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

Lowercase sigmabot III doesn't seem to be working

See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics. thanks!--SilverMatsu (talk) 08:33, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

To be clear, the code inserted at the top of the page looks correct, and elsewhere the bot is working.--SilverMatsu (talk) 13:42, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

@SilverMatsu: The code looks correct to me as well. As per the history, the last time the bot ran was on June 3, 2021. So which part do you meant by not working, it is suppose to archive certain thread? — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 13:51, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

@Paper9oll: Thank you for your reply. For example,Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics#Proposal: Template:infobox theorem. Looking at the date of the latest signature and the code, it seems to be archived but it's not working ...--SilverMatsu (talk) 16:19, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

@SilverMatsu: I have tweaked the heading slightly by removing the wikilink from the heading. We have to see if it works when LSB III run the next time. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 16:31, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

@Paper9oll: Thank you for the fix.--SilverMatsu (talk) 16:39, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

@Paper9oll: Seems to have been successfully archived. Thank you!--SilverMatsu (talk) 10:50, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

@SilverMatsu: Glad to hear that. Even though I can't confirm whether if it is because I removed the wikilink from the section heading or is it because LSB III ran at later hour. If it is doesn't work again, maybe can consider trying the trick again to see if it works. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 11:16, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

How I improve my article.. suggest me

 KausikKhamaru (talk) 20:01, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

KausikKhamaru, For the village article, I have accepted it but must say that it is extremely rough. The English is not great. For the High School, I somewhat doubt that it is notable (i.e. suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia), see WP:NSCHOOL. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:10, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Draft:Mahanad High School (H.S) TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:38, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

@KausikKhamaru: As is, the article does not have a single in-depth reliable source not nonnected to the school itself, so the article is very unlikely to get accepted in its current form. Also, when writing a new article, you should first do the proper research and find sources for it, and only then write an article based on these sources. If you are writing about this high school because you or someone you know attended it or employed by it or volunteered there or are connected to it in any way whatsoever, please disclose your connection. Anton.bersh (talk) 11:08, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

search bar history always has the same 5 entries.

I've noticed that EVERYTIME I use the search bar the same 5 things always show up under it. It is something like; "1444c, map,notice1444,1444" Please help me as I am really frustrated that computers are still soooo primitive!! How can I erase them? 216.16.178.32 (talk) 04:07, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

If this is a general computing query, ask at WP:Reference desk/Computing. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 04:13, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

In my browser (Edge but Chrome should be similar) I can hover over each saved entry in turn and a "trash" icon appears to its right, allowing me to delete the items. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:16, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Updated image on WikiMedia Commons not updating on Wikipedia

Hi I've updated an image in WikiMedia Commons (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Gaelic_Football_Inter-County_Championship_Scoring_1910_to_2015.png ) which I've previously used in Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaelic_football ). However, the old image continues to show in Wikipedia when I click on the thumbnail (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaelic_football#/media/File:Gaelic_Football_Inter-County_Championship_Scoring_1910_to_2015.png ). But when I click on 'More details' (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Gaelic_Football_Inter-County_Championship_Scoring_1910_to_2015.png ) it shows the updated image.

Can you advise? Many thanks Donncha Kavanagh Donncha77 (talk) 08:02, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

@Donncha77: Generally it takes time for the updated image to be shown. Right now it is showing the updated image, so the problem is already solved.Siddartha897 (talk) 08:16, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Donncha77, I see the new image in the article Gaelic football. If you are still seeing the old image, could you refresh the page and Wikipedia:Bypass your cache? Perhaps, your browser cached the old version of the small image but then when you opened the larger preview it fetched the new version? Anton.bersh (talk) 08:19, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you both. That worked - It seems like the old version was cached in my browser. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Donncha77 (talk • contribs)

Why shouldn't we have multi accounts on WP

Hello there! I have seen some people getting blocked due to dual accounts on wikipedia. What is the reason for the block and why we shouldn't have dual accounts here. Siddartha897 (talk) 08:30, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

@Siddartha897: There is no universal ban on multiple accounts, some uses are allowed and some aren't. See WP:SOCK for more info. Victor Schmidt (talk) 08:53, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

@Victor Schmidt: Thanks for the info. I had a doubt on it and just now i noticed User:Heyday to you blocked for the same reason. Now i'm fine.Siddartha897 (talk) 09:11, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

@Siddartha897, if I may chime in, using multiple accounts simultaneously are not permitted, the reason is simple, we have a policy on editors having just one account to edit from but should they choose to operate more than one they are permitted insofar as it falls under WP:LEGITSOCK. We do not allow users to operate multiple accounts at the same time chiefly because of the potential disruptive editing or bad faith gaming it may amount to. Celestina007 (talk) 23:41, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

@Celestina007: Thanks for the talk. I've learnt about WP:SOCK, WP:LEGITSOCK and something new.Siddartha897 (talk) 05:17, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

creating public figure account

How can i create a public figure account on Wikipedia? Hamzeht1979 (talk) 12:31, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Hamzeht1979 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Do you perhaps mean Wikipedia article instead of account? 331dot (talk) 12:39, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

my wife is an actress i would like to make a page for her on Wikipedia how can i do that ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hamzeht1979 (talk • contribs) 12:44, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Try reading about conflict of interest and about notability, then read the advice at WP:Your first article. --David Biddulph (talk) 12:48, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Hamzeht1979 That's inadvisable. Please review conflict of interest. If your wife receives significant coverage in independent reliable sources that have chosen on their own to write about her, showing how she meets Wikipedia's special definition of a notable actress, an independent editor will take note of her career and write about her. For you to succeed in writing about your wife, you would need to set aside everything you know about her and only write based on what others say about her. Most people cannot do that.

Please note that a Wikipedia article (not a mere "page") is not necessarily desirable. There are good reasons to not want one. 331dot (talk) 12:52, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

I totally understand , if i want to post her experiences and shows along with series and movies that's it , not possible ?

Hamzeht1979 That would be more appropriate for a social media site or personal website, not a Wikipedia article. As I said, Wikipedia is interested in what others say about her only. 331dot (talk) 13:03, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

very well noted , thank you for your much appreciated help. regards

Hamzeht1979 The critical difference for what Wikipedia requires, is that listing performances is allowed, often useful, but does not establish notability. Neither do interviews. What is required are published articles about her. If you pursue this, first explain your connection on your User page (I am creating an article about my wife). Keep in mind that what you know to be true cannot be included unless verified by references. Model content after existing articles about her peers. David notMD (talk) 13:18, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Hamzeht1979 Having a Wikipedia article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing. If you manage to get an article about yourself or your wife up on Wikipedia, then you should understand that it might change over time as other editors edit it, find other sources and new reliable sources are published. So, for example, if you create an article describing her in a favorable way based on weak sources (like interviews with her) but then someone publishes an unfavorable article in more reliable sources (pretty much anything else), then the unfavorable coverage "wins" and the whole article becomes critical of your wife. Put simply, if your wife is involved in a controversy described in two sources, one interview with her and a gossipy magazine, then the gossip magazine might be deemed more reliable than the interview because it is not influenced by the subject of the article. Anton.bersh (talk) 16:39, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Illative sense

I came across this short stub Illative Sense in the uncat'd list. I was going to move it to Illative sense (the 'sense' is just a common noun), but there already exists a redir there. It seems the creator (Everarddejong) of the new article has tried to replace the redir with essentially the same stub, but that was reverted by Njd-de (possibly for lack of sources, rather than objecting to the article creation per se) so Everarddejong created it using the title case capitalisation instead. Not sure if I need to open an RfD, or what's the best way to deal with this? Thanks, --DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:45, 13 June 2021 (UTC) DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:45, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

@DoubleGrazing: Welcome to the Teahouse. Looking at the stub, I don't really see any reason for it to exist as is; the article Grammar of Assent briefly mentions what the term means, while the stub does the same and mentions that it is used in Grammar of Assent. If it were me I'd delete the stub and maybe bold illative sense if only to serve as a redirect term. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 13:59, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict):Check with the creator if they intend to add more content – as far as I can tell, this is a concept used by one person in one work, so the most obvious course of action is to redirect Illative Sense to Grammar of Assent which is what Illative sense also redirects to. If the creator thinks that sufficient information exists to create a stand-alone article, I agree that that should be at the small-caps "s" title, but if so, they only need to overwrite the redirect again. --bonadea contributions talk 14:03, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The redir is marked 'with possibilities', which in my non-expert opinion seems fair. Of course, what I don't know is whether and how much Everarddejong is planning to expand on the content currently there, but perhaps they can let us know? --DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:07, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Is this draft notable?

I am creating a draft on the topic "Graphic charter of governmental communication in France" by translating its original article in French. (Click here for my draft, click here for its French article.) Is this topic notable? Excellenc1 (talk) 17:00, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

@Excellenc1. So far, in the English draft, you haven't shown notability, with three sources. Please read WP:NOTABILITY. ― Qwerfjkl | 𝕋𝔸𝕃𝕂  (please use {{reply to|Qwerfjkl}} on reply)Template:Z181 19:43, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Excellenc1, Looks notable to me, though I would say it would make a lot more sense to include the actual photos :) CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:44, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Oh, to add on, you should definitely bring over more references. The original has dozens, you have four, which will not be enough. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:44, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

I am in progress so I'll be tadding images and citations soon. Thank you for reviewing my article. Excellenc1 (talk) 02:54, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

• @Excellenc1 and CaptainEek: Quality trumps quantity, so four references can be enough. However, you need sources that show that the subject is "notable", which require multiple reliable sources independent of the subject (hence, non-governmental) to discuss it at length. (Side note: a subject is notable, a draft is not, but a draft that does not show the subject is notable is likely to be declined.) Of the current sources in the translated draft, the first ref (Le Point 1999) is probably too short for the "in detail" part (it is one or two paragraphs in a larger review of political news), the second (Le Monde 1999) seems good, and I cannot access the third one but based on the title I assume it is an academic talk which would be OK.

Looking at the fr article, I strongly suggest bringing in the Figaro 2020 source, too. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 08:34, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

The article is being worked on, so it seems like it has less citations, but actually I have over 40 sits which can be used to cite. Thank you Tigraan for the website.Excellenc1 (talk) 09:58, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Grant's death date in Mudcat Grant article is being constantly changed by unregistered users, what should I do?

