Jump to content

Wikipedia:Teahouse

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by CosmicNotes (talk | contribs) at 09:47, 9 August 2021 (→‎Net worth policy for public figures?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Skip to top
Skip to bottom



here. 213.230.102.36 (talk) 13:27, 8 August 2021 (UTC) EditUZB (talk) 15:06, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@EditUZB: Hello, welcome to the teahouse! Every language project is completely independent and gets to set their own rules and has their own set of administrators - this means an administrator from the English Wikipedia would not be able to help you with a block on the Russian project I'm afraid. You will need to appeal your block using whatever process the Russian Wikipedia has, there might be an email address somewhere for contacting the Russian equivalent of arbcom? 192.76.8.91 (talk) 15:23, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think the email address you need is at ru:Википедия:Арбитражный_комитет? 192.76.8.91 (talk) 15:27, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

'Did You Know' nomination inappropriate

The composer Louis Andriessen sadly died a few weeks ago. Around the same time my article Theatre of the World was published. An editor then nominated it for DYK for a spurious reason. It would appear entirely disrespectful if WP used this on its front page. I've made my objection but I am uncertain what the status is. Hopefully editors will understand - this is very insensitive - but no acknowledgement in the DYK chat. Could someone advise me the status please? Always grateful. Thelisteninghand (talk) 14:27, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Thelisteninghand: I think your comment got missed because you left it at the talk page rather than the nomination page. I've moved the comment and pinged the nominator and reviewer—that should generally be your first port of call, to get in touch with the users (by pinging or messaging on their talk page), rather than the Teahouse. As for the nomination, it was just hanging in limbo, not rejected (which is marked by the reviewer with ) and not accepted (marked with ). — Bilorv (talk) 16:01, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thelisteninghand had posted to the discussion but it is commented out; the others have seen it, per the discussion. Usedtobecool ☎️ 16:09, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That was a different comment. — Bilorv (talk) 16:42, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @Thelisteninghand! Someone has to approve it with a tick (like ) and then someone else will have to come and "Promote" it. Only then will it be moved to the queue for the mainpage. Then, sometime later, it will get published. Currently, even the first step, the tick, has not happened, so you do not need to panic. It could take weeks. You have commented and the discussion is ongoing; someone should try and address your concerns before it gets approved. It is a discussion for now, and you can participate, which you are doing. Wikipedia discussions are not live chat, so they can go very slow too.
As to the specific, it seems like you are opposing describing the work as grotesque, and not the idea of DYK itself. But you say you oppose DYK or posting to mainpage which does not make sense to me. Editors improve articles about the people that they like when they have recently died, and try to get them to the mainpage, either in the DYK or the IN THE NEWS section, so that as many people as possible can find the article and read about their achievements, as a way to pay respects and celebrate their life. If you indeed object getting it to the mainpage altogether for some reason, you are unlikely to get your way.
The half questions that start with "... that" are called hooks and they are what are proposed be published on main page. If you don't like a hook, you should explain why, and propose an alternative hook (another interesting fact from the article, written in the same format). Editors will discuss all alternatives and choose the best one by WP:CONSENSUS. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 16:05, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I just noticed that Gerda had reached out to you a month ago, trying to discuss your concerns but you dismissed them. That is probably why no progress has been made. You need to discuss it with them in a respectful manner; there is no alternative to that. This is a community project; no higher authority is going to intervene on your behalf, as there is no higher authority than a discussion among editors. Usedtobecool ☎️ 16:17, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Usedtobecool Thank you. The objection is a matter of sensitivity - so your guidance is very useful - the fact of the composers death might be "in the news' and that would seem right. Other info highlighted at this time would appear slightly strange to a reader I think. I've commented further on the nomination page, thanks for doing the moving.Thelisteninghand (talk) 16:59, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: every contribution to DYK is accepted for a spurious reason, known as a "hook". The whole business is an embarrassment. But it's a long-establshed tradition, and I doubt it'll be changed. 213.122.143.73 (talk) 08:12, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is me, editing while inadvertently logged out. My apologies. Maproom (talk) 08:44, 6 August 2021 (UTC) [reply]

