoke the neutral point of view policy (which has shortcut names at "WP:POV" and "WP:NPOV"). Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:24, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Autistic Pride Day

Upcoming 18th June is Autistic Pride Day. Can wikipedia celebrate that day, such as by showing an infinity badge on the front page? Where is the right forum to discuss this proposal? Regards. RIT RAJARSHI (talk) 03:54, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

@RIT RAJARSHI: Welcome to the Teahouse, and thanks for your question about the main page logo. I know there are have been some changes to the logo for anniversary events and few milestones for article counts, but I'm not aware that we have done any for specific days of the year. I'm not exactly sure, but I would guess that proposing the idea on the village pump for non-policy proposals could be a good place to start. Does anyone else have any other suggestions? I JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 04:04, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

This is a nonstarter, unfortunately. Wikipedia doesn't show any sort of overt support for external holidays, and the only time the logo or front page has changed is for Wikipedia milestones or in responce to SOPA (and that one is still controversial to this day). —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 04:34, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

@Jéské Couriano: ,@I JethroBT: I missed the fact this article was featured on the front page several times, and we can do it again.

@RIT RAJARSHI: That might be a good alternative approach here. Is there a Did you know? fact or other front page content that could be prepared for 18 June? I JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 05:00, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

I JethroBT It's not DYK eligible. But if the article is sourced better, maybe it could be added to WP:On this day again. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:57, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Help with licensing

Hello, I just need help with licenses and how to use them with different file.

}} Shabib (talk) 04:15, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Shabib20, and welcome to the Teahouse. It's hard to advise you when you are not specific about what you need. I'm guessing this is about the logo you uploaded for Among us?

Part of Wikipedia's purpose is to make information available for anybody to reuse for any purpose: almost all text is automatically licensed in this way, and where possible, images are as well. Ideally, all images used are licensed under CC-BY-SA or similar, so that anybody may reuse them freely; and where the copyright holder is willing to license an image in that way, it should be uploaded to Commons so that all Wikimedia projects can use it.

Unfortunately, most images (and in particular, most images you find on the internet) are not licensed in that way: logos, in particular, are rarely licensed in that way, because their owners do not want to give the whole world the right to reuse or alter them. However English Wikipedia does allow non-free content to use in certain circumstances (Not all editions of Wikipedia do allow this, but English Wikipedia does). This facility is often used for logos and cover art - and indeed the image in Among Us is uploaded in this way. You tried to upload the logo in the same way; but to upload non-free content, you are required to justify doing so explicitly, showing how the way you propose to use the image meets all the criteria in the non-free content criteria. You uploaded it without providing such a justification, so it was deleted. You could try again, giving the justification; but assuming you were intending to add it to Among Us, I think it would fail criterion 3 "Minimal usage", since there is already a non-free image in that article. And if you were planning to use it somewhere else than an article, that would fail criterion 7: "One article minimum".

You can read more about all this in Image use policy. --ColinFine (talk) 12:54, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Vansh sayani draft

I made a Wikipedia page about Indian child actor Vansh Sayani a few days ago. Today, I have added sources to it. Please accept that. Tellyring (talk) 09:49, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Vansh sayani has been Declined three times. And now resubmitted. Tellyring has repeatedly asked at Teahouse that this draft get immediate review and be accepted, despite being told that asking here will not get preferential treatment. David notMD (talk) 09:59, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi, welcome to Teahouse! As noted above, you can ask for another review on that page. Also, I glanced over the sources you added. I can't say anything about most of them because they are in Hindi, but two English sources look neither in-depth nor reliable. As is, this article will most likely be declined again. I would recommend first finding good sources and only after that writing an article summarizing those sources. Anton.bersh (talk) 10:02, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Tellyring, you have now submitted Draft:Vansh sayani four times, and it still doesn't cite even one source that would help to establish its subject as notable. If you can find some reliable independent sources with significant discussion of him, you should cite them in the draft before submitting it for review. If you can't, you are wasting the time of everyone involved. Maproom (talk) 10:03, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Given that Draft:Vansh sayani is the major effort by Tellyring since creating an account in mid-May, asked on Talk to describe relationship to Vs: Family? Manager? No reply. David notMD (talk) 10:15, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Tellyring indef blocked on 7 June 2021. David notMD (talk) 15:02, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Cannot Redirect a Page(Malavika Sharma)

The Page of Malvika Sharma(Indian actress) i.e Malavika Sharma should be redirected to Malvika Sharma because of the typo in the article name. But its not redirecting so help me. Either delete Malvika Sharma or merge it with Malavika Sharma with article name as ""Malvika Sharma"" Siddartha897 (talk) 10:01, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

At present, Malvika Sharma (her name, as confirmed by all the sources cited) is a redirect to the erroneous Malavika Sharma. Someone needs to delete the redirect and move the article. To the best of my knowledge, a non-admin is unable to do that. Maproom (talk) 10:12, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

@Siddartha897: and @Maproom:. I have fixed that. Thanks. ─ The Aafī ^(talk) 10:17, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the help @Maproom: and @TheAafi: for fixing the problem so fast.Siddartha897 (talk) 10:23, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

"Page does not exist"

Often I see a phrase in red because an editor has gone to "Edit source" and put double brackets around the phrase, like this, but the phrase does not link to a Wikipedia page. Therefore, when you hover the cursor over the phrase, it says "Page does not exist." Sometimes, when I'm editing an entry, I remove non-linking double brackets. Should I, or is there a reason to keep them? If there is no reason to keep them, then why are they there? Is it just sloppiness? I find the red distracting.Maurice Magnus (talk) 10:07, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Wikipedia:Red link discusses this exact topic. In short, if there is a reasonable belief that someone will eventually create a page with that exact name and make that red link actually go there, then it makes sense to leave it so that the page can be discovered when it is created. In practice, though, most red links do not fall in this category and should be removed. Do you have a specific red link you would like to ask about? Anton.bersh (talk) 10:13, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. I have no specific red link in mind, but I've seen some (I can't remember a specific one) in which almost every item in "Further reading" or some other list is red.Maurice Magnus (talk) 10:25, 7 June 2021 (UTC). This is amusing, but I just noticed that the word "this" in my first line is not red, as I expected it would be, but links to a Wikipedia entry for "this."

I sometimes see red links to foreign Wikipedias, as at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pietro_Aretino, which has red links to [it] and [de].Maurice Magnus (talk) 11:07, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Those links to foreign language Wikipedia use the template {{ill}}, where you will see an explanation of the process. --David Biddulph (talk) 11:14, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Guidelines on types of sources required to reference notability

Hello, I've recently had a page on a person rejected due to notability criteria. In particular the comment was "This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people)".

I included a number of interviews in international newspapers with the subject about their life and their recent book, as well as some newspaper articles about them and lots of articles which quote the subject. I understand the latter may not be significantly substantial, but do interviews with a subject about their work in international newspapers not count as substantial, secondary sources that are independent of the subject?

I'm happy to provide more context and the original references if that's helpful.

Thanks for helping me understand this. Tim Lancaster (talk) 10:38, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Tim Lancaster Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Interviews do not establish notability, because they are the words of the subject themselves. Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources state about a subject, not what one says about itself. 331dot (talk) 10:42, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Are any wikipedia editors paid employees

One editor answered this when I asked "There are NO paid Wikipedia employees here or anywhere else on Wikipedia!". I am wondering if this really is the case? Are non of these 450 staff paid moderators or editors? "As of 2021, the foundation employs over 450 staff and contractors" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation ChrisCalif (talk) 10:50, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Paid staff do not edit in their capacity as such unless they are WiR or due to exigent circumstances. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 10:59, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello, ChrisCalif. Paid staff are not employed by Wikipedia, but rather by the Wikimedia Foundation which provides hosting services and technical support to hundreds of Wikipedia projects. English Wikipedia itself, which is the largest, has no paid staff and is entirely run by volunteers. Paid staff have a negligible presence here, although a few of them volunteer with separate accounts in their off hours. Paid staff involvement is limited to highly unusual situations with legal implications. Moderators, called administrators here, are 100% volunteers. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 15:59, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Devayush M Chowdhary

Not understanding why my submission for page creation was rejected. Reason stated is references do not show subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. But I have provided links to articles from mainline news outlets like The Times of India (timesofindia.com) that clearly speak about the subject and their notability in the article. Kindly advise. Prm111 (talk) 11:35, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Prm111, welcome to Teahouse! I agree with the user who declined this draft. If you have questions about a particular citation, please ask on Draft talk:Devayush M Chowdhary, not here. Feel free to mention/ping me in your posting there. Anton.bersh (talk) 11:43, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

List of articles with several red links

Hello, I found it very interesting to remove red links from articles. Do we have any list where the articles with plenty of red links are kept for reference.? Pillechan (പിള്ളേച്ചനോട് പറ) 12:01, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Krishnavilasom Bhageerathan Pilla! Check out Category:Wikipedia red link cleanup – it contains articles that have excessive red links, but I think that's the closest we have. Bsoyka (talk · contribs) 12:33, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi Krishnavilasom Bhageerathan Pilla. A "link" doesn't necessarily need to be removed just because it's red; in fact, red links can actually lead to new articles being created as explained here. For sure, there are many cases where red links are excessive and inappropriate; however, as a relatively new account, you might want carefully read through Wikipedia:Red link and Wikipedia:Notability before setting off to remove as many red links as you can find because there's a chance that doing such a thing might lead to unexpected and possible even unpleasant responses from other editors. As for your question, there is a maintenance template called Template:Cleanup red links which can be added to articles in which someone feels that the use of red links has gotten out of control. Articles tagged with that template are, I believe, added to Category:Wikipedia red link cleanup. So, that might be a good place to start if you're looking for articles tagged for red link issues. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:40, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi Krishnavilasom Bhageerathan Pilla, welcome to the Teahouse. There is actually a use for red links, seen in this guideline, basically saying that if a topic is notable enough, and an article should be created with that name, a red link should be added to encourage editors to create an article with that name and to prevent articles from being an "orphan" (basically means no articles link to it). The guideline says, "Only remove red links if Wikipedia should not have an article on the subject." so be careful about removing red links. Justiyaya (talk) 12:41, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Justiyaya, Marchjuly and Bsoyka. I will be more aware from this moment. Pillechan (പിള്ളേച്ചനോട് പറ) 13:08, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Non-free file

Hello, is there any bot that can upload a small version of this file? If so, how can I request it? Patrik L. (talk) 12:44, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi Patrik L. Please take a look at Template:Non-free reduce since there are bots that can reduce the size of files so that they are more in accordance with WP:IMAGERES, and adding that template will help make that happen. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:48, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Attempting to add references to Crimes against Humanity

I have attempted to add two documents to the references to the phrase Crimes against Humanity. These references are important because they predate the previously cited first use of the phrase. But I am getting error messages that I have been unable to resolve. Also, what is supposed to be a footnote is being inserted into the test.