Hello. 3 unregistered users keep changing the death date on Mudcat Grant. The sources agree that Grant's death was announced on Saturday (6/12/2021), but the first one claimed to be his grandson and changes the date to 6/11/2021. I reverted the edit, but, shortly after, other unregistered user changed it back. To avoid an edit war, instead of reverting again, I sent him a message, which he didn't answer. Then, a registered user reverted the edits, but a third unregistered user changed one of the dates back. Using Geolocate, I concluded that the three IP adresses are located almost at the same place, near Los Angeles, California. I believe that these users will keep checking the page and put back the date if they were reverted. What should I do? Should I do nothing, or should I tell administrators to protect the page? ObserveOwl (talk) 19:39, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

@ObserveOwl These users may be socks, in which case you should add the sock template to their talk pages. ― Qwerfjkl | 𝕋𝔸𝕃𝕂  (please use {{reply to|Qwerfjkl}} on reply)Template:Z181 19:48, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Try Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations. ― Qwerfjkl | 𝕋𝔸𝕃𝕂  (please use {{reply to|Qwerfjkl}} on reply)Template:Z181 19:54, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

@ObserveOwl: Request that the page be semi-protected at WP:RFPP. This will stop unregistered account and new editors from editing the page. RudolfRed (talk) 20:30, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

@ObserveOwl @RudolfRed I don't think it's worth protecting the page if just one account/sockpuppeteer is vandalizing the article. ― Qwerfjkl | 𝕋𝔸𝕃𝕂  (please use {{reply to|Qwerfjkl}} on reply)Template:Z181 20:41, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

@ObserveOwl I have created a Sockpuppet investigation at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/2603:8000:CC01:2FB4:81B6:4C53:1C84:F682. ― Qwerfjkl | 𝕋𝔸𝕃𝕂  (please use {{reply to|Qwerfjkl}} on reply)Template:Z181 20:33, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

@Qwerfjkl and RudolfRed: Thank you very much. ObserveOwl (talk) 20:51, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

@ObserveOwl The result is available at Wikipedia:Help desk#Deleted SPI case question through RudolfRed's enquiries. ― Qwerfjkl | 𝕋𝔸𝕃𝕂  (please use {{reply to|Qwerfjkl}} on reply)Template:Z181 20:09, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Replacing a rejected page with a translation

I started the page Draft:Permanent_Forest_Contract as a translation of de:Dauerwaldvertrag , which was rejected. I then realised that, rather than just starting a new page, I should have translated the existing page. I have now done this and added the 'Translated page' template. How do I now submit the page such that I can add the correct comment about the page being a translation in the first edit summary? Loris Bennett (talk) 19:53, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Just noting I already answered this here but feel free to add on. Mcguy15 (talk, contribs) 20:08, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Photo author privacy concern

I uploaded a photo released into the public domain by its author, permission given through email. However, I did not know the author's name would be made public and I have good reason to believe they would not want that information public. How can I have this information taken down? Is there any way to have the photo stay up but the author's name removed? SanLeone (talk) 20:23, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

@SanLeone: We can't just take your word for it that you have an email granting permission. See Wikipedia:Requesting_copyright_permission, the author will need to email Wikipedia the permission directly. If the permission does not require attribution, then I think that the name could be omitted, but I am not sure. RudolfRed (talk) 20:43, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

If this file is the issue, it appears that it will be deleted in the next few days anyway unless further permissions are supplied. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:44, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your responses SanLeone (talk) 01:53, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

• @SanLeone: The "author name" field can be a pseudonym (there are a few diagrams under my pseudonym "Tigraan" on Wikimedia Commons).

However, I do not think the person who gave you the scan is the "author" for our purposes. I assume that person scanned the newspaper clip, they did not take the photograph back in 1936 or maybe 1937. (One, an internet search for the "author name" gives a plausible hit for someone who based on their university attendance dates should be born in the 1980s or 1990s; two, assuming the photographer was at least 15 was the photograph was taken, they would be 100 now, hence unlikely to be alive and answer email.)

As detailed in WP:SCAN, scanning a newspaper clip does not give you authority to release its copyrights. Furthermore, being the subject of a photograph does not make you the copyright holder. Generally the photographer is the copyright holder.

If I believe the table at WP:COPYEXP, in the (very likely) case that it was taken from a US newspaper with a proper notice of copyright, the copyright term is not expired yet (1936 + 95 years after publication = 2031). What you should do if you want to use the photograph on Wikipedia is to track down the photographer or their heirs. That is of course near impossible after so much time, but it is the law. if it seems stupid to you, write to your representative. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 08:21, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Lilian Rea

The Enthusiasts of Port Royal is the title of a book published in 1912. It's a respectable historical work. It's author was Lilian Rea. There is no information about this person available online. No bio, no nothing. Might Wikipedia editors fill this gap? 2603:7000:5040:BF:B496:E6DC:2BE:E1B7 (talk) 21:47, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources state about subjects that meet Wikipedia's special definition of notability. If this book or person meet that definition, they may merit articles. The best person to write it is the person who wants to see it- you- although it is challenging. Please read Your first article. 331dot (talk) 21:58, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Worldcat shows other books published by LR. -- Hoary (talk) 23:46, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Information for references does not have to be online, but it does have to have been published. You may be hard-pressed to find newspaper articles about Rea or about the book. David notMD (talk) 00:04, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Art Catalogue Reference

Hello, I am wondering how I would be able to cite something like art catalogs because compared to something like a book, it does not have an ISBN. Would there be a resource I could use to maybe do some scan on physical copies and upload it somewhere for wikipedia to use as a reliable source? Thanks for any help! OneEyedWolf (talk) 23:40, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Mere lack of an ISBN is unimportant. But what do you mean by "art catalogs"? (Are these published, and held by libraries? What do you see when you look them up in Worldcat?) And what's their copyright status? (Are you proposing to ignore copyright niceties when uploading scans "somewhere"?) -- Hoary (talk) 23:49, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello, OneEyedWolf. I assuming that you are referring to the catalog of an exhibition at an art museum. The best of them in recent years do have an ISBN number. The reliability of any such catalog depends on context. Is the museum that published the catalogue the Louvre or the Roadside Museum of Bigfoot and UFOs? Is the curator a graduate of Harvard or a drop-out from the local community college? Did independent publications report on and review the exhibition, or did they ignore it? And then there are the edge cases, which are the most interesting. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:28, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes, art catalogs refer to exhibits from art museums. They range from several universities and to much more known ones like the MoMa which could add to notability. Independent publications have reported and reviewed the exhibits along with interviews with the curator. Perhaps I need to dig a little deeper in finding the sources because I could be dealing with time as a factor and I'm not too sure how far independent sources archive their information. OneEyedWolf (talk) 18:04, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Inquiry regarding extended confirmed status

Hello, everyone.

I noticed several hours ago that I have now conducted more than 500 edits ever since I joined this platform one and a half months ago.

I am not quite sure if this is the right page to ask this, but what is the reason for my account not yet having extended confirmed status?

Sincerely, BaxçeyêReş (talk) 01:13, 14 June 2021 (UTC) BaxçeyêReş (talk) 01:13, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

@BaxçeyêReş: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. You have 502 edits on all Wikimedia projects, but only 495 edits on the English Wikipedia. Kleinpecan (talk) 01:20, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

That explains it. Thank you for informing me of that. Have a great day. BaxçeyêReş (talk) 02:10, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! You too. Kleinpecan (talk) 02:11, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

What is the best way to find sources?

I was wondering of a good way to find sources for Wikipedia articles (specifically, about naval equipment), as I’m looking to improve some pages. Thank you! TheAnonymous1065 (talk) 01:40, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

@TheAnonymous1065: Maybe ask at one of the military projects, like Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 02:08, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

I am going to go on a minor rant here. When people talk about "improving Wikipedia articles", I suspect they're talking about adding content. But more content doesn't necessarily equate to a better article. We still have the concept that WP is an encyclopedia and not a collection of all the details that we're able to amass.

I think a far better improvement is to work on reviewing citations to make sure links are provided and are working. Although links are not mandated, they're highly desirable. Preferably, links should work with minimal interference (e.g. without a paywall). (While there are bots that fix many links that become broken, those bots don't necessarily do a great job.) If you get bored with that, you can look for claims that are in need of a citation.

Now why I feel this is so important, if links don't work, somebody may eventually flag the citation as a {{dead link}}, and some time later, they then replace the existing citation with a {{citation needed}} and when nobody provides a citation, then after some period of time, they delete the original claim. I'm not saying this is the way things are supposed to work, but WP takes all kinds and there are editors who will do this, and there are not enough police around to stop people from doing this. I have seen it happen.

That is my rant and recommendation. But if you want good sources, I would suggest you just look at citations from existing articles, perhaps from articles on related types of naval equipment. If the source is a book that most likely wouldn't be at your local library anyway, you should check the Internet Archive Digital Library (not the Wayback archive) and you may have a decent chance of finding it there (which of course is highly preferable since you can include the link). Good luck with your efforts at improving WP, whatever course you choose to take. Fabrickator (talk) 04:37, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello, TheAnonymous1065. There is a slang term called "Googlefoo" that refers to skills in refining your online search terms so that you can extract the reliable information that you want. Start general and then narrow it down is the best brief advice that I can offer. There are specialized publications like Jane's Fighting Ships published annually since 1898 that provide basic data about military ships. There are many other such sources and most open societies have several publications covering local naval vessels, because not all information is classified. As for Fabrickator's self described rant, new editors can come to this project for any legitimate reason. I started editing in 2009 to add new content and even though I now work on many aspects of the encyclopedia, writing new content is the main reason that I am still here. I finished a new article Darnella Frazier just today, and am pleased to have written it. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:47, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

TheAnonymous1065 archive.org can be helpful. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:39, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

A small but puzzling problem

If you look at the bottom of my page, you will see a section headed "Travel" that uses flags to show my travel experience. Entries of more than 5 flags split into lines of 5 flags, but they are not split when I preview the edit and I see no reason why they should split in that way. Can anyone explain this and show how I can avoid it? It is not a big deal, but it puzzles me. This is an example but it shows up fine here but not on my talk page:-

Days or hours:

>

Bduke (talk) 03:21, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

It also gives my sig here before the flags, but that is not what I wrote. Crazy. --Bduke (talk) 03:24, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

@Bduke: You're missing the ending symbol for a table |} at the end of your "Other Wikimedia activities" header. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (talk) 04:01, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

As for the "sig before the flags" thing, that's due to a typo in your table syntax. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (talk) 04:03, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. It is too easy to make these kind of mistakes and not spot them, particularly at my old age! --Bduke (talk) 05:19, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Difference between Image and Thumbnail in here | Help in Adding other Information in the Infobox

Hi Wikipedians! So I am back into editing a new article Haniya Nafisa. So I was lucky that I found her image being in Wikimedia Commons already. But as of now, I would like to know the difference between Image and Thumbnail, as when I added the Image, It did not fit the Infobox. Also, I would like to add other columns in her Infobox. However, I added the Image column, but please do let me know how to add other infos. Thanks in Advance!!! Jocelin Andrea (talk) 04:05, 14 June 2021 (UTC) Jocelin Andrea (talk) 04:05, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

@Jocelin Andrea: Infoboxes are special in that you only put the image name in the | image = parameters. In your case, that's just Nafisa Haniya.jpg. For your second question, the full list of possible parameters is listed at the template's documentation at Template:Infobox musical artist (Template:Infobox singer is a redirect to that one). It's not possible to add more parameters than the ones listed there. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (talk) 04:10, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Oh and by the way: the infobox goes before the first paragraph. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (talk) 04:11, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hello, Jocelin Andrea. Infobox templates have a field for an image and all you need to do is add the file name without any additional markup. Thumbnail is a standard way to display a standard sized image in the body of an article. If a higher resolution version is available, the reader can click on the image, access the better version, and learn about the history, licensing and provenance of the image. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:15, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your help @ ◢  Ganbaruby! , have understood that now.