Thanks Maproom my sentiments exactly! Change? Thelisteninghand (talk) 15:26, 7 August 2021 (UTC) Maproom And thank you, but my one word question is serious. I'm considering proposing something else to replace Did You Know. It's irritated me to such an extent in this instance - but I always thought it looked more like the cover of a puzzle mag than an encyclopedia. It's a kind of perversion of what we do with such dedication - WP has amazing things inside it but this format doesn't do that justice at all. It is tragic. imo. Thelisteninghand (talk) 22:12, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thelisteninghand, I hope you will notify me when such a proposal is made. Maproom (talk) 07:46, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How Einstein was wrong

Essay
                                                                    Einstein
                                                                       was
                                                                      wrong

As we know that Sir Albert Einstein found a formula of E=mc2. In this he wanted to say that as graphite and diamond are forms of carbon, energy and mass are forms of a substance. He also said that energy stored in mass is equal to that mass times square of speed of light in vacuum. With this, mass can be converted to the energy. But it should be E=1/2mc2 where energy is equal to E, mass is equal to m and speed of light is equal to c. But this will only take place where a large amount of energy is released due to the movement of the body in the speed of light in vacuum. This proves that E=1/2mc2 should be the formula. As we all know that when mass is moving it possess kinetic energy whose formula is KE=1/2mc2, here kinetic energy is equal to E, mass is equal to m and speed of light is equal to c. Therefore, the formula should be E=1/2mc2.


                                      But this is a case of higher things like nuclear fission or fusion in which we can see the sun where large amount of energy is released by the nuclear fusion, where the two hydrogen atoms combine to form a helium atom. But the main thing is the of two atoms of hydrogen both having 1 proton, 1 electron and 1 neutron which combine to form 2 electrons, 2 protons and 2 neutrons to form a helium atom. Therefore, the mass remains the same and so the resulting energy also. So, the thing said should be atoms of element have nucleus which we can break in nuclear fusion or nuclear fission. Here, the nucleus consists of proton and neutron which are bonded together by nuclear energy acting on them. When we break the nucleus, the nuclear energy is released. Therefore, Einstein should have said that the nucleus of an atom when broken release a large amount of energy (currently called nuclear energy). It is performed in the process of nuclear fission or nuclear fusion. But here, no mass is getting converted to energy or, energy is converted to mass.

For example, the nuclear fission of uranium235.


Here, in every case the total is equal. Please, tell me if it is wrong and why. Thank you.

       by                                                                                                                                                                                Anshuman Burman
@Anshuman Burman: Hello, welcome to the teahouse, do you have a question about how to edit on the site? As you have been repeatedly told on your talk page wikipedia is not the site to publish your thoughts on relativity, to be included here it would need to be published in reliable scientific publications, like a peer reviewed journal or textbook. If you continue to spam this essay onto random talk pages, sandboxes and noticeboards you are going to end up blocked for disruptive editing. Have you studied relativity in any detail, because there are numerous errors in this passage you've written and large chunks of it are nonsensical. The stuff about how the formula for mass-energy equivalence should have the same form as the equation for kinetic energy makes no sense at all, and the section about the mass of atoms is wrong - when you combine 2 protons 2 neutrons and 2 electrons to form a helium atom it does have less mass than the separate particles. 192.76.8.91 (talk) 10:51, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Anshuman Burman: reddit seems a perfect place to discuss that Machinexa (talk) 13:55, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