Can someone take a look and try to figure out what I did wrong?

Aunt Astrid Aunt Astrid (talk) 14:12, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

@Aunt Astrid:.  Done. I fixed the errors, where you had not put the citation between <ref></ref> tags and had used the wrong format for the access-date, making it appear to be next month rather than today. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:31, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Perfect. Thank you.

Just to complete the picture, Aunt Astrid I then noticed you had repeated the full URL as the website name (as publisher). As you will see in the citation now, the name of the website is just the part after the https://www. and before the first /. Also, you had left space between the citation and the punctuation preceding it, which needed to be removed. Don't forget to sign on Talk pages with four tildes ~~~~. You must have got that right the first time but not the second! Enjoy your editing: more info at WP:REFBEGIN. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:52, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Using the button above to ask a new question inserts a signature at the end. Doesn't carry on to subsequent comments, though. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 22:40, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Jubilee (Japanese Breakfast album) - advice for handling

Hello! I'm reaching out because I'm asking for advice on how to handle a situation.

So, there currently exists a draft, created a few months ago, for an album that was recently released (June 4) - Draft:Jubilee (Japanese Breakfast album). It failed AfC twice as it didn't meet WP:NALBUM, but both of those reviews happened well before the album was released, and therefore, the reviews were doomed to fail as the album didn't have sufficient press coverage yet. With that said, the album now appears to meet WP:NALBUM guidelines and appears be ready to be moved to articlespace. At the same time, there was already an created independently of the draft (see here) - that was blanked out to a redirect pending the draft approval.

This feels to me to be a case of WP:NOTBURO - if the only thing holding back the draft is previous failures of WP:NALBUM, and it now meets those guidelines - I'm tempted to WP:BEBOLD and bypass AfC and move it myself. It might take several weeks before another review of the draft comes, and that appears to be the only thing holding this article back.

With that said, I'd also like advice on how to handle this edit - just because a draft exists, doesn't mean that another article on the same topic can't exist in articlespace, if that article meets all the other guidelines to be an article. I disagree with the premise that we now have to wait for the AfC to be approved on the draft before an article can be made in articlespace. That just feels incorrect to me. The draft is, in my opinion, much more put together and more complete than the previous article in articlespace, but any good edits from the draft can be merged into the article later. I don't think the draft being "more complete" should override the article in articlespace.

Thanks for the help, and if you have any questions, I'll be happy to answer them. JCBird1012 (talk) 14:26, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

@JCBird1012: if you think a draft should be moved to article-space, there is no requirement to go through AfC. Go ahead and move it. Elli (talk | contribs) 14:44, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

@Elli: Any suggestions on going about that? So long as the redirect exists in article-space, the draft can’t be cleanly moved. I would merge, but then the draft would lose edit history, and I’m not a big fan of that idea. I could request the redirect in article-space be deleted, and then make the move from draft-space, but that also seems complex. Should I request a history merge per WP: Parallel histories? Thanks again for the help! JCBird1012 (talk) 15:18, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

@JCBird1012: as I'm a page-mover, I can swap the existing redirect with the draft. I'll do that now. Elli (talk | contribs) 15:34, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

@JCBird1012: just an FYI for the future, the proper way to request a move be performed that you cannot carry out is WP:RM/TR. Elli (talk | contribs) 15:38, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

@Elli: Thanks for the help. This was a situation I had never encountered before and I wanted to be absolutely sure I was doing the right thing. Thanks again.

Deleting a Draft: Randy Bishop

I would like to re-do the Randy Bishop entry that has been disputed by you. I've now been given multiple citations and sources that I believe will make the entry valid. Can you please let me know how I can delete the current "Randy Bishop" draft and start over? Thanks. Mmpm123 (talk) 15:21, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Mmpm123, just edit the existing draft, Draft:Randy Bishop. Remove what you can't cite, add only stuff supported by a cited WP:RS, and read WP:BLP carefully. When you are done to your satisfaction, submit the draft and find out if you've done it to WP:s satisfaction. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:28, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply! How do I actually access the document and put it into edit mode? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mmpm123 (talk • contribs) 15:41, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

@Mmpm123: You should be able to just click the "Edit" link near the top of the page. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 15:58, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

If you need a general guide on editing, WP:TUTORIAL can help. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:23, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

I only see an "Edit Source" option. Is this what I use?

@Mmpm123:Yes, that is the button that will let you edit :) CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 17:08, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

@Mmpm123: Now if you want to use the visual editor, you can go to your Special:Preferences/preferences, navigate to the Editing tab, and uncheck the box next to "Temporarily disable the visual editor while it is in beta". It'll only work in certain namespaces, like mainspace (where articles are). (Please remember to sign your posts on talk pages by typing four keyboard tildes like this: ~~~~. Or, you can use the [ reply ] button, which automatically signs posts.) —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 18:25, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

@Mmpm123 @Tenryuu You can use User:Novem Linguae/Scripts/VisualEditorEverywhere, a User script, if you want to use VisualEditor in all namespaces. ― Qwerfjkl | 𝕋𝔸𝕃𝕂  (please use {{reply to|Qwerfjkl}} on reply)Template:Z181 19:55, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Oh my, this is an amazing script! —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 20:35, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

I've re-submitted the article for review and hopefully, publication. 19:24, 7 June 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mmpm123 (talk • contribs)

Mmpm123 No. Or to be clearer, Hell, no. Your first attempt had four references. Your revision has 80+ non-references. See WP:Referencing for beginners for how to insert references into the body of the article so that they show up as a reference list. David notMD (talk) 21:28, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Dear "David," I really don't understand the need to be rude. A simple explanation of what is missing or incorrect in my article would suffice. Mmpm123 (talk) 21:33, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

The draft has no references in an approved reference format. David notMD (talk) 21:42, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Theroadislong pointed out that IMBd and other websites are not considered valid references. I added a Submit button for when you are ready to submit. David notMD (talk) 21:48, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

To add to what has been said, I have took a look at the references, few of them are currently verifyable.

For internet sources: Please provide at least a Deep URL to the content referenced, the title and the date you last accessed & verfied the source

For newspapers / journals: Please provide at least Newspaper name, Edition name, article author (where available) and the page number.

For books: Please provide the ISBN (where known), author, title, publisher and page number.

In general, please be advised that neither Wikipedia nor IMDB nor Discogs are reliable sources. Victor Schmidt mobil (talk) 08:03, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Want to create a page for a well known journalist, what to do?

Want to create a new page for a well known Journalist, M.A. Shaikh. AskariTube (talk) 17:50, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

@AskariTube: Welcome to the Teahouse. It seems you already started a draft on the subject. I'll point out that while it hasn't been submitted for review yet, it wouldn't stand on its own as an article as there are no good references. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 18:28, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello, AskariTube, and welcome to the Teahouse. Please read your first article. Writing even a single word of an article before finding the independent reliable sources that discuss the subject at length is like building a house without building any foundations or even surveying the site: your house is likely to fall down and your work be wasted. Besides the lack of independent sources, your draft has several peacock words: no Wikipedia article should ever describe anything or anybody as "sweet" (unless it is something with an objectively sweet taste, like sugar) or "renowned" in Wikipedia's voice. --ColinFine (talk) 20:47, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

I have a question, AskariTube. Shaikh is said to have started a charitable foundation, "Albiron Foundation", for the education of the needy, when he was around 15 years old. I only found mention of it on Shaikh's LinkedIn page. You will need a source to cite for this foundation of his.--Quisqualis (talk) 04:24, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Naming people charged in juvenile court

Hello all.

I have found a section in an article that lists the names of some youths charged with rape at a school (not sure I should link to it yet).

They were initially charged as adults and as such their names were reported in the reference. However, they were then moved to juvenile court and as the article states "As a result, the outcome of the case and what punishment, if any, the rapists faced is unknown". The article also refers to them as "perpetrators".

I'm not sure they should be named in the article as they are juveniles, even if it was already reported.

Do we have any guides for this?

Princess Persnickety (talk) 17:53, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

PrincessPersnickety, there is an essay (not formally adopted by the community and may be a minority view) about this at Wikipedia:Minors and persons judged incompetent. We also have WP:BLPNAME. I think this is probably something best handled in a talk page discussion at the specific article in question, and it may depend on how widely the minors' names were published in the first instance. Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:54, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

@PrincessPersnickety: Being charged is not the same as being found guilty. If the story is highly relevant to the article, then a talk page discussion mght be wise. But if its an article about a school, then naming names in one minor section on Controversies is way out of order, and should be removed. Too much detail on any such single incident is WP:UNDUE. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:32, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you both for your help Calliopejen1 and Nick Moyes. I will have a read of those links. Princess Persnickety (talk) 10:29, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Reference

 Courtesy link: Draft:WuShuangPu

I am new here and looking for references for my page to get a real page on Wikipedia approved. I have tried Wikipedia pages for reference in my first try, but pages from Wikipedia as reference is not aloud. Now I have search for other reference and did found only two books as reference (with ISBN), I have made a chapter Reference and placed those two books in that part. Further I have placed some useful links to Universities, Libraries and Museums in a second chapter (named: See also). Would that be enough? Are the people here only looking at the chapter Reference or also to the other chapters to approve? Arno Jacobs (talk) 18:00, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Arno Jacobs, Hi and welcome to the teahouse. I went to your article and added one source and removed some items that weren't sources but rather were simply republications of the book. What you need for sources are reputable publications (academic journal articles, books) that discuss Wu Shuang Pu. I assume that most sources out there would be in Chinese, but I don't speak Chinese. If you know of any good Chinese-language sources (academic journal articles, books) that discuss Wu Shuang Pu, I'd encourage you to add them. I think that the sources existing in the article will likely be enough for the article to be approved, but it is definitely a close call. Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:50, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

creating an article

how long does it take a new editor to qualify to create an article? JaneAtawa (talk) 18:02, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