Thank you for the help @Cullen³²⁸, have got that now.

Add Protection to an article

Hi! How can i request protection to a page. Can only a administator do it.Siddartha897 (talk) 05:26, 14 June 2021 (UTC) Siddartha897 (talk) 05:26, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Only an administrator can do it, but you can ask them to here. Leijurv (talk) 07:17, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Before requesting, you should read Wikipedia:Protection policy and be able to explain what type of protection is needed (semi/full/pending changes; temporary/indefinite) and why protection is needed according to the protection policy. For instance, vandalism by a single user can be better solved by blocking that user. A mixture of vandalism and good edits by anonymous contributors is not a case for protection—instead, volunteers need to monitor the changes and revert the bad ones while keeping any good ones. Vandalism should also be recent and significant in frequency for protection to be justified. Every page protected goes against our mission of being the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit a little bit, so it needs a good reason. — Bilorv (talk) 12:22, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

@Siddartha897 You could also try Twinkle. ― Qwerfjkl | 𝕋𝔸𝕃𝕂  (please use {{reply to|Qwerfjkl}} on reply)Template:Z181 19:41, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Do you see in Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Images/Archive_6 whether Collage of photos are included in ban of WP:NOETHNICGALLERIES

Does this collage of pictures = File:Amharapeople.jpg fall under the WP:NOETHNICGALLERIES? It explicity says photomontage or galleries. Wikipedia:Image_use_policy#Image_galleries & Wikipedia:Image_use_policy#Collages and montages differ, except that they should be properly licensed. The collage consist of six photos which are all in the public domain. Which policy does this picture fall under? Can you use this picture?

My second question is the same as in the title, and kind of the same as the first question. Can you see in this Rfc discussion Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Images/Archive_6 whether Collage of photos are included in ban of WP:NOETHNICGALLERIES

If this is not the place to ask this question please refer me, thank you Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 05:38, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

There is discussion of this here and currently here. Some pages use group photos, like Balinese people and Thai people and Sámi people. I don't feel confident in saying that the line is drawn between group photos and collages, but I think you would be fine if you treated that as the line. The guideline consensus truly just applies to photo montages and galleries. Applying that RfC's spirit further to collages or group photos should be based on common sense judgement, not a strict or literal interpretation of the words.

While I personally believe that your example File:Amharapeople.jpg is no different from the lead image of Sámi people in terms of "how much of an ethnic gallery" it is, others may disagree. Sorry I can't say anything more concrete, but the community doesn't have a strong consensus on this specific edge case currently. Leijurv (talk) 07:16, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

My reading is that yes, as written/made, that collage is what MOS:NOETHNICGALLERIES meant to prevent per "Collage of prominent Amhara people." This could perhaps be fixed by making a collage for Amhara kings/rulers or something like that (wouldn't necessarily be a good leadimage). I also don't think the MOS/policy differ, the policy is talking about any collage, the MOS about a special subset. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:29, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Leijurv & Gråbergs Gråa Sång Thank you very much for your input! Since there's no strong consensus(and a little grey and a little vague what's allowed), do you think it's worth opening a Rfc/content dispute in order to get clearity(conversation moving) whether it really applies for collages(and/or group photos)? Not just for the Amhara people page, but also other pages. I think it would be helpful and less confusing in what is and what's absolutely not allowed, if it was worded as such in clear terms in the WP:NOETHNICGALLERIES and relevant WP pages. Or do you think i should just let this go?

Another question, is this Rfc Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Images/Archive_6 outdated? Since the discussions continued here & here? How did you find/search those discussions btw? @Leijurv thanks again! Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 14:18, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Honestly, just try it. It's definitely an ambiguous case. If someone reverts it, then follow WP:BRD. If you like, you can point them back here and I'll take the blame :) I base this ambiguity on the statement that the RfC should be interpreted narrowly (The discussion I closed was specific to galleries of images of people, and did not relate to non-gallery images. If the community has ever reached a consensus about non-gallery images of people, then I'm not aware of it.) from here.

do you think it's worth opening a Rfc You can feel free to weigh in on the discussions that are currently open here on that topic. It's listed on the main list of MOS discussions here so probably not worth opening up a separate RfC, that would be a bit confusing. Leijurv (talk) 20:29, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

I rather not pass blame to anyone :). I will just indicate that there's no broadly defined consensus yet, and that there's a ongoing discussion in here. I just finished reading the entire Rfc's! I noticed two peculiarities (one of them for example is the definiton of photomontage is expanded, at least here in wikipedia to a point it's hard to distinguish from a regular collage). But i will be doing that later today. I just hope that this discussion is not going to be archived or removed anytime soon. I want to reflect on what is said here. Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 03:15, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Untitled question

FYI

 – deleted empty ref-tags -Maresa63 ^Talk 13:15, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

 Rajeev Hazari (talk)sdghshcghgsdf~

Hello, @Rajeev Hazari:! Welcome to Wikipedia! Perhaps reading WP:TUTORIAL would be the best start. Lightbluerain❄ (Talk | contribs) 07:41, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

@Rajeev Hazari: Don't do things like this when u have no idea. If u need help go throughWP:I.Siddartha897 (talk) 09:18, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Untitled question 2

Where was I born Shaun doop (talk) 07:50, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

@Shaun doop: If u really wanna be a volunteer, WP:I may help you.Siddartha897 (talk) 09:01, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello @Shaun doop, we are here to help, but to decide to become a productive editor, that you have to do yourself. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 09:07, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

New article + old one replaced by redirect

A new article Triforce (Arcade Board) has been created by Wii505. There existed an earlier article Triforce (arcade system board) on (what I presume to be) the same product. This has been replaced with a redir, most recently by Rosguill, for failing GNG. Should the two articles be somehow merged, despite the fact that the old one no longer exists in the mainspace? Or should I replace the new article also with a redir to the same target? The articles are roughly the same size and extent, but the new one is slightly better referenced, although whether the sourcing is enough to establish notability (going back to Rosguill's point), I'm not too sure. Thanks, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:12, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

@DoubleGrazing it would be up to you to figure out whether the topic merits an article (possibly in consultation with Rosguill and Wii505, which would best happen at one of your user talk pages or one of the article talk pages). If you decide it does, you could redirect Triforce (arcade system board) to the new article or restore the old article and do it the other way. If you decide it doesn't, trying to redirect is recommended if you find the target, as an alternative to proposing that it be deleted. So, in this case, you would redirect the new article also to wherever the old one is pointing to. Of course, redirecting an article is just a WP:BOLD action; no one has the authority to say this article should only be a redirect. So, if someone stores the article, you'd have to go to AFD anyway. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 09:38, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

archeive web source

can anyone tell me how to archeived a live or dead links, also, why would we archeived any links?? ItsSkV08 (talk) 08:50, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi ItsSkV08, welcome to the teahouse. We archive links to prevent them from being dead links or, when they are already dead, we can fix them by using an older archive of the site. Links become dead when the webpage that the information is on stops functioning. We archive sites by using wayback machine or other websites like it. Justiyaya (talk) 11:16, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

@ItsSkV08: See also Help:Archiving a source and WP:DEADLINK. Victor Schmidt (talk) 12:12, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Why no reply

Why the suggestions that I gave here and here are being ignored. If my suggestion is not helpful or not technically possible then please tell me. Are the suggestions so bad that they are being treated like WP:DENY. This is very frustrating. I should have received a small reply, but I received none...Why...WHy...WHY ? -- Parnaval (talk) 08:57, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Parnaval That you have not gotten replies does not necessarily mean that you are being ignored- simply that no one has replied yet. It's only been a couple days. 331dot (talk) 09:20, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello @Parnaval, it's one of those disadvantages of being a completely volunteer community. If nobody wants to comment, nobody will. Incidentally, one of my first questions to the Teahouse was also asking why no one else had participated in a discussion I had started and what to do about it. One thing that you can do about it, is notify relevant places that you think will be watched by editors who may be interested in the topic. For example, for the first one, WT:PP would be one of those places. But to be realistic, I don't see anyone being interested on that one, unless you have actual data that most recent deaths articles end up being semiprotected, or at least have a ton of disruptive edits. Even then, the template talk page seems like the wrong place to discuss this. WT:PP or WP:VPP may be better. And, you would only be trying to get a general sense of how the community feels. To make it actually actionable, you would need an WP:RFC advertised at WP:CENT. I reckon that's why everyone's ignored that one; or no one who'd want to discuss it has been online or seen it. It doesn't seem likely to succeed, and even if a few users agreed, it couldn't be implemented without a formal RFC anyway. As to the second one, it's not immediately obvious to me, why that would be a bad idea. Only problem with it is we can not implement it by ourselves. It would need to be implemented by the WMF developers. But it's at the right place. If sufficient people like the idea and want to see it happen, they will comment and let you know. I would wait for responses on that one. Two days is not really all that much on Wikipedia. There are very few editors who are interested in those kinds of discussions, and they may not all have been online or have had the time to get involved in that discussion. Hope this answers your question. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 09:30, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

@Parnaval: this is not a place to express your emotions. I know you're frustrated but it is better to ask it there it self. And you didn't even ping anyone so that it notifies them and they may reply you. Many Wikipedians over there didn't got a reply. So be calm, you will definetly get a reply when its worthy. Happy editing!Siddartha897 (talk) 09:33, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

@331dot and Usedtobecool: At template talk, I asked more than month ago. I asked there as it is related only to that template. At Idea lab, I asked 2 days ago. That page receives on an average 7 edits daily but after me only bot came to archive old discussions :( .@Siddartha897: I expressed my feelings here as I get friendly replies here. -- Parnaval (talk) 10:47, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

User page got deleted

User page got deleted for multiple reasons under speedy deletion criteria U5,G11. Can I recreate page with same content but by avoiding reasons for which it got deleted? Smiles.ai (talk) 09:16, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Smiles.ai Your user page (which isn't article space) was a clear advertisement for your business. Furthermore, your username violates the username policy and will need to be changed immediately, please visit Special:GlobalRenameRequest or WP:CHUS to do so. Please also read about conflict of interest and paid editing. 331dot (talk) 09:19, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Asking about reliability of a source

Is Google Scholar a reliable source? I've seen it in many pages. Is that reliable? Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 11:57, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Ken Tony, Google Scholar is a search engine, not a source. You can find relible sources there. That you find something there, does not make it a reliable source. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:05, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Mate, I didn't clearly understand what you were saying. What I found is sources that looks just like this:-

(Not the same user but) references to search engine results should be citing the specific scholarly sources instead. So this is a bad reference and should be replaced. There are many problems with this, including that Google isn't a reliable source and it can display different results to different people over different times, so it is not verifiable for whatever information it is attached to. — Bilorv (talk) 12:16, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

A cite like that is quite unhelpful. If you can find out what source was actually meant, you can improve it (perhaps it's possible to ask the editor who added it). If not you can remove text or add , it's a judgement call. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:38, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

References

If the question is whether GS can be used as a source for citation data, it can; there are other reliable sources for this also--the most widely available are Scopus and WoS, but they are behind paywalls. However, the method of preparation means that GS will usually give about double the number of citation as Scopus, because Scopus only includes references from the journals Scopus indexes, and GS casts a much wider net. (Citation figures inherently increase with time, so I always add the date accessed field.)