sources with conflicting information

If there are sources with conflicting information, is the source with the more detailed timeline the one to use? Would it help if I added the two sources here and I can get some advice? Thanks! 73.167.238.120 (talk) 10:15, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There's a whole essay on this topic! In a nutshell: If two reliable sources offer contradicting information on a subject and none of them can be demonstrated unreliable, then an article should cite both.
If you're still struggling to decide how to make use of the sources, go ahead and link them here for a second opinion. Zudo (talkcontribs) 10:24, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is a source I used to make edits. As you can see, the source has a timeline of events. [1] My edits were reverted and the Orlando Sentinel source was put back. [2] I thought since the source I included had a more detailed timeline, then that would be the source to use to show the edits I made were correct. So both sources look reliable, but one has more information. Thanks! 73.167.238.120 (talk) 14:18, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Were there any thoughts about the topic above? Thanks! 75.144.185.89 (talk) 19:48, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bibliography of Japanese history

I have some experience editing existing articles and have also created several articles. For a long time I have maintained a bibliography of Japanese history on a university website which can only be edited on campus. During the lockdown I have been unable to update it at all, and in any case I think it would be better to let other people update and edit it too, so I thought of putting it on Wikipedia, for I see that there are other bibliographies of national history to be found on Wikipedia. I have seen the Wikiproject pages on bibliographies. My bibliography is large and pretty comprehensive, and subdivided by periods and subdivided again by topic. Any reason why I shouldn't go ahead? Pluskwa (talk) 13:36, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Pluskwa: Welcome to the Teahouse! Are you able to provide a link to the website, or is the website only readable on campus? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 20:35, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the link: http://intranet.ames.cam.ac.uk/jbib/ I have started transferring the data to a draft in my sandbox. Pluskwa (talk) 06:22, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Moving a discussion

How do I move a discussion from my talk page to the articl's Talk page where it belongs? Jenhawk777 (talk) 01:46, 7 August 2021 (UTC) Jenhawk777 (talk) 01:46, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Jenhawk777: Here's one way to do it:
  1. Open your user talk page in edit mode and copy the text you wish to move.
  2. Open the article talk page and click New section. Paste the text you wish to move, note that you moved it from your user talk page, and save the page.
  3. Back on your user talk page, you can delete the conversation and/or note that you moved it. Informing the original posted would be appropriate as well.
Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 02:04, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Jenhawk777 OH! I thought moving by copy-pasting was verbotten because you lost the page's edit history or some such thing. I guess it's different for a section on a talk page. Thank you! Jenhawk777 (talk) 02:22, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Jenhawk777:. You can use the templates {{Moved discussion to}} and {{Moved discussion from}} to indicate where the discussion is being moved to and where it was being moved from. You can take care of the page history stuff by including links in your edit summaries. Add a link to the new page in the edit summary for your user talk page and then add a link to the old page in the edit summary for the new page. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:29, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Jenhawk777 You can also try c:User:Jack who built the house/Convenient Discussions. ― Qwerfjkltalk 07:25, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you all so very much, but by the time I got these, I had already copy-pasted. I will keep these other suggestions in mind if there is ever a next time! Thank you again. Jenhawk777 (talk) 01:17, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How long does it take for a page to get patrolled?

I'm not exactly a new Wikipedian, but I don't know how long the two articles I made recently, The Revolutionary Piano of Nicky Hopkins and Phuntsho Jigme, will stay non-patrolled. I have waited for some hours and no non-patrolled pages on the list have been patrolled. How long does it take for a patroller to patrol a new page? Capsulecap (talkcontribs) 06:05, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Capsulecap, there are currently approximately 5000 new pages awaiting review. Most will be reviewed within 30 days by a patroller, however some may take substantially longer as pages may be reviewed in no particular order. The article is already in mainspace, so there isn't generally any particular rush. Is there anything in particular making this urgent? --Jack Frost (talk) 06:12, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Jack Frost Nothing urgent, thanks though! Capsulecap (talkcontribs) 06:15, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, both of these may be kicked back to draft. The first, because there is no elaboration about the music album other than it exists. The first ref confirms it contains a cover of Yesterday (along with mention of 49 other covers). The second is to a review of the album, so perhaps that can be used for more content. Perhaps some content about Nicky Hopkins can be sourced from that article (with attribution), so as to place it in the chronology of his career. The other article is a quasi=standard sports stub, so that might pass. My understanding is that if articles are not patrolled within 90 days, those enter the searchable world. David notMD (talk) 10:48, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How do you ask for a citation to an individual piece of information in an article?