@JaneAtawa: Welcome to the Teahouse. If you're asking about when users are autoconfirmed, an account needs to have made at least 10 edits and be 4 days old. That being said, the lack of said status doesn't prevent new users from going through the Articles for Creation process, which is highly recommended, as it allows more experienced users to check the draft and ensure that it is appropriate for Wikipedia, as creating an article is one of the hardest things you can do on here. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 18:22, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello, JaneAtawa, and welcome to the Teahouse! Your account must be autoconfirmed—the account must be at least 4 days old and have 10 edits—to create articles directly in the mainspace. However, any user can submit an article to Articles for Creation and have it be reviewed by an experienced editor. For more information, please see WP:YFA. --Aknell4 (talk • contribs) 18:24, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello, JaneAtawa. Editors who try the challenging task of creating a new article before they have spent a few months improving some of our six million existing articles and learning how things work in Wikipedia, often have a gruelling and frustrating experience. Signing this comment (belatedly): --ColinFine (talk) 17:33, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Help submit draft for review

I need to submit a draft for review and I'm not seeing the option. Please advise. HollyBells (talk) 20:23, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

@HollyBells Please can you link to the page. ― Qwerfjkl | 𝕋𝔸𝕃𝕂  (please use {{reply to|Qwerfjkl}} on reply)Template:Z181 20:39, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

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

@Qwerfjkl: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:John_Rainey_Adkins

I've added the submit template for you. Theroadislong (talk) 20:46, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

@Theroadislong: I don't know what happened. I didn't have a problem submitting with my last two. Thank you for the help!

Hello, HollyBells. Draft:Wiregrass Blues Society was created from the beginning with the {{AFC draft}} template in it: I'm guessing it was created using WP:AFC. You created Draft:John Rainey Adkins without that template, presumably by creating it directly and not through AFC. That is the difference. --ColinFine (talk) 21:02, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

@HollyBells: I just fixed a few references in that article, hope that helps. Anton.bersh (talk) 21:13, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

@Anton.bersh: Thank you! I need all the help I can get. Appreciate it.

Changing my username

Changing my username So first of all, I'm making plans to change my username (I'm honestly not the biggest fan of it). I've already found a user that can do it; I'm narrowing down my options of what I'm changing it to. Will the edits I've made as HelenDegenerate show up as my new username? Thanks, 🐍Helen🐍 (let’s talk) 22:41, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes. Any rename will also change the attribution of any edits made under the old name. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 22:43, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Jéské Couriano And I'll still have my rollback rights? 🐍Helen🐍 (let’s talk) 22:47, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

@HelenDegenerate: It's like a woman getting married: your name may change, but not who you are. Your 'rights' here won't alter either. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:22, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

That also applies to a man who changes his name after marriage. (I realise that this is still not particularly common in some parts of the world, but it is still true :-) ) --bonadea contributions talk 08:38, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Will the signature for posts signed before the username change be retrospectively altered? Stanstaple (talk) 06:10, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

No, I don't think so, but the links in those signatures should still link to your account because it's technically still the same. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:00, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

If your account is renamed, the edits you made from your original username will be reattributed to your new username in edit histories and other similar logs, but signatures you placed on pages will not be changed. 331dot (talk) 08:56, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

User page help: separate pages and talk page archive

Title.

Surely everyone knows what I mean by "talk page archive"; I'm specifically looking for one I can sort by year or whatever, or maybe one I can just add older entries to over time.

As for the "separate pages" stuff, I mean things like, say, User:Guy Macon/Yes. We are biased. or User:Beyond My Ken/Thoughts, where you just have a separate page to put whatever.

Not sure how I'd go about doing either of these. Any help? How-to pages, or something? Thanks in advance. AdoTang (talk) 23:00, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi AdoTang. Regarding archiving, try WP:ARCHIVE; regarding creating user subpages, try WP:UPYES and WP:UP#Creating a subpage. — Marchjuly (talk) 23:16, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Query about. "unconstructive editing"

 Courtesy link: 4th Panzer Army

Hello, I am new to Wikipedia editing. I made some minor changes to the article titled "4th Panzer Army". Almost immediately afterwards I got a message from user gummycow stating that changes I had made were undone because they did not appear constructive. But (text below) there is no difference between the article after my edit and now? Since there is no reference to exactly what it is that "appears" to be wrong with the edit, how can I respond? The only action suggested was to use my sandbox;but what's the point of that if you want to edit an actual article ?

>>> (General note: Unconstructive editing on 4th Panzer Army.) Tag: Twinkle

(No difference) <<< Felimy419 (talk) 23:45, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

As best I can discern, you made seven edits to 4th Panzer Army. User:Gummycow left a note at User talk:Felimy419 that your edits were undone for cause, but actually did no such thing. I suggest ignoring what was left on your Talk page. David notMD (talk) 02:18, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Digging deeper, Gummycow has left Warnings on several editors' Talk pages about edits being undone, whereas no such act took place, or else there was an edit undone by an editor other than Gummycow. This is not good behavior. David notMD (talk) 02:28, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I was not really used to using twinkle. I will refrain from such behavior onward.Gummycow ^moo_milk 04:30, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

I will now read about edit filters to avoid such a mistake in the future.Gummycow ^moo_milk 04:42, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Inappropriate comment in an article. Please remove

Hi there can someone change the Wikipedia article ‘Refugees in New Zealand’. Under sub heading famous refugees in NZ there is a Lic Miass. There is no Lic Miass from Yale that is and African Tadpole tamer. 49.224.242.85 (talk) 00:09, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. It looks like you've already removed it. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:16, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Unsure whether to maintain COI declaration

Out of an abundance of caution, when I recently created the article St. Mary's-in-Tuxedo I decided to declare a COI, since I have lately been informally volunteering at this church (working mainly on historical projects). I have tried to be scrupulous with my choice of sources, using only those that any member of the public could theoretically access. Since I am not formally affiliated with this organization, should I keep my COI declaration, or should I perhaps disclose my association in another way, by posting in the article talk page for example? firvales73 (talk) 02:21, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, firvales73! I recommend keeping the COI as-is. The reasoning behind needing to declare a COI isn't so much how formally affiliated you are with a subject, but whether your view on the subject could possibly be non-neutral (even if not intended). For example, I previously volunteered for Brainly and still have a COI userbox on my userpage due to my opinions and knowledge about the subject. Bsoyka (talk · contribs) 02:25, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi Firvales73 Your declaration of a COI probably won't matter as long as you try and ensure your edits are in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines; if you start making edits which start attracting attention because they are not in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines, then you going to find yourself having problems regardless of what you've declared. You can err on the side of caution here and leave the declaration and follow WP:COIADVICE, you can ask for additional input at WP:COIN, or you can remove the declaration. Either way, people are going be looking at the quality of your edits and a COI is only really a problem when it starts to effect that quality. For reference, COI editing is highly discoouraged because it can lead to serious problems, but it's not expressly prohibitted. The only thing you need to make sure of is undisclosed paid editing because that is against the Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use and will result in your account being blocked if detected no matter how good your edits are. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:34, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you both, I appreciate the clarity! firvales73 (talk) 13:29, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Query on bullying deleted from Teahouse?

Hi I cant find the discussion on the query I posted on 31st May on Wiki policy on Bullying and Disruptive editors? Could someone help me find it? or tell what could have happened it, I xant find it in the archives. Shatbhisha6 (talk) 02:41, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Threads are archived after a certain time. You opened the thread. It was replied to. You saw and responded to the reply [3], and the thread was archived to Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive_1111#wikipedia_policy_on_bullying_and_disruptive_editorssome time after June 2, after a period of no further posts.

Next time you need to find something you posted in the archive I suggest that you search on your username. Meters (talk) 02:58, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks a ton, I searched for it in the archives but somehow I couldnt find it. I am new and learning wiki ways. Thanks again Shatbhisha6 (talk) 11:49, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Account details

How do I quickly find my Wikipedia account details? Like account age, amount of edits, etc. The Tips of Apmh (talk) 03:11, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I usually use Xtools for that. You can also find the basics (date registered, number of edits) by clicking the preferences link at the very top of the page. --- Possibly (talk) 03:51, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion of Draft:Virtue Clan

Hi Wikipedians! Earlier, I have been told that this article could be re-created or speedy deleted. As the article's Draft is totally messed up, I think this article Virtue Clan could be speedy deleted so that I could create a new draft. So kindly help me out on how to suppose this Draft:Virtue Clan to speedy deletion. Thanks in advance!!! Jocelin Andrea (talk) 06:12, 8 June 2021 (UTC) Jocelin Andrea (talk) 06:12, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Jocelin Andrea You made three edits to the draft on 11 May and have not touched it since. I strongly recommend you work on the existing draft, removing bad content, adding good content, but leaving in place the history of the two Declined. Given that the draft was initially suspected of being the product of undeclared paid editing, are you being paid for your attempt to rescue this draft? David notMD (talk) 10:53, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi (talk), I would like to let you know that I am not being Paid to create/edit this article. While reading random articles on Digital Journal, I found an article on the subject and that's it. Also, I would like to create a new article coz the article's Draft has been already messed up totally to be honest. So recommending it to be speedy deleted would be great. Thanks in advance!!! Jocelin Andrea (talk) 11:15, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Which criterion in WP:CSD do you believe applies? Because the content of the draft is a mixture of content from you and from the previous contributor, I would feel that neither G5 nor G7 applies. I would therefore endorse the advice from David notMD. --David Biddulph (talk) 11:21, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks @David Biddulph, I will recreate the article from the same. Anyways, can we remove the "Paid" mark in the article? That is not a big deal, but just asking if we could do that. Also I would like to know that can we use other language references (Norwegian in here) for the article? Jocelin Andrea (talk) 11:44, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