I can not think of any other reason one might want to use it directly as a reference. It's an index, and always gives the reference to what it's indexing. It generally even formats it, use the double-quote symbol after the reference. The "Vancouver" format usually comes closest to what a WP citation wants. If there's a free online version, there's usually a link to it on the right. (and, btw, in searching it, try all possible forms of the name). DGG ( talk ) 18:22, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Delete subpage

Hello. I recently added a subpage to my userpage, but I now realize that it would be much simpler to just add it to my userpage, you know. But now I have that blank subpage and I don't feel like submitting it to AFD (I don't know if I can submit it to AFD), so...I don't know how to delete it. Seahawks4Life^{TALK—CONTRIBS} 13:00, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

hello Juanicolacho04 (talk) 13:05, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Uh...what? Seahawks4Life^{TALK—CONTRIBS} 13:10, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi Seahawks4Life, the above post was probably just a test edit from a new user. If you want to delete a subpage in your userspace, you can tag it for speedy deletion by adding {{db-u1}} to the page and an administrator will delete it shortly. See WP:U1 for more information. Hope that helps! DanCherek (talk) 13:13, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. I looked into it, and apparently the post above made by Juanicolacho04 was probably made because they didn't understand how the Teahouse worked. All users have had problems getting used to Wikipedia, you know. Seahawks4Life^{TALK—CONTRIBS} 13:17, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Inaccurate data problems in list of most popular websites

Article about list of most popular websites has several complaints regarding it's data that are also back up by an editor here. It seems there's a debate regarding the data accuracy as well as about the fact that there's only one data source there. How do we go about adding more data sources for those lists? I see mentions of other sources, as well as some I mentioned myself, and it does make sense to add the reliable ones at least to get some balance/proportion to the page GrowTHC (talk) 14:13, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

@GrowTHC: Good job engaging in discussion with other editors. It seems like there's a consensus among you three to add more data sources, so by all means, be bold and do it yourself! From personal experience, many of these lists of most popular X don't get updated as often as they should, so the community would appreciate the help. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (talk) 17:19, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Why are some articles so biased and even racist sometimes for example they refer to a group of people in general?

 Anti nationalism gang (talk) 16:06, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

@Anti nationalism gang: welcome to the Teahouse. It is hard to answer that kind of question when you don't give an example – in some cases it is appropriate to talk about a group of people in general terms, in many cases it is not. Maybe the article you saw had been vandalised, or inappropriate generalisations may have been added by somebody who was editing in good faith, but unless you are more specific than "some articles" it's impossible to give you an answer. --bonadea contributions talk 16:29, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Thoughts regarding Hadith references in Islamic articles

Basically, hadith referencing seems to be an issue because various publishers and authenticators will use different numbering and different order of the chapters (For example, one might use Sahih Muslim xyz and another might use abc but abc will typically be a number close to xyz.) which will lead to the current references being invalid if someone uses one source instead of the other. So, while one can find the hadith by making an effort, it is very time consuming. Also, even though there are standards for hadith identification but again, because of the issue mentioned before, finding a hadith can become a hassle especially if the cited webpage where the hadith was supposed to be is now dead. However, this issue may be avoided by changing the style of the references. Basically, even though the overall hadith number may vary, the relative number typically doesn't - as in, the hadith will still have the same serial of the same chapter. Therefore, if we use the name of the chapter and the serial number of the hadith in that chapter - then the hadith will be the easiest to find even if the overall number and the order of the chapters and thus, the chapter number varies. Should/can this be implemented? - Sultan.abdullah.hindi (talk) 16:56, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Sultan.abdullah.hindi, I think you have a better chance for a decent answer at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Islam. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:58, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Appreciate the tip, Gråbergs Gråa Sång. Peace. - Sultan.abdullah.hindi (talk) 06:04, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Doubt: A Parable

•  Courtesy link: Doubt: A Parable

Please can Pamela Jikiemi as Mrs Muller be included in the cast breakdown for the Australian premiere of Doubt?

The Australian premiere was mounted at the Sydney Opera House by the Sydney Theatre Company on February 4, 2006. The cast included Alison Bell, Jennifer Flowers, and Christopher Garbardi, and was directed by Julian Meyrick. 77.96.195.121 (talk) 17:20, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello IP, do you have a reliable source that says Jikemi was in that play? ◢  Ganbaruby!  (talk) 18:13, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Possible page?

Hello, could this be a possible page? https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2021/06/14/21-injured-in-russian-gas-station-explosion-a74211

Or not important enough? SAMsohot (talk) 17:41, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse WP:NOTNEWS has useful information about this sort of topic. Theroadislong (talk) 17:48, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia Contributor

How can I be a Wikipedia contributor? I really want to write for Wikipedia, not only editing. Decarter (talk) 18:15, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

@Decarter: Welcome! We're glad to have new editors join our ranks. If you haven't already, consider completing the Wikipedia Adventure to get a grasp of Wikipedia's policies and expectations regarding editors. Then, if you don't know what to work on, check out the Wikipedia:Task Center, which lays out the different things that editors around here work on. Feel free to drop by here if there's anything you don't understand. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (talk) 18:33, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

News articles quoting older news articles

I've just read a short collection of five "On This Day" facts in a news story from 2004.

Two of those facts contain earlier snippets of news stories from the same newspaper.

One is from 1979, and the other is from 1954, both of which contain the full dates the stories were originally published.

The 1954 snippet is interesting, so if I decide to use the 2004 story as a reference, should I use the 2004 date for the entire article, or the 1954 date for the article snippet? Danstarr69 (talk) 18:43, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Welcome to Teahouse, Danstarr69. In general, citations are there to help the reader verify the information. Therefore you should cite the source which you used as a reference, and if you use two articles you should cite both. Anton.bersh (talk) 18:48, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Just to clarify: it's possible to use too many sources (Citation overkill), but with just two sources you are well below the "overkill" treshold. Also, other editors can easily remove redundant citations but finding extra citations is way harder. Anton.bersh (talk) 18:51, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Anton.bersh I wouldn't be using two articles.

Like I said, it's one modern article, quoting short sections of two articles which they wrote in 1979 and 1954.

I've archived countless news stories from that local newspaper over the years, roughly 30 of which I archived today regarding "Hall of Famers" from or associated with the city, and from what I can tell the earliest news stories of theirs which are available online, are from January 1998.

Anything earlier than 1998 is only available in their own archives, or in local libraries, apart from the historical stories they've reposted or quoted just like in this one.

If the full 1954 article exists in the local archive library, how I would prove to Wikipedia that it exists I have no idea.

That's why I'm wondering if I should use the 1954 date of the original article they've quoted? Or the newer article from the same date in 2004 exactly 50 years later?

Danstarr69 (talk) 19:09, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Anton.bersh For example:

Wikipedia News - Article published 14th of June 2021

On this day in 1381 Richard II in England meets leaders of the Peasants' Revolt on Blackheath. The Tower of London is stormed by rebels who enter without resistance.

On this day in 1645 Battle of Naseby, Leicestershire: "New Model Army" under Oliver Cromwell & Thomas Fairfax beat royalists forces of English King Charles I.

On this day in 1982 Argentina surrenders to Great Britain, ending the 74-day Falklands Islands conflict. Here's a story we wrote about it on the 14th of June 1982: "Blah blah blah blah blah" etc

19:28, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

@Danstarr69: If everything you're trying to put into Wikipedia is in the 2004 source, use that one, but if there's any details not in the modern source, use the older source. This is only because it would make it easier for other editors to verify your information. That being said, there is no requirement that sources on Wikipedia must be online, and many articles cite physical books that you would have to find a physical copy to verify. The concept of assume good faith applies here: we believe that you are not just making this stuff up, and that you faithfully summarized the reference on Wikipedia. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (talk) 19:33, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Sources in print

Hi, if a subject has multiple articles in print media, what's the best way to create a source for it? I have the scans for each article, so I can upload them to an internet archive and link them to a manually created citation if that works. Hillster (talk) 19:37, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

@Hillster: See Wikipedia:Offline sources. In short, you don't have to scan it, but provide as much bibliographic data so that other editors can find the same source and verify your information. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (talk) 19:45, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

By "has" do you mean written by the subject or about the subject? Wikipedia requires refs about people to establish notability. David notMD (talk) 20:30, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Expanding on David notMD's answer, multiple articles covering the subject are wanted as secondary sources are the backbone of Wikipedia articles. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 20:41, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

@Ganbaruby: Thank you, this was helpful.

@David notMD: The articles are about the subject. There are quite a few online references, as well. But, he has been covered extensively by print magazines. Thank you!

@Tenryuu: I understand - which is why I want to include both online and print articles about the subject. I know how to reference online sources, but was slightly confused about the best way to cite articles in print magazines/newspapers. Thank you! Hillster (talk) 22:06, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

@Hillster:, there is a Template:Cite news that is commonly used for newspapers / magazines that don't have an associated URL. There is no need for a citation to have an archival link, since in principle readers can verify the information in a library. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:53, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Article edit request for a conflict of interest

Hello! I am a volunteer with the Brink Literacy Project and I was asked to create an article for the organization. I put in a general edit request per the COI policies but the editor that answered the request was confused about what the request was for. Is there a way that I can more clearly request the correct edit?

Talentlessbard Talentlessbard (talk) 19:53, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

@Talentlessbard: Thanks for disclosing your COI. The edit request template is meant for changes to existing articles. Since your draft has not be reviewed and moved into the mainspace yet, you don't have to use that template. Instead, just hit the blue "Submit the draft for review!" button inside the grey banner on top, and a reviewer will come by and check if it's up to Wikipedia's standards. Be patient, since there's a lot of drafts to review. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (talk) 20:02, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

New article.

Hi! I am new to editing in Wiki. A friend of mine, paid me to submit an article of him in Wiki. This is the only one that I'll ever write, but my attempts to get it done doesn't seem to be working... He is the founder of Prague Polo, Naveed Gill. The info of him uploaded to the draft are legit. He paid me only 20Usd to do it. Is there a quick way to upload it? Thank you for reading. Iván. Ivanzarateleonel (talk) 20:17, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

@Ivanzarateleonel: Thank your for disclosing that you have been paid, however, please read over WP:PAID as there si a disclosure to make, which is not negotiable. There is no fast way to "upload" articles here, as Wikipedia does not operate on deadlines, and, since most of the users here are volunteers, does not care much about any deadlines you might have. See also Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide as well as possibly WP:REALWORLD. Victor Schmidt (talk) 20:26, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

The experienced reviewer Rejected Draft:Naveed Gill (more severe than Declined) because that person felt there was no potential of improving the draft for it to become an article. Basically, you failed to provide evidence to confirm notability. Either learn a LOT more about what an article should look like, and how to reference it, or give up. At best, it might just be WP:TOOSOON for Gill to be a valid article topic. I took out all the business career stuff not relevant to polo. David notMD (talk) 20:39, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

• @Ivanzarateleonel: I'd also suggest that you return your friend's money. 331dot (talk) 20:49, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Guys i need your help.

how can I improve this draft? Draft:Vikash_Kalra I find this guy a significant figure in our art world. --Abhinath Maurya (talk) 20:55, 14 June 2021 (UTC) Abhinath Maurya (talk) 20:55, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

@Abhinath Maurya: Hello, welcome to the Teahouse. When your draft was declined, the user that declined it left a few comments on your page explaining why they did so. I recommend reading those comments and applying the constructive feedback they gave you. Helen (let’s talk) 21:28, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

How do I Say?