Specifically, how do you add the "citation needed" notices that are written in the same superscript as the citations themselves? (As opposed to having a citations-needed tag for the entire page.) Sparechair (talk) 08:56, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sparechair, add a {{cn}} tag at the position where a reference is needed. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:24, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template help

Hi can I just publish a template I have in my sandbox or does someone need to look it over first and publish it for me? Jellemdejong (talk) 10:39, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Jellemdejong You can publish it by moving it into the template namespace (if you are autoconfirmed), but it seems to have a lot of red links for a navigation template, and should only be used if you (or someone else) is willing to create those articles. ― Qwerfjkltalk 12:23, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I know there's alot of red currently the idea is to create those pages slowly by translating them into english. Jellemdejong (talk) 20:04, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

incorrect redirection of person Bharat Kamm to Dear Comrade film

Bharat Kamma, person, telugu language film writer or director. however it is redirecting to movie Dear Comrade. according to me, its patently wrong. i request experienced person to look into the issue. 28july21 (talk) 13:08, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

28july21 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. The redirect goes to the film because no one has written an article about him, summarizing what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about him, showing how he meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable creative professional. I assume that it redirects to that film as it is his only major work or it is what he is best known for. 331dot (talk) 13:13, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism is going on Neeraj Chopra article

Neeraj Chopra today own Gold medal in Jevelin throw, in Tokyo Olympic. Some vandals are doing vandalism on this article. Newton Euro (talk) 13:44, 7 August 2021 (UTC) This article should be protected to stop vandalism. Newton Euro (talk) 13:47, 7 August 2021 (UTC) @Ganbaruby: @GoingBatty: Hiii, will you add information about gold medal win of Neeraj Chopra in his article. This article is protected dur to persistent vandalism. It also need copeyedit.Newton Euro (talk) 14:10, 7 August 2021 (UTC) @RudolfRed: Hi editor, will you edit Neeraj Chopra article. This article's talk page have lods of backlog of requests they have to be addressed. This article have high reader .Newton Euro (talk) 17:03, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Newton Euro: No need to ping me or others directly on this. The request is listed at CAT:ESP (fixed link) and will be handled in time by any interested editor. Just be patient. RudolfRed (talk) 17:09, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Newton Euro: I have just replied to some edit requests, and left various things untouched. This is something out of my subject. Every Wikipedia editor has a subject where they're interested, so please have patience at wait for the editors to have a look at the article who are interested in this subject. They'll definitely update and improve it based on available sources. ─ The Aafī (talk) 17:19, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If any editor from UK, US, Australia etc. did copey edit in this article regularly for few days, it'll be helpful for readers of this article. This article, I think has lods of lods of visiters. Many editors are editing it continuously. So the editor who have English as his first language can improve this article better than folks who has Eng as their 2nd or 3rd lang. This article has many problems, it's not looking upto the WP standards. I can't edit it because I'm a rookie. So any one who interested in Tokyo Olympic, sports, Athletics related article can improve this arti. Newton Euro (talk) 07:36, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Advice on rejected draft

Hello...I am looking for feedback as to why Draft:Mona Kattan has been rejected twice. The page is set up very similar to her sister's page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huda_Kattan and Mona is nearly as notable as Huda IRL. Please offer me your feedback and thanks in advance. LookToYourSoul (talk) 14:25, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

LookToYourSoul Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. The draft was only declined, not rejected(rejected would mean it cannot be resubmitted). Your draft just tells about this person and what they have done. Wikipedia articles must do more, they must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about this person, showing how they meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable person. At least some of the sources you offer seem to be basic announcements or press release-type articles, which do not establish notability. Please see Your First Article for more information. 331dot (talk) 14:30, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Issues regarding updating articles on Wikipedia

Hi, i just like to say first that i have enjoyed editing and updating articles on Wikipedia for the past week that I officially joined as a wikipedian on August 1.