By "we", are you working on this with other people? Wikipedia requires that each account is for one person. Or by "we", were you referring to Wikipedia editors who can decide about removing the 'Paid' tag? On that point, given that you have declared (above) not being Paid, then if you can revise the draft to qualify becoming an article, the Reviewer can decide at that time. Non-English citations are allowed. David notMD (talk) 14:48, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi again @David notMD, I am the only person editing the Draft:Virtue Clan. It is my habit to text or type usually in plural form, that is the reason why I used "we" instead of "I". Also thanks for letting me know that other language's references can be used. Jocelin Andrea (talk) 01:46, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Sorting table with empty cells at bottom

I'm trying to make a table where when I sort alphabetically (A->Z), the empty cells should remain at the bottom, while cells with content should go to the top. The only solution I could find is inserting data-sort-value="𐲁"| in each empty line. The problem with this is that when I try to change an empty cell in the visual editor, the sorting preference doesn't go away (and also, it takes too much effort to add it in each empty cell). Is there a better solution to this? Thanks! Krmarci (talk) 07:12, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

help with review thats been months now

Hello there, I improved my sourcing and would like someone to take a look and offer an opinion on whether it's been improved enough... this draft was already excepted and then was returned to a draft out of the blue. Almost all the sources are huge news websites in Israel and none was paid or is a press relase and this company is traded as well as many people uses its tech. Its been months since the last review and I feel its not fair so I was told to write here, can someone help please? --Shanisun (talk) 07:16, 8 June 2021 (UTC) Shanisun (talk) 07:16, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Welcome back to the Teahouse, Shanisun. You might feel that it's unfair that your submission hasn't been reviewed yet, but you're being paid to edit whereas the reviewers, like the vast majority of other editors, are volunteers, so I would say that it's unfair for you to expect them to review your submission to a deadline. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:22, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello! Yes I was paid when I worked for but now i'm not and I must say I dont expect anything but its been months and not weeks and I waited till i thought its been long enough. Didnt mean anything by it...

• @Shanisun: Right now the article is not in the review queue. You could add it by placing {{subst:submit}} on top of the page, but you would do well to ensure you have addressed the previous criticism before. Are there three reliable, independent sources that discuss the subject at length? If not, the article will not be accepted. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 07:55, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

There are more and most of the sources are from the biggest news and econamy sites in Israel. I feel something in the process of this draft isnt going as it should be and i hope you can help.. by the way, I waited since feb this year since a reviewer told me it is in the queue. Shanisun (talk) 09:21, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Draft:Itamar Medical Theroadislong (talk) 08:00, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

I think it was in the review queue, Tigraan, it's just that the template was at the bottom of the page. Now it has two of them. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:35, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

I removed the newer of the two AfCs, so that it will be clear that the submission was in March. David notMD (talk) 10:06, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello all, I came here for help and now it seems my draft is under attack... I will try to explain again since im in loss of words and understanding of whats going on...

Itamar Medical is an Israeli company, its now public and also has offices and employees in the states. I wrote the draft and its written in the formal tone and it was approved. Than, it was removed and placed as a draft again due to sources. now, i have almost 30 sources in the draft, all the Israely websites are the biggest sites in Israel and all articels there were written by journalists and none was paid or is a press realease, i.e: ynet, globes, haaretz, TheMarker, walla. How can this be and the draft isnt approved and now there is a new reason of tone? is there something I should know or is it because its an Israeli company? please explain because i really dont understand whats going on here and its been for months now... Shanisun (talk) 08:06, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello everyone

Constantly targeting the page Hello everyone,

I've recently started contributing to wikipedia. I am trying to learn wikipedia's policies, as much as possible.

I recently created a wikipedia page for an author Nicholas Conn. Since the beginning this user TheWikiholic is trying to created obstacle. They didn't suggest any solid issue or guided me to improve anything. They claimed that I have COI and UDP without any evidence. And now they have nominated the page for deletion even though it qualifies the WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV.

I don't get it, is this normal for other users to attact the pages constantly or any I doing something wrong. I am new and confused with the situation here. Any suggestion are helpful.

Thank you everyone.. Sushant1432 (talk) 08:23, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Sushant1432 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I see that another editor has raised some legitimate concerns, based on your edits. You haven't done anything wrong per se, other editors discussing an article and its validity are a normal part of the process. You stated on the article talk page that you have been in communication with the organization owned by the person you wrote about- that is indeed a conflict of interest. You also claimed that you took the image placed in the article- which would also suggest a conflict of interest and often indicates that someone is being paid for their contributions. If you are being paid, it's best to be honest about it because declaring paid editing is a Terms of Use requirement. If you are not paid in any way(not just money), okay, but then you will need to address the issues raised and demonstrate in the deletion discussion specifically how the individual meets GNG. 331dot (talk) 09:03, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

References

My impression is that you are enthusiastic about Nicholas Conn and his book Draft:The Thin White Line (Nicholas Conn), but not paid nor having a true conflict-of-interest. The beginner's error that triggered suspicion is that for both the article about Conn and for the article about his (self-published?) book, you by-passed creating drafts, instead creating very preliminary articles which you have since labored to backfill. The evaluation at AfD will be on the merits of the article, not any past questions about your connection to the person. While at AfD, you can continue to attempt to improve the article, and comment to this effect at AfD. However, in the end, the decision will rest with an Administrator, who may agree that the references do not establish notability. David notMD (talk) 10:19, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Changing a picture

How do I change a picture on a Wikipedia page? KeYhMonneY (talk) 09:05, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Are you talking about the image at Jamhuri Day?- X201 (talk) 09:42, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello KeYhMonneY, and welcome to the Teahouse! It's annoying, but copyright rules and regs limit what can be used on WP. For example, we can't use pics just because they're on Google/FB/Instagram. The basic assumption is that any random pic you find on Google can't be used because copyright, unless proved otherwise.

You indicate here the image you want to use. Now, acaict, that image's [4] copyright belongs to the Kenya Defence Forces, and unless they clearly state somewhere that it is "free", WP can't use it. Hope this helps. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:43, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

If you want, you can try to ask for help with finding a better image here Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Africa or here Commons:Help desk. Commons is a sister-project where free images are hosted for easy on-WP use. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:50, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

@KeYhMonneY: Sometimes you can look in Wikipedia Commons for other freely-licensed photos in the same category as the one you want to change. In this case, they are held at commons:Category:Military of Kenya. In general, if you click on an image in an article, it should take you to an expanded version and an option (bottom right) to see "more details" which will in turn take you to the page on Commons where the image is stored. Most images are categorised so readers can find related images easily. In this particular case, I didn't see a suitable alternative for the article within Commons and, as already mentioned, you can't upload anything new unless it has a suitable free license. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:01, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

formating article export

Hi, can I set the page format for article export (PDF, Book and/or print)? If so, how/where? Simple stuff like font size, position/aspect ratio of tables and frame of the pages, would be cool to set. Can't find it. Thank you Hennk von Muspelsheim (talk) 09:16, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

@Hennk von Muspelsheim: I'm pretty sure that there are no options for exporting article except as a pre-formed .pdf or doing a page print to whatever your PC supports for output. However, you may get a better answer if you ask at WP:Village pump (technical), where the IT experts hang out. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:50, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Draft:AK-xolotl

Hello I am EthanTheVee, my draft --) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:AK-xolotl is about a indie game, and there is no reliable source to support my sayings in my article. I personnaly know the dev of the game, and I have permisson to post this article, with confirmed true facts. I am quite new in wikipedia, can someone help me? EthanTheVee (talk) 11:01, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello EthanTheVee, and welcome to the Teahouse! In short, write about the game somewhere else. Without WP:RS that satisfies WP:GNG, WP will not have an article about this game. Perhaps such sources will appear in the future. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:13, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello, EthanTheVee, welcome to Teahouse! The draft does not have any in-depth independent sources which would be considered reliable. As noted above, it's unlikely that a recently released indie game would have a sufficient number of sources to qualify for a Wikipedia article. Also, the fact that you know the developer personally and edit Wikipedia as a personal favor, constitutes conflict of interest. It's possible to perform COI edits, but there are special procedures for this. Please familiarize yourself with disclosure procedures. If you have any questions about the draft itself, feel free to ask here or ping me anywhere else. Anton.bersh (talk) 11:17, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

@EthanTheVee: It seems like this may be a case of being too soon. You might be able to get something going at FANDOM/Gamepedia. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 12:54, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Expanding an existing article

Dear friends, I recently visited this "stub article": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonin_Honig It invited readers to expand it by adding more information. As I knew personally the subject of the article (now dead), I added some biographical details. However, each time I tried to add this detail, it was removed again by someone or something within 24h. I don't wish to have an argument as it's not very important, but can you advise me - have I overlooked some aspect of Wiki protocol here?

Honza Giles. Honza Giles (talk) 11:14, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello Honza Giles, welcome to Teahouse. Whenever you have a disagreement with another editor, you can discuss it on the article's talk pages. In this case, it is Talk:Antonín_Honig. Are there any reliable sources that would verify the information which you are adding? If you know the subject of the article personally, then you have a conflict of interest, so please familiarize yourself with disclosure process. Anton.bersh (talk) 11:22, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

@Honza Giles: - I've reverted your additions as you did not provide a reliable source to verify the information you have added. For example, what is the source for their year of birth being in 1906? Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 11:25, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

@Honza Giles: One example was where you claimed to be "correcting" the spelling, but your edit contradicted the cited reference. --David Biddulph (talk) 11:29, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

@Honza Giles: I looked into one of your edits and you changed the subject's name spelling from Hönig to Honig (with a simple o). From my experience, spelling non-English names in plain English is hard. Such letter simplification can come from technical limitations (encoding, typeset limitation) or lazy implementers. Are you sure this is intentional and not accidental? Anton.bersh (talk) 11:41, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

How do I know who reviewed a page?