Please Call me. KamranBhatti4013 (talk) 21:22, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

@KamranBhatti4013: If you have a question about how to use or edit Wikipedia, please post it here. No one will call you. RudolfRed (talk) 21:44, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

@KamranBhatti4013: Give me your number. Oh wait! Just kidding, whatever the problem is just tell here. Or else you can place {{Help me}} in your talk page(talk) so that someone can help you there. Be Bold!Siddartha897 (talk) 09:03, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

User talk:64.110.237.162

Hi, this message is for Hydrogen. I recently made changes to the Wikipedia entry for Brian Stock (historian) and then received a message (the number/ref code is in the subject line). I'd like to clarify that I made these changes at the request of Prof Stock. He sent me a copy of his CV and asked for these changes to be entered on his Wikipedia page. Because his CV is not online or in a published source, it cannot be referenced. I can send you his CV or a copy of the email that he sent to me if you need verification. Could you suggest a way that I could post the summary about him so that it stays? In his view the current summary is disorganized and needs to be changed. Thanks for your help, SP 64.110.237.162 (talk) 22:05, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, IP editor. If you have a message for Hydrogenation, please leave it at User talk:Hydrogenation, where they'll be notified. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 22:08, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Unpublished content, including a CV, cannot be a reference. Verification has to be published content. David notMD (talk) 22:39, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Children and grandchildren should not be named unless they are subjects of existing articles themselves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by David notMD (talk • contribs) 00:41, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello, IP user. I'm afraid you and Professor Stock have several misunderstandings about Wikipedia. First, that code is nothing to do with the message: it is simply the IP address from which you were editing: since you have not logged into an account (which is perfectly fine, by the way) the only way that Wikipedia has to identify you is by the IP address of the device you were editing from. Note that if you edit from a different device, or possibly even from the same one, you won't necessarily get the same IP address: they are allocated by your ISP, not by Wikipedia.

Now, as to the article Brian Stock (historian). Please understand that this article does not belong to Stock, and he does not decide what is or should be in it, though he is welcome to suggest edit requests to it (or you can do so on his behalf). But 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. Unless the information to be added has been reliably published somewhere, it will not be added in any case; and with few exceptions, all material in the article should be derived from what has been published entirely independently of him. --ColinFine (talk) 11:19, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

hi, I have found an article that seems worthy of editing?

So the following url is to a Wikipedia about America's Olympic history.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_at_the_Olympics

I absolutely treasure the service that Wikipedia provides and I consider it to be a largely well curated and cared for place.

This specific Wikipedia article seems to have a American bias.

I do not consider much to be factually incorrect about this article, but the word choice, framing of aspects of the cold war, and certain Olympic events create a perhaps misleading narrative. I am a patriotic American. I don't believe misrepresenting the story is

I know the Olympic games are gaining attention due to the upcoming games and I wanted to bring this to someone's attention.

Thank you 71.32.63.95 (talk) 22:28, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thanks for wanting to make it better. If you have suggestions for improving an article, please start a discussion on that article's talk page. RudolfRed (talk) 22:40, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Once you've opened a talk page discussion, you can tag the page itself with {{POV}}. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 02:02, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia Manual of Style, Video Games

Hello i have a problem, on the Wikipedia Manual of Style, Video Games.. it states released as PAL https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Video_games#Release_dates But as countries using PAL has already converted or in the process of converting, should something get changed here? thankyou! EzeeWiki (talk) 02:58, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello, EzeeWiki, and welcome to the Teahouse. Like almost everything in Wikipedia, the contents of the MOS are subject to consensus, and may be updated or changed. If you think that your suggestion will be uncontroversial, you can just go ahead and edit the MOS page; if you think there's any chance of people disagreeing, it would be better to discuss it first on its talk page. If you start a discussion there, then it might be an idea to drop a note on WT:WikiProject Video games asking people to join the discussion. --ColinFine (talk) 11:23, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

time at beginning and end

Shouldn't a.m. or p.m. be at the beginning and end of a time period? Thanks! 73.167.238.120 (talk) 03:09, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello IP editor. Can you give an example of what you mean? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 03:17, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Sure, if you look at Virginia Tech shooting, the format in the infobox used to be c. 7:15 a.m. - 9:51 a.m. I received a warning that my edits constitute vandalism, and if you look at the vandalism page I believe the edits do not constitute vandalism and that word should be avoided for someone trying to improve Wikipedia. The edits in question were up for a week or two weeks at least from what I remember. There was a suggestion to go to the Teahouse as I am reluctant to make edits since I am threatened with the loss of editing privileges. 73.167.238.120 (talk) 03:32, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

@Love of Corey: How was this vandalism? I would agree with the IP here. time-end has "p.m.", why shouldn't time-begin too? Leijurv (talk) 04:16, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Per the consensus reached on the shooting article talk page. Love of Corey (talk) 04:17, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Alright then. It really doesn't take much time to type "per talk page", would have saved the confusion. :) Leijurv (talk) 04:28, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Wait, where would I type that? You mean in the edit summary? Love of Corey (talk) 05:17, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

That would be the most sensible place for it, yes. AngryHarpy‍^talk 08:22, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

There is no vandalism though and there is ambiguity over the start of the shooting. 73.167.238.120 (talk) 05:04, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

There is absolutely no ambiguity at all. Read the talk page discussion that I linked. Love of Corey (talk) 05:17, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

That being said, edits like that wouldn't constitute as vandalism, as it was clearly made in good faith to improve the article. Refusal to accept consensus and possibly considered disruptive editing? Sure. Vandalism? Definitely not. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 14:20, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

I believe there is ambiguity over the start time of the shooting as the time is approximate. The point is also on the talk page linked to this discussion. Nevertheless, as mentioned above, making edits to improve Wikipedia or edits that are in good-faith, are not vandalism. 73.167.238.120 (talk) 14:46, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Content without sources

FYI

 – Heading added by Tenryuu.

Why can wikipedia content without sources get deleted even though it is true information? Osvaldo2007 (talk) 03:12, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

@Osvaldo2007: Welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia requires information to be verifiable. In order to do that, editors have to draw from reliable sources. The question to ask is "how can one prove it's true information?" —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 03:16, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Osvaldo2007, Has a reader in Buffalo, Bandjul, or Bangkok tomorrow, next month, or next year, any way of verifying the information? If not, it is unreliable and useless, and does not belong in Wikipedia. --ColinFine (talk) 11:30, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Is Wikipedia article history broken right now?

I'm getting a weird result comparing article history to the article prose; where, weirdly, the article history stops on 6 June 2021 yet the article has a (quite excellent) source citation, properly written, showing a 12 June 2021 source, that was published only two days ago.

What gives?

Here is the article history: link. Last edit shown when I look is 6 June, an edit I happened to have been the editor who made that 6 June edit.

Then, click on the article itself, search on "Burgha" (the author of the source). I see the 12 June 2021 source by Burghardt. It's a very good source, and needed in the article. But how did it get there if the article was last edited (per History page) on 6 June. And who was the editor that added it? (my original objective to learn)

How can this be? I must be doing something wrong but darn if I can figure out what it is? N2e (talk) 03:18, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

@N2e: The citation is in the section "Rockets", which is an excerpt from the article Rockets by Astra, created using Template:Excerpt to automatically transude the relevant sections of that article into this one. If you check the history of that page you'll see that there was an edit there on the 13th that added that reference. 192.76.8.73 (talk) 03:29, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Wow. I didn't even now that could be done. Cool. Thanks very much for explaining it 192.76.8.73.

Now, I'm gonna get to learn what happens when I manually add that (very good) citation to the article, and the bots will now see the citation occur twice. Cheers. N2e (talk) 03:38, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Referencing and notability

Hi all. I'm currently trying to clear out old U-BLP templates and I'm constantly coming across a referencing problem. It's usually an academic who's published a lot of papers and is regarded as eminent in his or her field but has not been covered in reliable, third-party sources that can be found via G-searches.

I've sent some of these articles to AFD and have been told I should check more thoroughly (WP:BEFORE). I do check and translate non-English sources when possible but still these are sometimes not useful and there are only so many hours in each day. I'll sometimes get a comment saying the subject passes WP:PROF or some other obscure guideline but I can't confirm the subject's notability via G-searches. Maybe the sources are off-line but why aren't they in the articles? So should I a) use anything I can find; b) continue to send U-BLPs to AFD and put up with the brickbats; or c) give up and leave the unsourceable articles in the backlog? I don't want to waste people's time. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 03:25, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

(Also on your talk page since I read this at the before you moved the question.) Notable academics are not covered in the press the way politicians, sports people, and movie stars are. So coverage doesn't turn up in Google searches. Wikipedia:Notability (academics) spells out how we find the reliable independent in-depth coverage. To meet any of the 8 criteria means that reliable people or institutions independent of the person have assessed that person's contributions to their field and found it significant. StarryGrandma (talk) 03:39, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Baffle gab1978, please read and study Wikipedia:Notability (academics) until you understand it and accept it fully. That guideline is not at all "obscure" but instead enjoys wide consensus among experienced editors. It is every bit as valid as the General notability guideline, which does not exist as a separate page but rather as a section of Wikipedia:Notability, which makes it clear that the GNG exists alongside the special notability guidelines which have equal validity. So, please accept the consensus. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:15, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

@Cullen:; so academics get a free pass on WP:BLP and WP:VERIFY, and {{Unreferenced BLP}} tags can remain on those articles indefinitely. I'll try to remember that now. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 05:25, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't think I agree with that reading of the WP:NPROF guideline, but that's me. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:15, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Baffle gab1978, what "free pass" are you talking about? They must still verifiably meet the relevant notability guideline. It is just that the community decided, a long time ago, that notability for academics is determined in different ways than for other BLPs. WP:NACADEMIC is not an easy guideline to meet. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:12, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Article Resubmitions

 Davesidhusydney (talk) 04:34, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Davesidhusydney, please feel free to ask a question. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:38, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi Davesidhusydney, welcome to the teahouse. I'm guessing based on your edit history that you are asking about your draft article Draft:Dave Sidhu, I would advise that you discontinue the draft until you can find enough sources to prove that the draft meets WP:GNG, WP:GNG basically says that for a subject to be notable enough to justify a independent Wikipedia article, they have to have 2 reliable sources providing significant coverage to the subject. -- Justiyaya (talk) 05:13, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

User page question

Hello! When I created my user page a few months ago, I stumbled on these small boxes one can add to their page that say things such as "This user can contribute at an intermediate level of French" or "This user remembers using a rotary telephone." I don't remember what these are called or how to find them again. Can you help? Aredbee (talk) 05:53, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

@Aredbee Please see Wikipedia:Userboxes. ― Qwerfjkl | 𝕋𝔸𝕃𝕂  (please use {{reply to|Qwerfjkl}} on reply)Template:Z181 06:08, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

@Qwerfjkl Thank YOU! Aredbee (talk) 06:15, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Hung while editing

I'm in the middle of a massive edit reformatting a ton of references in one go, and my editing window is hung. (The citation pop-up is acting like it's working but it won't close and I can't save because it won't close.) I know sometimes my browser restores edits for me when it crashes. Is there any way I can ensure that my edit is saved, or find where it might be temporarily stored? I hate to close out of the tab and potentially lose a ton of work. Thanks!! Calliopejen1 (talk) 07:11, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Calliopejen1, copy-paste, also, if it is similar to the article popups, you can just hover over it, click reset, and click reset popups! Good luck! Heart ^(talk) 07:14, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

HeartGlow30797, I'm in the visual editor and the citation popup wouldn't let me copy-paste. I couldn't close the popup. I typed in a URL that I predicted would be the equivalent of switching to source editor but that ended up losing all my work. Boo. :( Calliopejen1 (talk) 07:19, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

How do I get Pending changes reviewer rights

— Preceding unsigned comment added by N Jeevan (talk • contribs) 08:20, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. See Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes § Becoming a reviewer. Kleinpecan (talk) 08:30, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

I have read the guidelines to become a Pending changes reviewer but I'm confused how to add the request to become a Pending changes reviewer.N Jeevan(talk)

It seems you figured it out. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:04, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

A question on lists.