However, I am having arguments with a user with regards to "technicality issues" on updating articles. The issue he raised is on this page/section. I am quoting the relevant portions here for ease of reading:


Just FYI edits need to be sourced when they are made, reviewing both of your edit histories it seems that you both regularly make changes and additions without citing a source. Thats generally discouraged. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 05:45, 7 August 2021 (UTC)"
Yes, i am aware of wikipedia's citation requirement when inputting data. It is not forgotten but the quantity of data being added is staggering. Additionally, if you have checked most NOC olympics pages, nobody is inputting their scores with citation at the moment. However, I have and AM inputting the citations after the finals of a particular event is completed as best as I can. Atom105 (talk) 06:41, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
If you’re aware of our citation requirements and purposefully ignoring them in BLP contexts then you’re being actively disruptive, theres no excuse for that. Wikipedia is not a race, it is not news, and there is no deadline, slow down and do the bare minimum that is required of you per policy and guidelines. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:26, 7 August 2021 (UTC)


I am getting very tired of being bashed by such users for updating articles and would appreciate any comments/opinions the users here in the Teahouse can give. I am not sure if what I am doing is wrong as everyone is doing it on all the olympics pages with NO citations. Thanks! Atom105 (talk) 16:07, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Atom105: In my opinion the advice you have been given is correct. Wikipedia is not a news station and there is no requirement to provide up-to-the minute updates, particularly without a source. You are welcome to add to articles, but only if you provide citations. As for what other editors are doing, this may be a case of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS RudolfRed (talk) 17:06, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Further, adding sources is not a "technicality", it is how information is verified, which is one of our key policies. See WP:V RudolfRed (talk) 17:12, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Atom105, if "everyone" is doing it on Olympics articles (which I doubt), then they are wrong. You are being asked to do things correctly, and instead of being very tired of it, you should be grateful for the advice. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 19:27, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have read and understood what you both said and will follow.
@Cullen328:Just wish to do an addendum here that I am not lying when I say everyone is doing it. Please check the contributions pages for Japan, United States and Russia(ROC) as examples(FYI, The other countries pages are also the same). As a new wikipedian, my first exemplar will be to follow what other wikipedians here are doing. I have no idea that what they are doing(i.e. updating articles without citation) is incorrect. While I understand it now, I wish to add that I did all these with the best of intentions and no malice was intended nor did I intended to lie.
@RudolfRed: Also, after reading through WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, they don't seem to apply to the olympic articles with regards to inputtingg raw scores which is what everyone is doing or adding medalist(Please see above country page history pages for what I mean). Is there another WP policy in play here? Atom105 (talk) 22:42, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Atom105, in this context, "everyone" means 100% of the editors working on Olympic articles. Looking at your links, I see some editors reverting unreferenced content, so "everyone" is incorrect. Your exemplar should not be the behavior of over-enthusiastic fan editors during the Olympics. It should be our policies and guidelines, and the behavior of highly experienced editors over the years. I have contributed to the biographies of a few Olympic athletes, and I always provide references. So should you. The most relevant policy is Verifiability, a core content policy. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 23:00, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Cullen328: Yes I have always understood Wikipedia's requirement for Citation. I have also updated individual athlete's pages during the Olympics and those are done properly with Citation at the point of edit such as my entry on Teddy_Vlock. I just wanted to state that I was misled by the fan editors on the Olympics nation page for almost all countries hence the confusion and exasperation. Atom105 (talk) 23:17, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Article in draft