I wanted to draftify a page but it's already reviewed and wanted to discuss with the reviewer first. How do I know who reviewed the page? The page in question is BB5 (film). The sources aren't sufficient but it might become notable in future when it has received more coverage and reviews. So incubating in draft space might be more appropriate. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 12:48, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure that info is kept in public logs. But I don't know, perhaps someone else does. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:54, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi Nomadicghumakkad. The creator is autopatrolled so there was no review. If there was a review then it could be seen after clicking the "View history" tab, "View logs for this page" at the top, "Review log" and "Patrol log" under "Show additional logs", and finally "Show". The article was created in 2017 when the film was released. It would be odd to draftify it four years later in wait of reviews. People review films when they are released. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:12, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks PrimeHunter, I didn't notice the date really. My bad. I reached here after seeing a recently created article of the lead actor and hence assumed that this was a new film. I will apply your feedback on some other articles to see if I am able to do it or not and get back with more questions if any. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 13:15, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Link

I reverted this edit because it looked like it came from an unreliable source (Wiktionary). Would you agree, as it's part of the Wikimedia platform? Thanks. Seahawks4Life^{TALK—CONTRIBS} 14:13, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Also, it looks like it's from a non-English Wiktionary, so reverting it was necessary. But I would like to know for the future if the Wikimedia platform is a reliable source. Thanks in advance. Seahawks4Life^{TALK—CONTRIBS} 14:17, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't think that great chunk of untranslated Greek text is of any use either. Princess Persnickety (talk) 14:55, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, but that doesn't answer my question. Seahawks4Life^{TALK—CONTRIBS} 16:21, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Seahawks4Life, I agree that Wiktionary is not a reliable source. See WP:UGC. It is also not appropriate to include inline links in the body of an article. I wouldn't describe Wiktionary as the "source" for the statement, though -- I would usually think of the "source" as the article in which the subject was described as "πούττος". In any event, I think the edit was a bad one for a number of reasons, and you were correct to revert it. Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:29, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the notice; it is a pleasure. Seahawks4Life^{TALK—CONTRIBS} 17:31, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia's minimum standard for inline citations

 Courtesy link: Draft:Exeon Analytics

Hi! Can someone please explain to me what does this mean- The content of this submission includes material that does not meet Wikipedia's minimum standard for inline citations. Please cite your sources using footnotes. My latest submission was declined because of that, and I am not sure what it means since I have a lot of footnotes for article not that long. If that even applies on the number of footnotes. Thank you in advance! POffice1 (talk) 14:19, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Exeon Analytics has no inline citations at all. The feedback on the draft (and on your user talk page) has a link to Help:Referencing for beginners. - David Biddulph (talk) 14:24, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

POffice1, I urge you to glance at WP:GA, pick a topic that might be related to what you are writing about and see how that article looks compared to your draft. For example Arena (web browser). Among other things, notice how the footnotes are formatted. S Philbrick(Talk) 14:36, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, NOT how references are done at Wikipedia. Refs are placed in the body of the article. The ref program automatically numbers those and shows the ref under ==References==. Instead, you have hyperlinks in the text (with superscripted number) and a number list of URLs under References that does not correspond to the numbers in the article. Lastly, except for simple facts, the company' own website cannot be a reference. David notMD (talk) 14:57, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't think we need to be bitey here, but yeah, that's correct. @POffice1: I recommend you have a look at the source/wikitext behind some more popular articles and see how the citations are formatted there. Bsoyka (talk · contribs) 15:17, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Appropriate way to update a logo of a company on an article?

What is the proper way to go about changing the logo for a company or TV network? Spectrum News 1 NC and a few other SN related articles are using outdated logos, and I want to know if mentioning it on the talk page, or directly changing it is the appropriate way. I'm playing it safe, and I've mentioned it on the talk page of the article already, but would it be acceptable to directly change the logo on the page? Jkrosado (talk) 15:05, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Jkrosado, go to Wikipedia:File Upload Wizard pick "upload non-free", follow instructions, choose "This is a copyrighted, non-free work, but I believe it is Fair Use." then "This is a logo of an organization, company, brand, etc." Then boldly change, explaining why in the edit summary. That should work. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:13, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I have done that, what I meant was the proper way to update the article itself. Would it be acceptable to change it, or add to talk page first? Jkrosado (talk) 16:23, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

WP:BEBOLD, I say. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:44, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

List of Hindi comedy shows should be deleted/rewritten?

Question is about List of Hindi comedy shows. All of the serials' have there own separate article and the article is not well written and possibly not notable. Should that article be deleted/rewritten? ExclusiveEditor _{Notify Me!} 15:34, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

ExclusiveEditor, hi and welcome to the Teahouse. Yes, I think that is a very poor-quality article. I don't know that it needs to be deleted but at a minimum I would recommend that it be rewritten to have a format more like List of American television programs. Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:17, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Notability

How do I tell if a subject is notable or not? Like, there have been articles written about it but it's mostly reviews, does that count? Stevenruidigao (talk) 15:37, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

To learn about notability, please read WP:Notability. - David Biddulph (talk) 15:38, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

If you're more specific, we can also answer in specific about that particular case. I'm not sure what type of "reviews" you mean. If it's a film or television show and the review is in a national, well-read, non-tabloid newspaper—yes, that's exactly what we're looking for. If it's a review from a tabloid or a user-generated source (like an Amazon review of a product) then that's not a reliable source. When evaluating if a source is reliable, think to yourself: what makes me certain that the person writing this knows what they're talking about, and how could I prove that to somebody else? — Bilorv (talk) 15:54, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

I mean like Forbes and Tom's Hardware. Does that count? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevenruidigao (talk • contribs) 00:37, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Why was my edit reversed and with no explanation

I have read a whole bunch of documentation to be an informed user and made a careful edit to Jung Hye-in. It was reversed without any explanation, just “ Restored revision 1027470998 by Aoowassana (talk) undo Tags: Undo Twinkle”. The whole article had only one sentence before my edit. I was going to work on making it much better with more edits like this, but it looks like there’s no point. 108.29.132.185 (talk) 16:08, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

If you're talking about this edit, it was reverted because her role in Sisyphus: The Myth is already included in § Television series. Kleinpecan (talk) 16:19, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for replying. I am sorry but that is not an explanation I can take much from. It doesn't tell me why the reversal was made without explanation. Also b/c it didn't have an explanation, aren't you guessing the person's reason? How do you know that was the reason? If it is right I don't think it is legitimate. My edit has a lot of information the cell doesn't have. My edit is in writing and is not a chart cell. My edit has a better reference. I looked at many other articles on actresses and they says things in detail about the shows and the characters in the writing and also have a chart of the listing in cells. Both. They aren't the same things. So I will not write any more. But I was going to make it good.-108.29.132.185 (talk) 17:51, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

"Aren't you guessing the person's reason?"—well, yeah, kinda. Let's ping Paper9oll (who reverted your edits) and ask them. Kleinpecan (talk) 18:15, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

@Kleinpecan: Yes, what you are saying is correct. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 00:35, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

@Kleinpecan: I have further improved the lead section with minor details, if that is what IP is looking for. What IP included is overly detailed for lead section, maybe IP was referring to career section of other K-actress/actor article. So ya ... that's the answer. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 01:36, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Draft submission declined: Fairline Yachts Ltd help with understanding why?

Hello

I have had an AfC https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Fairline_Yachts_Ltd submission declined because of (lack of?) Corporate Notability. Please could I be advised on how I can improve the page to avoid this happening? I do not understand why the Fairline Boats page is still on Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairline_Boats when this company ceased to exist in 2015. Also it is confusing that there is a link to a non-existent Wiki page for the new company (the one that I drafted an AfC for) on the Fairline Boats page but this link does not actually go anywhere. Any help would be much appreciated.

Thanks Cobalt6789 (talk) 16:10, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

The reviewer stated that the article was from the company's viewpoint. It needs independent reliable sources. TigerScientist Chat > contribs 16:55, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

In answer to your question about Fairline Boats: this is an encyclopaedia, not a business directory. If Fairline Boats met Wikipedia's criteria for notability, then it does so for all time, whether it is current or historical. If Fairline Yachts does not meet those criteria, then there cannot at present be an article about it, though it may later come to meet the criteria, and an article could then be written. (I do not know whether either of the companies meet those criteria: I haven't checked. I wanted to make the general point). --ColinFine (talk) 17:41, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Is it possible to put in a request for an experienced contributor to create a new Wikipedia entry?

Hi,

I run a children's science magazine called Whizz Pop Bang that has been published every month since Aug 2015 (we're on Issue 71!). Many other newer magazines with smaller distributions have their own Wiki pages but not this one :(

As someone who has an interest in the magazine and who has never edited a Wiki entry, it doesn't feel right for me to create the page. Is there a mechanism for putting in a request for someone to create a page about the magazine? It has 20,000 loyal and loving subscribers, mostly in the UK but also internationally too.

The website is: https://www.whizzpopbang.com

Thanks for any help and advice you can give. RedFoxMonster (talk) 16:10, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello RedFoxMonster and welcome to the Teahouse. Thanks for asking first, that will save you time and effort. Yes, there is such a place, WP:REQUEST, but it's very backlogged and you'd have to be quite lucky. However, per WP rules, existing is not enough, see this link: WP:GNG, that is your first hurdle. Do you have 3-5 sources, that are at the same time independent of the magazine (and you, etc), reliably published (no blogs, wikis etc etc) and about the magazine in some detail? Articles about it on BBC, Times etc would be excellent. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:31, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Like this: [5]. Do you have a few more? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:34, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks so much for the speedy response! The following sources aren't as high-calibre as the Guardian but would they be enough?...

• https://www.teachwire.net/products/product-review-whizz-pop-bang-magazine
• https://www.rockthecotswolds.com/rockers/all-the-rockers/whizz-pop-bang-magazine/
• https://www.theschoolrun.com/best-educational-magazines-for-children
• https://startups.co.uk/startups-awards/peoples-champion-finalist-2018-whizz-pop-bang/
• https://www.teachwire.net/news/teach-primary-awards-2019-finalists-announced

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by RedFoxMonster (talk • contribs) 16:50, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

I'll respond at your talkpage. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:55, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Expanding an existing article (cont.)

Thank you anton.berg, david biddulph and lugnuts, for your helpful replies to my earlier query. My "reliable source" for the biographical details was in fact a relative of the subject of the article. However, following your advice, I shall try to obtain some written sources. Would a personal document such as the scan of a passport or death certificate be acceptable evidence - and if so, how does one refer to a source like that in a Wiki article?