1. Do list articles have to be lists of Wikipedia articles, or can they be lists of offsite links to the products themselves? WhenYouWiki (A person) (Talk) 08:50, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

The first one, in general. Per WP:EL we avoid putting EL:s outside an External links section. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:06, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

hi and welcome to the Teahouse WhenYouWiki! adding onto the above, list articles preferably would be lists of wikipedia articles, or fail the notability criteria but otherwise are reliably sourced (which is likely better placed in a parent article instead of a standalone article). see WP:Stand-alone lists for more information. happy editing! ◎ | melecie | t 09:07, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

About Notable Coverage

My recent AfS has been rejected for not showing significant coverage, while the references added are of Government websites talking solely about the subject; in details. While other publications are there supporting other content of the page, top coverage added are independent in nature. Need guidance on the same. Udaysm (talk) 10:53, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Courtesy: Draft:Shyam Steel. Declined twice. David notMD (talk) 11:12, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Why my new article not 'seen' by Google?

I had created Birendra Prasad Singh article here on wikipedia but it is not available on google search. What is the problem? it has been reviewed but no related article appear on bottom of article as well! what is the problem? Curious boy np (talk) 10:58, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

(added a section title). David notMD (talk) 11:09, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Courtesy: Birendra Prasad Singh. Created 14 June, bypassing the AfC process. David notMD (talk) 11:24, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

@Curious boy np: The article Birendra Prasad Singh you have created won't appear in the google search right now as it is a new one. Google index gives priority to those websites which are mostly visited. Generally it takes time for your new article to get views, you can check that at (https://xtools.wmflabs.org/articleinfo/en.wikipedia.org/Birendra_Prasad_Singh). So in future you might see it. I had the same experience with Malavika Sharma earlier. Be Calm, Happy editing.Siddartha897 (talk) 11:33, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

New articles on Wikipedia are no indexed (i.e. won't appear on search engines) until either they are 90 days old, or have been reviewed by a new page patroller. This was done specifically to stop search engine optimisation. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:38, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

@Joseph2302: What you say is true, but the article concerned has been reviewed & is not NOINDEXed. It is waiting for Google to take action. - David Biddulph (talk) 12:26, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Anons blindly changing mentions of Macedonia(n) to North Macedonia(n)

I was reading Ezgjan Alioski and saw in his Personal life section that he spoke 'North Macedonian'. After checking Macedonian language, I saw that the language however wasn't renamed. Just the country name. So I changed it to just Macedonian and an IP changed it again. And since it's an IP I could check where it's from and I wasn't surprised. Anyhow, I don't feel like starting a revert war, so I wanted to notify anyone who could deal with it. Teysz Kamieński _(talk) 12:21, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Looks like another anon reverted it again. So the page is fine now. Teysz Kamieński _(talk) 12:26, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

@Teysz Kamieński: Disputes such as these are unfortunately common. I'm not an expert, and you may already know of these options, but other avenues for coming to an agreement are the talk pages, such as of Ezgjan and the Macedonian language, and maybe relevant wikiprojects such as Wikipedia:WikiProject North Macedonia. (You might also try leaving messages on the user talk pages of people who might know more, such as the listed members of Wikiproject North Macedonia, though it might be difficult to get a reply.) Knowing this to be a persistent international dispute, I tried searching for "WP:Macedonia" and found Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Macedonia), which outlines current Wikipedia consensus. There's a mention of a WP:1RR (one-revert rule) restriction on contentious edits regarding North Macedonian naming, and I am not an expert in such matters but I would assume the reasonable place for escalation to be Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring, or for persistent disruptive editing from anonymous editors, Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. If such problems arise again I hope this is useful. --Anon423 (talk) 22:15, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

New Article

Hi ! I need to know how to publish an article about new company/brand/organization. Thanks Raza Sethraza1 (talk) 14:05, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

A "new" subject may well not have achieved sufficient coverage in published reliable sources to meet Wikipedia's requirement for notability. If it does satisfy those requirements, then you'll find advice at WP:Your first article. --David Biddulph (talk) 14:10, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Welcome to the Teahouse, Sethraza1. Because this is an encyclopaedia of 'Notable Things' (and not of every single thing that exists), we require new subjects to meet our 'Notability Criteria' which you should read about here for businesses and oprganisations. In essence, you will need three in detail and in depth sources which demonstrate that the world at large has taken note of that company. You might also wish to read this guidance on creating your first article. Finally, if you are connected in any way with the company, you must declare this on your userpage before starting work on any draft. We do not accept WP:PROMOTION, an all sources relating to a company must be independent of it and its press releases and any trade newspapers. Regards, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nick Moyes (talk • contribs)

Link Wikipedia articles between Languages

The page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_(mathematics) does not link the German version of Metric, which is this page https://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Metrik_(Mathematik)&redirect=no, ie. it redirects to https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metrischer_Raum, because the article is included in that one. How do I link to this article correctly? Or could anyone more experienced please link it? TheFibonacciEffect (talk) 14:19, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello, TheFibonacciEffect, and welcome to the Teahouse. This is a tricky one, because interlanguage links are now normally done through Wikidata, but there's a problem when the articles in the different languages have different scope (this is known as the "Bonnie and Clyde problem"). What I have done is to add an old-fashioned local link (not using Wikidata) to de:Metrik (Mathematik). I considered linking to de:Metrische Raum directly, but decided that if I link to the redirect then if at some point the redirect is developed into a stand-alone article, it will be pointing to the right place.  Done --ColinFine (talk) 16:36, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

ColinFine Thank you very much, it was bothering me the whole semester :D TheFibonacciEffect (talk) 16:48, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Renaming a page

Hi, I am an employee of Espinosa Cigars. We have a wiki page that someone must have created years ago. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EO_Premium_601_Serie

I have been updating it but I would like to change the name of the page, we are no longer EO Premium 601 Serie. Is there anyway I can do that?

v/r Hector Alfonso HJA1966 (talk) 14:45, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Per the explanation left on your Talk page, you must first declare your paid relationship with Espinosa on your User page. Second, as paid, you are not allowed to edit the article directly. For this and other reasons, all of your edits were reverted. Instead, you must create a section on the Talk page of the article, describe specific changes you want (as in replace ____ with ____), provide references for those changes, and then submit a request, so that a non-connected editor can decide to implement or not. Start with just the name change - with ref(s) confirming the name change - so that an editor can more the article to the new name. Learn how to do refs properly, because what you tried (all reverted) was wrong. David notMD (talk) 14:55, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Actually User:HJA1966, you can edit the page, but it is strongly advised not to, as your edits will likely be reverted, as mentioned above. Sungodtemple (talk) 15:52, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

@HJA1966: The article (not Wiki page) was about a brand of cigars, not the company. I changed the name of the company in the lead but that's all that was necessary for now, since there's no indication the brand name changed also. Without looking too much into it, it appears the company may be more deserving of an article than the since renamed brand, but I haven't done an in-depth sourcing search yet. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:49, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

What happens if i use a image from flickr

Hi, Can i use images from flickr? What happens if i use from flickr? Will i get that copyright message? Someone also blocked me from wikipedia commons! Will i ever get unblocked again? When will i get unblocked? Please help🥺 Badassboy 63637 (talk) 15:07, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Commons is a separate project, so if you want to discuss a Commons block, you need to do it there, not here. Your Commons user talk page gives you a link to the block log there which tells you the duration of your current block. I see that this is your second block for the same reason; if you were to offend again your next block could be expected to be longer, and perhaps indefinite. You can use images from Flickr only if the copyright has been released; if you can't see evidence that it has been released, don't use it. --David Biddulph (talk) 15:23, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

@Badassboy 63637: regarding your commons block, please familarisize yourself with COM:L and the other policies regarding image uplaods. A couple notes (without having loooked at the deleted images, I can't see them):

• Most every image you find on the internet is copyrighted, see also COM:NETCOPYVIO
• If an image does not carry any copyright information, it is assumed to be copyrighted
• Taking a screenshot, or picturing sth. with a camera, does not give you the copyright of the original image, but rather creates a Derivate work.

Your current block is set to expire on the 29th June. Please use the two weeks until that to familarisize yourself with the upload policies, and use the Upload Wizard. If you are unsure wether we can use an image, please ask. Victor Schmidt (talk) 15:45, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

In addition to these answers, you need to make sure in future to ask for clarification as soon as you are given a warning that you do not understand, rather than carrying on the same behaviour. These warnings are being sent by real people like you who must have some reason for giving them. It is rude to ignore a person trying to communicate you and insist on doing the same thing repeatedly. I would recommend that you do not make any further attempts to upload images, as it's a very tricky process and it's very important for legal reasons that we get it right. As Victor Schmidt says, the default situation is that an image is copyrighted and cannot be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons or used on Wikipedia. — Bilorv (talk) 17:44, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Badassboy 63637, Flickr is one of the few photo hosting websites that allows users to license their photos in various different ways. Several of these licenses are compatible with the standards at Wikimedia Commons. Read Wikipedia:Upload/Flickr very carefully. Images with the Flikr licenses highlighted in green are OK for uploading to Commons but do not upload any Flikr images that lack a proper license. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:37, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

How to choose good sources

How can you find good sources that are reliable? I don't know how to find out is a source is reliable and you can't use wikipedia sources. Raaganjali (talk) 15:18, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi Puppies are so cute. Like many issues like this, if you type WP: followed by the item you want advice on into the search box you should find something useful. So WP:reliable sources is a starting point. There is a shortcut to a list of well-established sources at WP:RSPS. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:30, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

@Puppies are so cute: If you can't find it over at WP:RSPS, you can go to the reliable sources noticeboard and see if someone has asked there before. If they haven't, you can start a new discussion so that other editors can chime in. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 18:03, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Possibility of viewing tooltips on mobile

Is it possible to view tooltips in articles (the ones indicated by dotted underlining) while viewing Wikipedia on mobile? Although the underlining appears, when that is touched the tooltip doesn't appear. This is the same even when using Desktop view in mobile. NS-Merni (talk) 15:18, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

@NS-Merni: Tooltips have never worked for me on mobile. They do show up on desktop when I'm hovering over them as a little box underneath the tooltip. The more technical-minded folks are over at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical), so you could ask a question there. I will say that I never use tooltips while writing because they don't work on every device; instead, I always try to integrate whatever extra stuff in the prose, and if absolutely necessary, I use {{efn}} to create footnotes at the bottom of the article. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (talk) 18:11, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

How do I use a copyright image?