I am trying to add a new wiki article, I am not being able to published that always showing me in draft why?? Pratikcr9 (talk) 16:37, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Pratikcr9: The "Publish" button means "Save". If you want to have your draft reviewed to become an article, you can place {{subst:submit}} on at the top of the draft. I suggest you read WP:YFA first, for guidance . RudolfRed (talk) 16:44, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Editing query

Hey Wikipedia! To give you some background, my friends and I were working on a college sociology journal assignment/project these past few months and decided to submit new article drafts on the topics when doing our project which we found met a lot of Wikipedia's notability criteria but were lacking articles on Wikipedia. For some detailed context, you can read the history of our chat with one of the AfC reviewers of some of our drafts here: User_talk:Nomadicghumakkad#Hello!

TLDR; my friends decided to move on with working on our real life college project, as they felt our initiative on Wikipedia editing wasn't positively met. However, I am interested in editing and making contributions to Wikipedia and so I've made this account finally. I'm interested in the field of the city my Uni is in and where I stay presently (Pune) and the historical or current notable persons, organizations, events and such of this place (which my classmates and me, being a mix of sociology/history/economics/business majors, had decided to work on as a group initially, because we had access thru our uni library to those rare sources and inaccessible books about those topics of this city/state, with most unfortunately being in print and in Marathi).

I wanted to ask you experienced editors if it is ok for me to continue to do this now on my own or will that lead to a bias violation of some sort since I'm passionate about editing in such a relatively small niche? Of course, I hope to keep my submissions thorough, with good, reliable sources (happy to link you to one of our current draft submissions which I worked on in translating one of the sources to cite the article, to prove my point) and I have learned a lot about NPOV from some of our earlier drafts being declined for that reason and I have worked on solving that issue on all our drafts ever since.

As stated in our discussion linked above, my friends and I had no COI with the topics but it came across as such because we didn't paraphrase and summarize the sources properly (coming across as non-neutral), and also maybe because the sources were pretty similar in nature for the articles we began with because the topics of the articles themselves were so interconnected (given that we were interested in submitting biographies and organizations, which are quite tricky to get right on Wikipedia, as we have come to learn).

I'm super excited to get to work on these niche interests by myself with my new account, especially when I'm autoconfirmed so I don't burden the AfC backlog. But as stated in our discussion on the above reviewer's talk page, my friends and I (with me now editing alone) have absolutely no stake in any of these bios, orgs, events, personal histories etc. having Wikipedia entries. So I won't contribute further to this little passion project and am happy to abandon/delete the created/submitted drafts if in case I'm breaking any Wikipedia laws. Please guide me regarding these doubts. Thanks!

PS: I placed this query on the Help Desk instead of here by mistake, so I have moved it here now. AngryMushroom (talk) 17:50, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AngryMushroom, I've tried to read the very long wall of text you've written but you lost me less than a 1/4 of the way in. Please, in 20 or fewer words, what is your question? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:06, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Dodger67, so sorry about that. I wanted to ask if it's ok for me to continue contributing on a small niche of interests as long as I follow all the rules. Thanks. AngryMushroom (talk) 18:12, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If anyone can look at my query in full, that would be very helpful. Thanks. AngryMushroom (talk) 18:14, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@AngryMushroom Make sure to use inline citations (see WP:REFBEGIN if you haven't, WP:TUTORIAL is good too), be WP:BOLD and go for it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:16, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
AngryMushroom. You can write articles about any notable topic as long as you comply with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. The very best advice that I can give you is to be concise. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 18:26, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much, Gråbergs Gråa Sång. Inline citations were thankfully easy to understand for the lot of us when we began, but the tutorials really helped for everything else. Since some of the submitted drafts were flagged for COI (which we clarified) and NPOV (completely our mistake), I merely didn't wish to violate any policies for writing on such niche topics (especially on the bios, orgs, etc. I've proposed) that have such rare, old, and mostly non-English sources unavailable outside of my city's libraries and unis. I'm excited to see what I can contribute alone. I shall be bold and proceed! Many thanks! AngryMushroom (talk) 18:30, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Working on it, Cullen328! Thanks. AngryMushroom (talk) 18:32, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Actors Who Have Been Cast in Video Games