Honza Giles. Honza Giles (talk) 16:59, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Honza Giles, No, unfortunately these sorts of sources are not acceptable. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, so it summarizes knowledge that has already been published elsewhere in reliable sources. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources. I would recommend looking for old newspaper articles to see if any contain this biographical information. Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:21, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Publication

How to move a page from draft to publication ? and what if the sources for some certain information is not available but that information is accepted by general public! are we allowed to publish it? Bamboo69 (talk) 17:00, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Bamboo69, hi and welcome to the Teahouse. You can type {{subst:submit}} in the code editor of your draft to submit it for review for publication. What do you mean by "not available" for the second question? As a general matter, you should have a source for any fact you include in an article. By the way, have you had another account before? Judging by your editing pattern, you are not a new user. If you are a paid editor, you have to disclose that on your userpage. See WP:PAID. Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:25, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for guiding, No i am not a paid editor, and i am aware about the guidelines for paid editing, i have had an account back in 2015 for just a few days for an academic project.

Grammar

Hello, I am DantzK I Have something very important when it comes to an article when it comes to grammar why are you not fixing the grammar? You need to make it simple, for other readers. DantzK (talk) 17:51, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello, DantzK. Go ahead and fix it yourself. If the article is protected, then make an Edit request on the article's talk page. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:59, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Admin rules

Hello! I just started here at Wikipedia, and I was wondering how long it takes to get admin rights. Thanks!

L1RMEYEDU L1RMEYEDU (talk) 17:48, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello, L1RMEYEDU. There are no formal minimum requirements, but as a practical matter, an editor is expected to have well over a year of service, thousands of productive edits, good content creation, and a strong record of assisting with the administration of Wikipedia behind the scenes. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:57, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @L1RMEYEDU: Admins are very experienced users who are only appointed after a successful request for adminship (there are currently 2 right now). It usually takes a few years and many thousands of edits to become an administrator, and they have to show a clear understanding of policy, as well as a need for the tools. As you have only been here a few days and have made around 11 edits, you don't meet the requirements right now. — Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 17:57, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

cool. i did see that to edit the semi-protected articles you needed like 4 days and 10 edits, but i was wondering how long it would take 2b admin, since i saw a few. thanks! L1RMEYEDU (talk) 18:00, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

L1RMEYEDU, quite simply, it will take you a long time. — Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 18:01, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello, L1RMEYEDU, and welcome to the Teahouse and to Wikipedia. One of the questions that will come up if you put yourself forward to be an admin is "What exactly is it that you want to do for Wikipedia that you need admin rights for?" I have been an editor for sixteen years, and made 19 thousand edits, and I have never applied to be an admin, because there's nothing that I want to do for Wikipedia that I can't do. --ColinFine (talk) 20:56, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

@L1RMEYEDU I believe I saw somewhere that 2% of editors become admins. ― Qwerfjkl | 𝕋𝔸𝕃𝕂  (please use {{reply to|Qwerfjkl}} on reply)Template:Z181 21:48, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

How can I edit more to then create my wiki?

 Theshowishere (talk) 18:27, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

@Theshowishere: A Wiki is a type of website, Wikipedia is one example of. If you want to create a new Wikipedia article, you can in theory start that proccess right now by starting to read WP:YFA. Please be advised that creating a new article is one of the harder tasks around here, so if you want to gain a bit (or much) more practive in editing here, thats not a problem. The Task Center has ideas. Maybe you also want to ask a WikiProject in your topic for ideas. Victor Schmidt (talk) 19:51, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Theshowishere, and welcome to the Teahouse. I agree with what Victor has said: for almost all new editors, they can add much more value to Wikipedia by improving some of our six million existing articles than by plunging straight into the extremely difficult task of creating a new article; and also save themself a lot of frustration and misery. One more point: if by "my wiki" you mean "A Wikipedia article about myself", then please read autobiography to discover why that is a very very bad idea even when you are more experienced. --ColinFine (talk) 21:42, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Is my article notable?

I am an intern for a breakfast brunch and lunch restaurant with 20 locations. What qualifies us to be notable, and what are the steps I can take to create an article for my business? Berrichetti (talk) 19:13, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

For information on notability, read WP:Notability. Given your role, you need to read about conflict of interest and you must make the mandatory declaration of paid editing. --David Biddulph (talk) 19:16, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

As mentioned above, a subject requres multiple in-depth independent references to be notable. Also, please note that Wikipedia articles should not promote their subjects. For reference, this page has some articles about restaurants. Given your COI, I'd recommend disclosing your relationship with the subject and creating your article in Draft space. That way you can ask some experienced users for feedback and it won't be deleted as spam). Anton.bersh (talk) 21:27, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

One thing to realize, Berrichetti, is that Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost entirely interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources. Only if you can find such independent sources will an article be possible (that is basically what the notability criterion is about). Also bear in mind that if you succeed in getting an article about your business accepted, the article will not belong to you, will not be controlled by you, and will not necessarily say what you want it to say. See An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing. --ColinFine (talk) 21:48, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Pessi (social media)

Hello. I made this draft. I just want some opinion; with the sources on this draft, do you think WP:GNG can be met? I'm not even sure I will move this to mainspace anytime soon but before I start putting a lot of effort into this I would like to know if it has a chance to meet GNG (or not) or whether it already does. Paul Vaurie (talk) 20:22, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Welcome to Teahouse, Paul Vaurie. Most of the sources are in French, so I can't evaluate their quality. However, I see that 7 sources are just dropped into the article after word "Here" without explanation. Do you plan to add more content summarizing these sources or using these sources elsewhere in the article? Also, this article seems to mostly focus on harassment, so I would recommend reading Wikipedia:Harassment. To be clear: Wikipedia does have articles on tough topics like harassment, crimes, disasters, deaths, and many others, but authors of these articles have to handle the topics with due diligence. Anton.bersh (talk) 21:39, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes, the sources with "here" is because I found several sources but I just didn't incorporate them into the article as I didn't continue improving it. Paul Vaurie (talk) 21:52, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello. Just made my first article about Roy F Guzmán a Composer from Puerto Rico

About my article

I would like to make my article pass the test of examination in order to publish it. I am having trouble and I would like some help because it seems I correctly filled all the available information and I have seen articles that have less reinforcement information than mine in Wikipedia. Royguzrod (talk) 21:18, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Draft:Roy F. Guzmán

Welcome to Teahouse, Royguzrod. Please always link pages that you are talking about so that others can find them easily. All articel subjects are evaluated for WP:Notability separately. The fact that one page exists or does not mean that another should or should not (here are details). If you think an article does not meet notability standard, you can nominate it for deletion (and please do because Wikipedia is run by volunteers who can't check every single article). I agree with the assesment of the reviewer that right now the draft has "zero independent sources". All sources appear to be published directly by the subject of the article. (And there are no in-line citations). Anton.bersh (talk) 21:49, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

e/c You have not submitted your draft for review yet, but it has zero independent sources, so zero chance of being accepted. A Wikipedia article should summarize only what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about a subject, showing how (in this case) it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable person. Theroadislong (talk) 21:49, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Also, Royguzrod, your username gives the impression that you are Guzmán: if so, you should read why autobiography is very strongly discouraged in Wikipedia. Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost entirely interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources. Most people find it very hard to forget what they know about themselves, and write based only on what people who don't know them have published about them. --ColinFine (talk) 21:55, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

@Royguzrod: In addition to the above, Wikipedia takes copyright vary seriously. Doubly so, given that a substantial portion of the article's content is a direct copy from the biography page of the subject's own web site. I have tagged the article for speedy deletion for the copyright issues, but given the lack of independent sourcing, that's hardly the only problem with the article. --Finngall ^talk 23:33, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

After the expected Speedy deletion, which means all of the draft will disappear, any attempt at a new draft should not have any quotes by Guzman. David notMD (talk) 01:41, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Highlighted topics.

I lost the capability to get an expanded explanation when I hovered my cursor over a highlighted subject. Nothing happens now when I hover.... is there a remedy, I miss that option

}} 104.228.16.56 (talk) 22:37, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

104.228.16.56, in your Preferences, under Gadgets, select Navigation popups--Quisqualis (talk) 23:09, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Unregistered users can't enable gadgets, so I doubt that's the reason. Kleinpecan (talk) 23:26, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Did you perhaps disable them accidentally? At the very bottom of a page, on the line with links to the privacy policy, "About Wikipedia", disclaimers etc., there is an "Edit preview settings" link. Kleinpecan (talk) 23:26, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Renault Sport and Renault Formula One have been merged and re-branded as Alpine. Help me do the same with the respective Wikipedia pages?

Hi. Renault just moved its Renault Sport and Formula One team under its Alpine business unit (the result of its 1971 acquisition of Automobiles Alpine), effectively glomming them together and re-branding both them. That leaves a lot of clean-up and disambiguation to be done on Wikipedia.

Some references:

• Renault Sport has changed its name to Alpine
• Renault will rename its Formula 1 team after its Alpine brand for the 2021 season
• Starting from the 2021 season, Groupe Renault’s team becomes Alpine F1 Team
• Renault Sport becomes Alpine Cars as a major step in Renault Group’s reorganization
• From 2021 onwards, the Renault F1 Team will go through as the AlpineF1 Team

There's already an up-to-date Wikipedia article on the Alpine F1 Team, which might usefully reference the newly-created sibling "Alpine Cars" group, or the parent "Alpine business unit" of Renault.

There's an article on Renault in Formula One to which I've just added some references and clarified the transition a little, but it doesn't mention the organizational structure under which the team exists, nor the relationship with the Alpine business unit.

There's an article on Renault Sport which should be moved to Alpine Cars with a referral.

There's an article on Automobiles Alpine which mentions the merger.

There's also a press release from Renault which goes into some detail about all of this, and uses the names "Alpine cars, Renault Sport Cars (RSC) and Renault Sport Racing (RSR)" to describe the entities. On the one hand, those could be considered canonical; on the other hand, they might change again tomorrow.