There are some images I require for my draft but they have a notice which says "This logo is the graphic representation of a registered trademark subject to trademark law". One such image is this one. It's use is restricted to French Wikipedia, within which it is restricted for articles related to the image. What do I do? I require this image. Excellenc1 (talk) 15:53, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Here in the English Wikipedia, the guidelines are at WP:Logos. Note that in certain cicumstances, non-free images may be used in articles, but they are not allowed in drafts. --David Biddulph (talk) 16:06, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Error in uploading photo in Wikipedia.

In page (SadGranth Sahib) , when i started uploading photo, after filling the categories when I clicked (save) , it shows me an error written as (An automatic filter has identified this edit as potentially...) . Please help me how could I upload an image and to deal with the error. Baba Thanos (talk) 16:51, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Baba Thanos, and welcome to the Tahouse. The filter log says "Refspam detection", which I think means that your edit included a link to a site which has been barred as being spam. How were you uploading the picture? And where is it from? (if it is the source of the picture that is the "refspam", then you won't be able to post the link here either, but you could tell us in words.) --ColinFine (talk) 17:31, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Meh. Book covers are protected by copyright in 99% of the cases, which means they can only be uploaded locally, using our upload wizard, under fair use. @ColinFine: The image attempts can be found in the commonswiki abuse log, its one of their more common filters Victor Schmidt (talk) 17:32, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

New To Wiki and need help for inclusion on Wikipedia!!

I've been up working on a new article, yay! I will publish my first article, are there any experienced editor(s) willing to review it for possible inclusion in Wikipedia? Waveg0ddd (talk) 17:51, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

@Waveg0ddd: Welcome to the Teahouse. I suggest putting it through the Articles for Creation process, where you submit your article as a draft and reviewers will take a look at it. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 18:01, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

@Waveg0ddd:(edit conflict) I have removed the boldface formatting from your above post, its both unnesesary and might come over as agressive. As for your article, I was unable to locate it. Therefore, I would suggest that you make a draft on Wikipedia's servers for now and come back when you feel like we should have a look. Keep in mind though, not all Teahouse respondees are interested in reviwining drafts, and using the Teahouse in an effort to get something quickly to the main encyclopedia usally does not work (Wikipedia does not operate on deadlines, so we have plenty of time). Victor Schmidt (talk) 18:03, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Please read the advice at WP:Your first article. If you submit a draft for AFC review, it will be reviewed (probably within 3 months or so). - David Biddulph (talk) 18:03, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Courtesy: User:Waveg0ddd/sandbox appears to be the draft in question. David notMD (talk) 23:03, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

New user asking something

Editor Blablubbs recommended the teahouse to ask questions. At Tim Lucas, it says he won a Saturn Award for a book he wrote, which is cited, but then it also mentions a second Saturn:

"Lucas is also twice a recipient of The Saturn Award: in 2008 he received the Award for Special Achievement for Mario Bava: All the Colors of the Dark,[46] and in 2018 Kino Lorber's release of Alfred Hitchcock's Lifeboat - featuring Lucas' audio commentary - was honored as the year's Best Classic Film DVD Release."

I see at https://deadline.com/2018/06/saturn-awards-winners-black-panther-blade-runner-2049-shape-of-water-get-out-1202418606/ that Lifeboat won for Best DVD/BD Classic Film Release. Tim Lucas was one of two people who did commentary (the other being Film Professor Drew Casper https://www.kinolorber.com/product/lifeboat-blu-ray). I can't find anything saying that Tim Lucas and Drew Casper won awards. Doesn't the company that put out the DVD Kino Lorber win the award? Maybe it'd be better to say "Kino Lorber's release of Alfred Hitchcock's Lifeboat, which includes commentary by Lucas and film professor Drew Casper, won the 2018 Saturn Award for Best DVD/BD Classic Film Release." Or should we remove that part? TheHorror TheHorror (talk) 18:24, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

@TheHorror TheHorror, I understand your concerns, but after thinking about it a bit myself, you probably know the answer better than I do. If you believe you should change it (based on reliable sources as always, especially for WP:Biographies of living persons), go ahead and do so; a common guideline is WP:Be bold. If you really want other opinions, I'm not a subject expert but I personally think your replacement might be more accurate. You can also solicit other editors' opinions on article talk pages, or at the talk pages of relevant Wikiprojects such as WP:WikiProject Biography, WP:WikiProject Science Fiction, or WikiProject Film's awards task force, or even on the talk pages of users active in the area. – Anon423 (talk) 01:44, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

@TheHorror TheHorror, On another note, the statement about Lifeboat is currently unreferenced, so don't forget to add a citation, such as to the deadline.com article you linked, and maybe also kinolorber.com to establish that Lucas contributed commentary. – Anon423 (talk) 01:48, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Odd response to edit...odd page...not sure what to do

Hi, I edited Patrick Treacy. Someone with an IP then undid my edit in a way that didn't made grammatical sense and which took out some of the verbatim account from the reference I had included. So, I reverted, which I thought was the right thing to do (but maybe it wasn't: maybe I should just have edited the grammar problem). Then someone with a different IP undid my reversion and made an unusual (and almost entirely wrong) allegation against me: it is here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Patrick_Treacy&action=history. I don't want to get into a fight, so I'm happy to leave it (and, to be clear the edit I originally added is still there and in its shortened format it's fine). But the nature of the allegation against me (aside from being wrong) is concerning to me and also makes clear that the person who is doing the editing seems to have a peculiar degree of knowledge about the subject of the article, the history of the page and his adversaries...! I then saw there was a strong sockpuppet history and recurring edits, more recently almost always from IPs and always adding more material to the article that bolsters the reputation of the subject. When an editor tried to fix it three years ago after some obvious sockpuppetry, "someone" made exactly the same accusation of malice in quite similar terms, before the material was largely put back in. So, I wonder about the page as whole (see the talk page) and wonder if someone more experienced than I am had any thoughts or could do something. Fermanaghabu (talk) 18:44, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Don't worry, you seem to be in the clear. It looks like User:CodeTalker already got to it and reverted it back to your version, which seems fine to me from a brief look at the source you cited. (I'm not an expert on the reliability of echolive.ie, though I notice no red flags.) It's fairly common on articles such as these for conflicts of interest and motivated editing to crop up. --Anon423 (talk) 21:01, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

@Fermanaghabu: I've also gone ahead and removed a bit of the puffery in the article. Wikipedia, as you may know, is intended to have a Neutral point of view and in particular MOS:PUFFERY should be reined in to just state the facts, which may include various awards and laudatory statements attributed to public sources. You're right to have described the page as odd – it still reads with a somewhat promotional tone. As long as you're familiar with the Wikipedia:Five pillars and the policies and guidelines that follow, I encourage you to fight back against the spammers, advertisers, and promoters in service of building an encyclopedia. Let us know if you have any other questions. --Anon423 (talk)

Wikipedia Experts

Dear Friends, As I am working through several issues to have my page published, I have received emails from individuals indicating that they are Wikipedia experts and can help me through the Wikipedia system. While I am not inclined to take advantage of these offers, I find the Wikipedia learning curve to be quite steep. For example, James York (www.WikipediaSubmissions.com) has emailed to offer a free consultancy on my article. Do you see any problem if I contact him for assistance? Or, is there someone else that you could recommend? Thank you so much for your response. Frank S. Weaver (talk) 18:45, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Frank S. Weaver Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia does not endorse or advocate for paid editing services, though it is permitted as long as the editor declares that they are being paid and who is paying them. Paid editors- despite what they claim- can make no guarantees(such as writing an article that will not be deleted). If you choose to avail yourself of such services, that is up to you, but I would strongly advise you to not hand over one penny until you see the end result.

It is true that creating a Wikipedia article is challenging. I'm assuming you want to see a Wikipedia article created about yourself. Typically, articles are created by independent editors who take note of a subject in independent reliable sources and choose on their own to write about it. Trying to force the issue has varying degrees of success. Wikipedia's sole interest is in summarizing what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about a person, showing how they meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable person. Any other goal, such as improving your internet presence or enhancing search results for you, are side benefits, not our primary goal. Please see why a Wikipedia article is not necessarily desirable. 331dot (talk) 19:08, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

WikipediaSubmissions.com seems consist of one page of poorly written copy, which the owner evidently hasn't even spellchecked. Clearly a scam.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 19:44, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia is written and maintained by volunteers. Anyone who tells you they can assure a certain outcome (e.g. creation of a page) is lying. I would strongly advise against paying anyone to edit Wikipedia on your behalf or give any assistance. It harms our community significantly and you are not guaranteed to get a result that you are happy with (for instance, we may include unflattering information about a subject that the paid editor chose to omit; or we may decide to delete the article after the paid editor has walked away with your money). — Bilorv (talk) 21:25, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Appears you have been working on Draft:Stephen Fichter since mid-November. You have denied a paid connection on your Talk, but I will ask again if you have any type of personal connection to Fichter. That would need to be declared as a conflict of interest on your User page. The declining reviewer gave some guidance. I am not Catholic, but I get no sense from the Draft that Fichter has accomplished anything extraordinary within the Church, and so may not meet Wikipedia's idea of notability. David notMD (talk) 23:10, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Need help to post

Hi I thought I was adding a short bit of information, but I don't see it anywhere. I am not good with this sort of stuff. I do want what I tried to publish to be published but I don't understand how to do this. If anyone can help me, please advise. It will be very much appreciated. Whiteline22 (talk) 18:53, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

@Whiteline22: Your edit to Sparks (band) was reverted by another editor, with the edit summary "Reverted good faith edits by Whiteline22: needs a citation". When you add factual information to an article, you must cite a reliable published source that supports the addition. Deor (talk) 19:06, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

I am the reliable source. I don't know how to do this. Please help. What exactly do I need to type? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whiteline22 (talk • contribs) 19:42, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

You presumably didn't read what User:Deor said. He said that you needed a "reliable published source"; follow the link provided. Your personal knowledge, if unpublished, is of no use to Wikipedia. - David Biddulph (talk) 19:55, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

@Whiteline22: You are not a reliable source for the purposes of Wikipedia, since we cannot know who you are and whatever you personally know is considered original research. Only published sources can be cited for facts in articles. Deor (talk) 20:00, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Extended Confirmed Protected Page Edit Help

Hello, I want to add the information (my sandbox) to a page that's Extended Confirmed Protected. Can someone have a look and apply the possible changes? GONvsKillua (talk) 18:58, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Use Template:Edit extended-protected on the article's talk page. --David Biddulph (talk) 19:51, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Brand New - Wanting to check before writing

It was suggested that I check here for notability before I bother to write an article. My article would be on Theodora Cope Stanwell-Fletcher (1906-2000). She was an American naturalist and nature writer. Her first book, Driftwood Valley, won the 1948 John Burroughs Medal. She is also listed on a list of missing pages.