Over the years since video games are first invented, many actors and voice actors went on to voice many characters in various video games my by brands like Nintendo, PlayStation, Xbox, Atari and many others. In fact, I have recognized the voices from the characters. Those voice actors include:

If anyone sees this list, what can everyone think of the characters from the video games?  MetaWiz4331 (talk) 18:59, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@MetaWiz4331: Welcome to Wikipedia. I am not clear on what your question is. If you are suggesting adding that info to an article, start a discussion on that article's talk page. RudolfRed (talk) 19:21, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Or are you thinking about creating a list article? David notMD (talk) 20:51, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What specifically I need to change in my article?

Hi dear Wiki experts,

First I would like to thank the user AngusWOOF for the kindness in the feedback but I need additional help, please.

- I've written an article about my family surname - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Climaco_Family in which I have some formal academic evidence, e.g. the coat of arms issue by the "Cronista Rey de Armas" and some anecdotal, e.g. made by a third party Heraldry Institute, both referenced in my article.

I would like to know what exactly to change so I can have it published, please?

It is unrealistic to expect someone else will be interested in writing about my family if not a member of the family itself because we are not a celebrity family neither high royalty but simply a Spanish family which has some knighthood roots, hence the coat of arms and I would like to have that published in the Wikipedia for public consulting.

Many thanks, Pedro Pclimaco87 (talk) 19:54, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For Draft:Climaco Family, you should declare a conflict on interest, given that this is your family surname (although you do not appear to have stated that you are part of this genealogy). You have submitted it, and are waiting on a review. Much of the content, including the coat of arms symbols, is not referenced. David notMD (talk) 20:54, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Pclimaco87. Your draft only has two references. One is to a commercial website that sells heraldry related coats of arms and documents. Such a website is worthless for establishing notability. You need to provide references to multiple, independent reliable sources that devote significant attention to your surname. Make sure that every assertion in your draft is backed up by a solid reference. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:01, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Borovsky, pianist (1889-1968) graduated from the Gymnasium as did his sister Elena (who was awarded Lenin prize)

see htttp://alexanderkborovsky.blogspot.com for confirmation of this. I have several letters from Elena confirming this. Thank you. Bill Muspianojones (talk) 20:31, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Guessing this relates to Alexander Borovsky. What do you want changed in the article? Letters (assuming unpublished?) can not be accepted as reliable source references. David notMD (talk) 20:59, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

PD-Guyana

Why the copyright tag Template:PD-Guyana at the Commons, doesn't work here on Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter Ormond (talkcontribs) 21:12, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Peter Ormond: Because that template is relevant only to Commons. If something is public domain, it should be on Commons anyway. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:39, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Peter Ormond Welcome to the Teahouse. Because Wikimedia Commons and English Wikipedia are two completely different projects, and have their own set of templates, it is not surprising that trying to apply a template from one project in another one would not be successful. If you'd care to explain what it is that you're trying to achieve, it's possible that we might be able to offer further advice and a better template to use. Thanks. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:42, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What guidelines, if any, is this sentence violating?

Ran across this sentence in an article:

"This fact is often overlooked by media or intentionally kept hidden."

This feels wrong, but I'm not certain. If this phrasing is violating guidelines, what guidelines is it violating? The citation goes to an unviewable source.