The one time I tried to move a page before, I screwed it up and had to be bailed out. Does someone want to either talk me through this so I don't screw it up, or take this on? Thanks.  Bill Woodcock (talk) 22:47, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm (almost) at edit war with Asoftchsolutions

For a few edits now, Asoftchsolutions and 103.163.58.98 have been adding links to asoftechsolutionsllc.com which I was reverting because I do not consider these additions valid. To me, these additions appeared aimed at promoting the company (describing the company as "Best website and app development company" coupled with the similarity of the user name and the domain name). I left two messages for this user (on Talk:Outline of web design and web development and User talk:Asoftchsolutions), but so far did not receive a reply. I read WP:DISPUTE, but frankly, I'm not sure how I can resolve a dispute with someone who does not engage in discussion and just pushes their own edits. Anton.bersh (talk) 23:04, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

@Anton.bersh, thanks for noticing that account. WP:DISPUTE is aimed primarily at conflicts where both parties are editing in good faith but just disagree. When an account is clearly operating in bad faith and WP:NOT HERE to help us build an encyclopedia, such as here with an account inserting spam links, a different set of rules apply. For these accounts, the typical response is to give them a warning on their talk page, as was done by @Quisqualis, and to then report the account to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism if they persist, which Quisqualis also did. The only thing left to do now is wait until an administrator comes along to block them, which should happen shortly. You can revert any further edits they make without worry, as the normal restrictions against edit warring don't apply when combatting spam accounts.

If you're interested in helping more with combatting vandalism, you may want to check out the counter-vandalism unit or try out the WikiLoop DoubleCheck tool. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 01:45, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Asoftchsolutions now blocked. 103.163.58.98 (possibly Asoftchsolutions, not signed in) has been warned. David notMD (talk) 01:47, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your explanations. Outline of web design and web development still gets a bunch of non-constructive edits from fresh accounts, but they are being reverted by other long-time editors. The level of vandalism right now probably does not need any special attention, but thanks for the tips. Anton.bersh (talk) 10:44, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Editing pages

hi. I was looking at this page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Android_games . I cannot find my own game on there, so I wanted to add it. But I can't edit the page. Am I missing a way to edit the table on the page? Androiddev-sff (talk) 23:06, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

@Androiddev-sff: Welcome to the Teahouse. List articles host articles about games that are notable by Wikipedia's standards. If your game is notable enough to warrant its article, then it can go on the page, but that's something that should be determined first. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 23:35, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

I waded in to do a little copyediting, and the quicksand appears to have reached my bellybutton...

So, I picked this article pretty much at random from the list of those that needed copyediting, figuring I'd just do a little cleaning up.

But of course, it's more complicated than that. Nominally, the article is about a building. A residence. Which has changed hands many times; at a dizzying pace, lately, in fact. The British register of historical buildings thinks it's notable, and it's been cataloged in excruciating detail, which is reproduced in the article verbatim, copied-and-pasted from an un-cited source, which I surmise to be an un-published monograph, referencing nonexistent figures, etc. Lots of

South-east façade, symmetrical with central entrance; 5 bay with fenestration 2:1:1:1:2. South-west façade, also symmetrical with 5 bays and fenestration 2:2:1:2:2. Hipped Welsh slate roof with rendered stacks. Devonian limestone ashlar with pilasters carrying entablature and parapet, plain 1st floor band. Architraved sash windows with glazing bars.

ad nauseam. So, I set about boiling all that down a bit, to just the more pertinent bits.

Then I got to the second half of the article, which is a britophile heraldic litany just as bad as the preceding drone of architectural minutia. Also undoubtedly copied-and-pasted from some dusty tome.

So, which is it? Is this article about a building which is notable for its architecture (which is admittedly a hodge-podge of only-moderately-thought-out renovations), or is it notable for its inhabitants (who were, many of them, sufficiently notable to be included in indexes of British landholders, but not, by and large, sufficiently notable to be otherwise much mentioned, beyond the son of the founder of the Singer sewing machine company, who was, himself, merely notable for being an early example of a modern failson. (Oh, wait! Edited to add the salacious detail that his non-bio-mom had his dad arrested for bigamy!) Or should the whole darned thing be marked for deletion, as not meeting GNG? I note that there's not an SNG for architecture.

I'm kinda lost on what direction to take this clean-up, or whether to, well... When I was a kid, I'd sometimes pick up a rock on the beach or wherever, and ask my dad (who enjoyed geology) what it was, and often as not, he'd say "It's leaverite. Leave 'er right there where you found 'er." Is this leaverite? Bill Woodcock (talk) 23:53, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

WP:TNT? CanadianOtaku ^{Talk Page} 00:05, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, maybe? I mean, one could propose a deletion, and see if anyone cares enough to come out of the woodwork. Or I could re-write the darned thing from scratch, though I honestly don't care enough about the topic to do a worthy job (I care a lot about architecture, but this particular pile of, uh, "Devonian limestone ashlar and Welsh slate" seems profoundly uninteresting), and the principal question would remain: if this building is notable, is it notable in and of itself, or notable because of the people who've inhabited it? The conundrum being that, to me, it seems clearly not notable on either account, yet the British register of historic buildings disagrees, and clearly a whole pile of fanboys have disagreed over many centuries. Bill Woodcock (talk) 00:18, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Burn it. Not clear if the purported notability is for the estate, the building, or the people who lived there. He history of the article appears to have been started with the people, then different editor added all the building description. David notMD (talk) 02:08, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

The article is purportedly about a house. I've removed most of its content, as not being about the house. I think there's scope for plenty more removal of content. Maproom (talk) 08:04, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

I've just whacked out a bunch more, and then added internal links to the pages of the historical notable owners. Good enough for now? Bill Woodcock (talk) 08:58, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

MUCH better. And given that the original creator is indef blocked, and the other major contributor stopped contributing in 2017, unlikely that there will be any champions for massive reverts. Now, find articles that need improvement and get more than five views per day. David notMD (talk) 10:04, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

How did I get here?

Listen, man. I don't know how I got here. All I did was type some mumbo-jumbo on Google and click some blue words. Now I'm here. From what I gather, this is like a hidden page for Wikipedia editors or something? I've been going from page to page for an hour and it's just so cool-- seeing all these things that I feel like I shouldn't be able to see. Anyways, I'm probably just out of my mind right now 2601:482:1:28B0:3960:AB75:228A:186F (talk) 03:06, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, IP user! This is a forum for new Wikipedia users to ask questions about editing here – it's definitely not hidden! Bsoyka (talk · contribs) 03:20, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Every article has behind-the-scene stuff. Just click on Talk or View history. For the latter, clicking on the date for any of the list items shows what the article looked like on that date. David notMD (talk) 10:07, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

SVGs

Anyone know of any users that are good at making vector graphics? Looking for someone to make an SVG of File:OK Kosher logo.jpg. JediMasterMacaroni (Talk) 03:24, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, JediMasterMacaroni! I've marked the image page with {{Should be SVG|logo}}, so hopefully someone might come across it there. Bsoyka (talk · contribs) 03:27, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Welcome, JediMasterMacaroni. I just re-drew it for you (it's at File:OK_Kosher_logo.svg) and replaced the instance on the OK Kosher Certification page. Note that I matched the color of the jpeg, so if that wasn't accurate, it may need some fine-tuning. Which I'm happy to do, if you (or Shlomke) want to do a little detective work; I can take that as a PMS number or an RGB value. Bill Woodcock (talk) 07:39, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

@JediMasterMacaroni: For future reference, WP:GL is where such queries usually go. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 09:52, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Where is the place to trade article nominations?

Hello, I have a GAN and I want to trade it by reviewing another GAN from another user. Where is the proper forum to do that?

@Jeromi Mikhael: I recommend asking at Wikipedia_talk:Good_article_nominations RudolfRed (talk) 04:54, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Need to know the Difference between Secondary and Primary Sources.

Hi Wikipedians!! So, I have got my Draft Virtue Clan reviewed. But I have been said that the article only has primary resources. I have read the links, but I am not clear with what that does mean. Please do help me with this. Thanks in advance!!! Jocelin Andrea (talk) 05:17, 9 June 2021 (UTC) Jocelin Andrea (talk) 05:17, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

@Jocelin Andrea: There's more information at WP:PRIMARY (and by extension, WP:SECONDARY). Reliable sources you use should be independent from the subject, and shouldn't have any conflicts of interest that would undermine their reliability. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:24, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

@Jocelin Andrea:, you reference a GQ article, but the article does not actually mention your subject. The Market Watch citation is just an un-edited reprint of your press release. The podcast is, arguably, a secondary source, as it's an interview with your principal, but it's a single source. Search engines don't really reveal any secondary sources; only your LinkedIn page, your press release, and your own web site; all primary sources. Bill Woodcock (talk) 07:55, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Question about page merge

Hi, I've been going over the Application Security and Web Application Security pages. They were full of outdated information and some information that I assume to be mostly of commercial nature (I teach this topic at an University in Vienna, Austria and hope that i do know enough of this topic, hopefully thats true).

Now when looking at Application Security and Web Application Security, they are highly redundant. Esp. the Web Application Security Page has some semi-relevant content that is already included in the linked OWASP page.

What I'd do is to remove the Web Application Security page, move most of the non-redundant content into a "Web Application Security" section in the "Application Security" page (and redirect to that). I'd throw away the existing "Best practices recommendation" and "Security standards" sections as the benefit is not clear and they are redundant to better content in "Application Security". "Security Technology" and "See Also" would be merged with the corresponding sections in "Application Security", this will remove approx. 50-75% of that content as it is already described in more detail within the other page.

Is this too excessive? I just went through the whole "information security" parts of the wiki, that parts might need some editorial work (which I can do from time to time). I do not have that much experience with wikipedia-editing, so I wanted to get some feedback first (to prevent cleanup work after mine) Andreashappe (talk) 07:22, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

• @Andreashappe: While I am in no way an expert on the topic, your suggestion to merge Web application security into Application security seems very reasonable to me.

The main option would be to just go through with your changes and see if someone objects. This is the recommended course of action whenever you intend a change that is not likely to be controversial, and what I would do. (Do ask another question if you are unsure about the technicalities of how to do redirects etc.)

You could also formally propose a merge. There are templates to fill etc. but just leaving a note on the talk pages of both articles would already be a good step for that. However, there is a substantial risk that nobody will comment on the proposal, considering that it is a fairly technical topic, which is why I would recommend just doing it. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 09:35, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

What is solid policy on Wiki respecting different language and culture?