For main sources for the article, I would be using:
--Marcia Meyers Bonta, “Theodora Cope Stanwell-Fletcher”, (1996) In Elder, J. (ed.) American nature writers. Charles Scribner's Sons. Volume 2. pp 847-860.
--Information from the family archives: Woodbourne Orchards and family of Francis R. Cope Jr. (HC.MC.1230) Quaker and Special Collections, Haverford College, Haverford, PA.
--Cambridge Guide to Women's Writing in English, 1999, 9780511074110
--Chose, Lauri. Uncharted Arctic Wilderness: Rediscovering the Literary Works of Lois Crisler, Margaret Murie, and Theodora Stanwell-Fletcher, 2007. (Dissertation)

Please let me know whether I should continue down this path, or instead just enjoy a re-read of her work. Thank you. StickOrSnake (talk) 19:05, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

@StickOrSnake: I'd say that the Bonta chapter and the Cambridge Guide are certainly reliable sources that go a long way toward establishing Stanwell-Fletcher's notability. The archives at Haverford College, insofar as they are unpublished documents, are unusable, since the sources cited in an article must be published works. The dissertation (assuming that it's for a completed Ph.D.) is a bit problematic—see the third bulleted item at WP:SCHOLARSHIP—but might be usable for facts unlikely to be challenged; more importantly, it should cite sources dealing with Stanwell-Fletcher that you yourself could investigate and cite. If you can find one or two more published reliable sources, your article would almost certainly not be deletable for lacking evidence of notability. Deor (talk) 19:46, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Logo/Copyright Question

Hello! I'm currently working on a draft Draft:Photograph magazine, and am trying to include a logo image, but am a bit confused by copyrights and definitely don't want to infringe on anything. The logo itself is just text, and on Wikipedia:Logos is states that a logo of just typeface is uncopyrightable, so I'm wondering what sort of approval process it may require. Thank you so much!! nutellab Nutellab (talk) 19:21, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

@Nutellab: I took a look at the magazine's website and can confirm that it's public domain because it's just a typeface. To answer your question, since the magazine is in the United States, Wikimedia Commons will take them. Just put {{Pd-textlogo}} in the file discription, similar to these logos: Sony, FedEx, Calvin Klein. However, your article is still a draft, so I'd worry about completing the prose of that article and having it approved through Articles for Creation before dealing with the logo, since if the draft is not approved, your logo is useless anyways. Having a logo in the draft will not improve your draft's chances of approval. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (talk) 19:37, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Nutellab, note Wikipedia style: not "Notable Featured Artists/Contributors" but instead "Notable featured artists/contributors"; though actually I'd have "Notable contributors", as contribution of photographs is contribution and "featured" is pretty meaningless. And where did they contribute? Specify at least one issue of the magazine for each of these notables. -- Hoary (talk) 02:26, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Trying to transfer account

I got a new email account recently, and I kinda want to transfer my wikipedia account to that email. (I'm The great Jay btw) Is it possible? And if so, how can I do it? 68.83.1.253 (talk) 21:13, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

If you still have access to your account, you can log in and then under preferences (Special:Preferences) you can set your email address. If you don't have access to your account or your old email, then you will need to create a new Wikipedia account. RudolfRed (talk) 21:33, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

68.83.1.253 Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse.

Log in to your account and go to this page (your preferences). Scroll down until you see something that looks like this (not very close but the text sould be the same) in your preferences under the "User profile" section:

Click the button and the rest should be explained by the software. --littleb2009 (^she/_her) (talk • contribs) 21:35, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

German Music Wikiproject and German Teahouse

Hello,

Can anyone help me find the Wikiproject for Music and German Musician or something? I am trying to get help for my Draft. Also, is there a help section on German Wikipedia where I can ask the admins to help me? I believe Weiss is notable. He has won a significant International German Award and published many books and Spatial audio arts, he is a pioneer in sound-branding. Has done a Europe Tour too. Now he is not a singer, and it's getting difficult to prove his notability as a musician. WP:ARTIST: "The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Peter_Philippe_Weiss https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Philippe_Weiss

Thanks! Jiskofor (talk) 21:15, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

@Jiskofor: The German Wikipedia "Teahouse" is at [1]. It is not clear why you want a German admin to help with your English draft. RudolfRed (talk) 21:27, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

@Jiskofor: Additionally, for English Wikipedia, you can go here to look for projects such as music etc Wikipedia:WikiProject#Finding_a_project. The equivilant German page is [2] RudolfRed (talk) 21:31, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

(I think Jiskofor doesn't mean "admin", a really small set of volunteers who have technical abilities but no additional powers over article content, but instead is trying to say "experienced editor".) The German Wikipedia is an entirely different community to ours, and have different standards as to what they consider "notable" enough to have an article. If you ask at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Musicians then you might get some help. If I was reviewing the draft, my eyes would glaze over—the review process is really backlogged so reviewers have very little time to assess very complicated things. It helps if you can highlight the three best sources or the biggest claims to notability, for instance in a comment at the top of the page (like some of the reviewers have left). — Bilorv (talk) 21:35, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi Jiskofor. Do you mean German Wikipdedia's versions of these pages or do you mean German-language versions of these English Wikipedia pages? I don't think there are official German versions of English Wikipedia pages per se, but there might be some German translations of English Wikipedia pages that can be found on German Wikipedia. Generally, one way to try and find these is to go to left side bar and look for "German" (or "Deutsch") under "Languages". The "Languages" contains links to corresponding pages on other language Wikipedia. In some cases, the links might not be very accurate, but they're probably OK for major Wikipedia policy or guideline pages. The German Wikipedia page for its Teahouse equivalent appears to be de:Wikipedia:Fragen von Neulingen and the German Wikipedia equivalent for Wikipedia:WikiProject music appears to be de:Wikipedia:Redaktion Musik. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:33, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Need help from experienced editors

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Lujaina_Mohsin_Darwish

Please contribute to the Requested Edits on the above page. GONvsKillua (talk) 21:37, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

@GONvsKillua: I put in the newer infobox but there are too many awards. You should pick maybe the most notable 4-5, along with their sources. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:00, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

I have responded in detail on the article's talk page. Number 57 22:05, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

A problem in editing

Look i want to to add a birth date to the births of October the 10th, like it's an emergency even if you want to remove it, remove it after a day or two so just keep it, why you keep removing it? I need that Youuung goth (talk) 21:58, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Youuung goth Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Date articles only include those with existing articles. What is the nature of the emergency? 331dot (talk) 22:03, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

@Youuung goth: (edit conflict) see the note on the page October 10: "Please do not add yourself or people without Wikipedia articles to this list." If your friend does not have an article, you cannot list her there. Do not engage in an edit war. RudolfRed (talk) 22:06, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi Youuung goth. Maybe the person whose name you're trying to add to that article is someone you know? Maybe you're trying to do something nice for them? Maybe you don't know them, but you're trying to add the name for some other reason? Whatever your answers are to those questions, you need to understand Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not because unlike social media sites, online forums, etc., Wikipedia is generally not a place to give someone a shoutout per WP:Namechecking, even if you only want the information to be visible for a day or two. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:37, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Romanising an article title

Romanising an article title Right now I'm writing an article about a fish, but the only common name appears to be in the Cyrillic alphabet. I know that article titles must be Romanised, and I read through the help pages for Romanising, but they were not helpful because this name was in the Turkish language and there was no tutorial for it. The name is Kızılırmak toothcarp. Should I Romanise the name, or simply title the article after the scientific name? Helen (let’s talk) 23:15, 15 June 2021 (UTC) 

User:HelenDegenerate - I am not the expert, but my opinion is that if there is no common name that is written in the Roman alphabet, then the scientific name is most nearly common Roman name, and scientific names are of course always written in the Roman alphabet because they are either Latin or Latinized. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:17, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

How does Wikipedia influence Google rankings (and does it matter)?

I hope that this isn't a stupid question from an experienced editor. Is there an explanatory essay that tells how Wikipedia articles and titles influence Google search results, and why it should matter to entities of marginal notability, such as entertainers, businessmen, corporations, etc? That is, how (without opening any cans of beans) is Wikipedia being used and misused for Search Engine Optimization (and what can reviewers and admins do to maintain the integrity of Wikipedia)? Robert McClenon (talk) 00:27, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Robert McClenon. This is not a stupid question. It is well known that a well-written Wikipedia article about a discrete topic will usually show up as #1 in Google's search results, unless the article has a hidden noindex tag. All articles created by less experienced editors are noindexed until reviewed by a new page patroller, or until 90 days passes. If the article is created by an experienced editor with the autopatrolled user right (which includes all administators), then Google will index the new article rapidly, sometimes within minutes. I have seen an article I have just added to main space show up as the #1 Google search result within three minutes. There are complications though. For example, for ambiguous topics such as several notable people sharing the same or similar names, and another complication is when the Wikipedia article lacks an image and Google's algorithms will sometimes extract a description of Jack Smith A from Wikipedia and insert a photo of different Jack Smith B from some other website into its Google Knowledge Graph which is kind of like an infobox created by a bot not human editors. The bottom line is that your marginally notable "entertainers, businessmen, corporations" will get a genuine boost in their online visibility if there is an acceptable Wikipedia article about them that "sticks". Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:14, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Robert McClenon, I'm not aware of anything so specific, but there are essays about SEO efforts on Wikipedia, dealing with these Wikibombing attempts, and a generic reference about what pages are indexed. – Anon423 (talk) 01:16, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Where can I find some help to improve an article with paragraphs copied "word for word" from a book and tons of unnecessary details that make its size totally crazy and the article unreadable?

Please read Étienne de Perier and Talk:Étienne de Perier... Your comments are welcome. Thanks --Belyny (talk) 02:48, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Savary34 increased the length of the article by 5X, and you then reduced it by 1/3. You both are participating in a discussion on the Talk page of the article. There are still LARGE sections of text without citations, and lengthy content in quotations that are poorly attributed. David notMD (talk) 03:11, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

move the page from the Sandbox to Wiki

Hello, I am ready to move the page i created from my sandbox to Wiki , but can not find this this option on my Wiki screen . Thank you for your help. Elzaratyr (talk) 03:02, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Hey Elzaratyr, and welcome to Wikipedia! Are you referring to this article? If so, it might need a little more work before its ready for inclusion on Wikipedia - I'd recommend taking a look at the article wizard, which not only will help you write your first article, but will also let you create a draft which another editor can review and move for you. Good luck! - TNT ^😺 03:08, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Can't figure out if this is vandalism

This editor User_talk:120.21.30.194 keeps adding OAM after people's names in articles. I can't figure out if it's vandalism or if it's some abbreviation that is familiar to other people. Benevolent human (talk) 05:19, 16 June 2021 (UTC) Benevolent human (talk) 05:19, 16 June 2021 (UTC)