I was wondering this for a long time, what policy Wiki follows on different language writing styles and cultural values? For example, I have seen there is a warning that appears when you try to edit a British language version, while there are also some warning that appears when editing an old article that is culturally believed, for example, calling something in a specific way, editing that triggers the warning and is reverted back to the previous form. However, I have also seen many articles which require prefix or postfix but they are not allowed. So I would like to ask what is a solid policy that we can tag or cite during these edits? Sir Ubaid Ur Rehman (talk) 07:36, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Sir Ubaid Ur Rehman Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I think the policy you are referring to with regards to honorifics or titles is described here in part, at least. Regarding which version of the English language(i.e. British, American, Australian, Indian) to use in an article, please see this policy; in general, it depends on the topic. 331dot (talk) 07:54, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

There is also the broader MOS:HONORIFIC. Regarding "respecting", WP:CODI can be related. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:26, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

I have some examples that come in the same policy shared above Ram Singh Kuka where it says Guru Gobind Singh Ji where "Guru" and "Ji" are both honorifics, or take an example of Guru Tegh Bahadur There are many references in this article with "Guru" "Shahi" "Ji" and many others all of it are honorifics, there are other millions of example which can be easily found on Wiki, either an orginization have solid single policy for everyone or it allows everyone isn't it true?

Single policies usually cannot be applied rigidly in isolation. We also have a policy of using, as article titles, the name by which subjects are most commonly known by English speakers globally (since this is the English-language Wikipedia), even if they are not the official or even strictly accurate names. If (for example) a person is most commonly known by a name that includes one or more honorifics, that is the form of the name we should use. Determining whether this is so or not is something that has to be discussed and decided on a case-by-case basis. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.121.163.176 (talk) 14:20, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Getting twinkle

Hello, I've read the Wikipedia:Twinkle page, but I'm not understanding how to get it. Can you please show me the steps

}} Shabib (talk)

Hello Shabib20, welcome to the Teahouse, to install twinkle, you need to go to this page and use command/ctrl f to find the checkbox for twinkle, then simply check the box and twinkle should be installed for you. -Justiyaya (talk) 08:09, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Also, after checking the box you have to click "Save" at the bottom of the browser window, otherwise the changes won't take – I tend to forget to do that, and just go back to the previous page, and then I have to do it all over again. --bonadea contributions talk 08:21, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

What exactly constitutes SIGCOV?

Hello hosts! I need clarification on SIGCOV, what exactly amounts to SIGCOV? Because the examples given at WP:GNG leave a gap in the middle for what can be considered SIGCOV and some editors seem to apply it in different ways. So what is the minimum exactly? 1 paragraph? 2? 100 words? 300? Feature length article? Help please. Princess of Ara_(talk) 09:00, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

If in doubt, discuss it on the talk page of the article about which you are concerned. - David Biddulph (talk) 09:05, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Unfortunately, that is highly context-dependent, and the gap in the guideline is likely intentional. The criteria given at WP:GNG, "no original research is needed to extract the content", is probably as detailed as you are going to get.

I would like to offer a precision though: the sources used to show notability are not the only ones you can use to write the article. I would say (others might correct me) that the rule of thumb would be whether you can write a useful (if short) article using only what you have in GNG-level sources, and if so, you are then allowed inputs from other sources (provided they are reliable, etc.).

For example, Magnus Carlsen (the current world chess champion) is notable because he has been covered in numerous articles from the general press, but the vast majority of the article is sourced to specialized chess websites that would probably be WP:ROUTINE coverage of tournaments (hence, not GNG-quality).

Do you have a specific article/draft in mind? Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 09:23, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. Your explanation makes and I've had the same Idea at the back of my mind but some editors look for more of the length of the article. The draft in mind is Draft:Uzor Arukwe. Thank you! Princess of Ara_(talk) 09:30, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Request to review draft article

Greeting Wikipedia family, I have submitted my article through the AFC process. I am here seeking your kind support to check and review my article if there anything I should improve.
Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Khmer_Beverages Lorheng (talk) 10:06, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

I rewrote the lead to delete brand names. In my opinion, the content and refs do not establish that the company meets Wikipedia's concept of corporate notability. See Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). David notMD (talk) 10:28, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

deleting text box

Can someone advise me please how to delete the text box at the top of the article I have edited that has now addressed all the concerns about references and citing sources? The instruction page mentions deleting the relevant codes but I cannot see any when I go into the edit action. Trish TrishLudgate (talk) 10:25, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

The article does not have properly formatted inline citations. Please read Help:Referencing for beginners. - David Biddulph (talk) 10:28, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

If you look back to the version prior to your edits this month you will see that the references were correctly cited, but you have removed those citations. - David Biddulph (talk) 10:34, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Courtesy: Roger Woodward has been more than tripled in length. Paragraph after paragraph contain unreferenced details. TrishLudgate has a deep knowledge of Woodward's career, but has not addressed whether this is because of a personal or professional connection, i.e., WP:COI or WP:PAID. The "Selected" lists of accomplishments appear to list every performance, recording, interview, publication, etc. Throughout, there is a lot of name-dropping. In my opinion the article would be better for having its current length halved. David notMD (talk) 10:37, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Much of the material appears to be sourced to "National Library Australia, Roger Woodward Collection MS 10379". I am guessing that this is the collected papers of Roger Woodward, in the collection of the National Library Australia. As such, that would all be unpublished material, not suitable for use as a reference. David notMD (talk) 14:22, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Separate pages for Japanese Breakfast and Michelle Zauner

In Talk:Japanese Breakfast, multiple users have brought up that Michelle Zauner should have a separate page due to Japanese Breakfast being more of a band now than a solo project, as well as Michelle's previous/current membership in other music projects, and her careers in both music video directing and as an author, all of which are separate from Japanese Breakfast the band.

There is a draft for an individual article at Draft:Michelle Zauner, however it did not pass AfC due to some of the information in it overlapping with the page for Japanese Breakfast. The reason there is overlapping info is because it would be irresponsible to remove this information specific to Zauner from the band page until this article is approved.

How should I go about this? Memories of (talk) 10:31, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Memories of. If there is enough independent published material about Zauner specifically to establish that she meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability, then there can be an article on her, based on those sources - whether or not some of the material is duplicated in the article on the band is irrelevant. If there are not sources that establish that she meets those criteria, then she is not (yet) notable for her solo career, and there cannot be a separate article on her. --ColinFine (talk) 12:34, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Can I name a battle?

Hi, I have been improving the article Bairam Khan, who was a prominent military leader of the Mughal Empire. He participated in several named battles, but the battle that took place when he rebelled against the Mughal Empire has not been named anywhere. Interestingly, I have found three reliable sources mentioning the battle, two of which gave many details as well. We know the name of the village and city near which the battle was fought, so would it be appropriate to name it on the village or the city? The battle was an important event and has been described in considerable detail. Uchiha Madara 17 (talk) 10:47, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

@Uchiha Madara 17: You shouldn't give it a proper name. For proper names, we rely on reliable sources; if no RSes give a proper name then you should refrain from making one up. However, you can refer to it as the battle near XYZ, or something like that. 106.201.110.52 (talk) 12:17, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Copy and paste

Don'r let the title fool you, I know about copyright and all that. I was wondering if for large repitive tasks involving articles could you use a base template and fill it in with the nessaccary information. For example if I took the article Andrew J. Widick and wanted to make the article Francis A. Wilson could you take whats written in Andrew J. Widick and swap the required info. Is this allowed or frowned upon. Gandalf the Groovy (talk) 12:39, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

You could use the layout of one article as a guide for another. You could use a template such as an infobox found in one article in a similar fashion in another article. There's no problem in doing such a thing. However, you might want to read Wikipedia:Other stuff exists and Wikipedia:No amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability because even though you format an article exactly the same way as another article, the subject will still need to be Wikipedia notable for the article to survive a deletion challenge. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:24, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Was this image removal appropriate?

I removed an image at Pinkfong twice at here and here as it appeared to be promotional due to the logo and the wording of the caption (admire?), but it was reverted yesterday by the person who uploaded the image, and reverted again today. The edit summaries were as follows:

• My first removal: "Removed promotional image"
• First revert: "re-add Wikimedia Commons approved image" (that editor didn't refute my claim, and from what I understand, just because an image is Commons-approved doesn't mean it can sit in any article)
• My second removal: "this image adds nothing encyclopaedic to the article, has a watermark, and is not related to the company's actual industry which is kids' media and not cakes" (I meant logo when I said watermark)
• Second revert: *no edit summary*

I don't want to violate any rules, so can someone explain whether the image removal was appropriate? 45.251.33.134 (talk) 12:52, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi IP 45.251.33.134. Image use on Wikipedia is supposed to be in accordance with Wikipedia:Image use policy; in particular, images are to be generally only to be used when they're contextually relevant as explained here. The file you've removed is uploaded to Wikimedia Commons under a free license that meets Wikipedia's licensing reqiuirements; so, there no real reason to remove it for copyright concerns. That leaves contexutal concerns and that is where different editors may reasonably disagree. You feel the image is promotion, but the editor who re-added probably doesn't; so, basically what you've got now is sort of an image-related content dispute that you're going to be expected to resolve per Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Continuing to remove the image is most likely only going to lead to it continuing to be re-added and eventually that will lead to you, the other editor or the two of you together being warned or even blocked for edit warning. At some point, somebody is going to need to stop and start discussing; so, my suggestion to you is to follow the dispute resolution process and start a discussion on the article's talk page explaining why you think the image should be removed. Invite the other editor to participate and explain why it shouldn't. If the two of you can't figure out some compromise together (perhaps there's another image that can be used that addresses both of your concerns), then move to the next step of the process and try and get input from others. Edit warring never ends in a win for those who take that route no matter how right they believe they are, but a discussion based upon relevant policies and guidelines may turn out to be a win for Wikipedia. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:11, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

It appears the image was removed by another editor and has also been nominated for deletion on Commons. So, that means there are copyright concerns and the image shouldn't probably be re-added until they're resolved. As for the watermark, you might want to take a look at c:Commons:Watermarks even though that's not a formal Commons policy or guideline. A watermark isn't ideal in most cases, but it's not necessarily a reason for deleting an image and in some cases the watermark can be removed so that it's no longer an issue. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:20, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Request for edits timelines

How to request other editors to edit a protected article, element, template? is there a list of editors available somewhere or you just have to request on the talk page and editors will automatically be notified? Sir Ubaid Ur Rehman (talk) 14:22, 9 June 2021 (UTC)