Thanks! Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 22:07, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That sentence is not in any Wikipedia article. You quote part of a sentence that is found in Alternative medicine, where it is sourced and contextualised. Context is everything. --bonadea contributions talk 22:17, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your response. So you are saying with confidence that it's okay to say something is "intentionally kept hidden by the media", without defining what "media" is referring to, and without being able to access the source that supposedly says that? Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 22:22, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Without context (which you have not provided) the sentence contains a weasel word ("often"), a vague undefined term ("media") and a suggestion of a conspiracy theory ("intentionally kept hidden" by mysterious unidentified entities). By itself, it wouldn't be acceptable to present in Wikipedia's narrative voice. With context, it may be a different story. Provide the context including sources and you may get a better answer. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:32, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I found the sentence in alternative medicine and modified it. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:35, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I'm glad I'm not crazy. I apologize for not providing the context, but thank you for following up with my question. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 23:45, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can anyone help me with the errors on my upload?

I'm getting errors about me uploading my own Bio. Is this not accepted? How do I get my Bio and submission approved? Facebook links have been flagged, can you help explain an alternative? Thanks in advance

Don Gee DonGeeMusic DonGeeMusic (talk) 22:55, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You shouldn't be writing an encyclopaedia article about yourself.A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 22:56, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@User:DonGeeMusic: Welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia is not a place to promote yourself. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 22:58, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, So how would I appear on Wiki?
Who writes the correct information?
Ani I'm not trying to promote myself, we are trying to add Don Gee's Bio Information to the system.
All we ask for is guidance in taking the proper steps.— Preceding unsigned comment added by DonGeeMusic (talkcontribs) 23:30, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Multiple volunteers don't need to be prompted or paid; they'll spontaneously write about people they've never met who are genuinely noteworthy. So just sit back and wait. (Why the rush?) -- Hoary (talk) 23:23, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
DonGeeMusic (ec) Wikipedia is not a place for musicians or people in general to merely post their biographical information; that is what social media is for. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and as an encyclopedia Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about(in this case) a musician, showing how they meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable musician. To put it another way, Wikipedia is interested in what others completely unaffiliated with you choose to say about you, not what you want to say about yourself. As noted, autobiographical articles(which includes if you represent Don Gee) are strongly discouraged, as people naturally write favorably about themselves. The best way for you to "appear on wiki" is to allow independent editors to take note of your career in reliable sources and choose on their own to write about you. Be aware that a Wikipedia article is not necessarily desirable; there are good reasons to not want one. 331dot (talk) 23:26, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You ask, who writes it? Someone else who believes you are notable and preferably has no conflict of interest with the subject. The "correct information" is whatever appears in verifiable, reliable, and independent (that is, not written by you) sources. Facebook is never an acceptable source.
Who is "we" you are referring to? Are you Don Gee or someone else? Who exactly has access to your account?
And also please answer, exactly what criteria in WP:MUSICBIO does Don Gee meet to merit an article on Wikipedia? ~Anachronist (talk) 23:27, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the information.— Preceding unsigned comment added by DonGeeMusic (talkcontribs) 23:30, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Article not appearing on google

Hi,

The page here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yonov_Frederick_Agah does not show up on google searches. When it was first created, it showed up as the first result on google, however, now it does not - what could be the issue? Thank you, Terfreagah (talk) 23:55, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ask Google. We don't care about your SEO efforts. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 00:00, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Your silence could have spoken much more louder especially on something you do not care about Terfreagah (talk) 00:08, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Or, rephrased: Wikipedia isn't Google's puppetmaster. Instead, Google follows its own algorithms for such purposes. -- Hoary (talk) 01:48, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A) I just entered "Yonov Frederick Agah" at Google and it DID show the Wikipedia article. B) Wikipedia has no control over what Google does or does not do. David notMD (talk) 02:31, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It might have been marked reviewed by someone, probably by accident, and picked up by google. But it's unreviewed right now. So, it should disappear from the results once google updates and syncs all servers, provided it doesn't get reviewed again. Usedtobecool ☎️ 03:14, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Creating New Articles

Why can't I create a new page on English Wikipedia, even though I'm already logged in? Dan Earth (talk) 00:00, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Probably because you're new. How about returning to your creation Draft:Akademi Sahur Asia (season 3), improving it, and submitting it as a candidate to be an article? -- Hoary (talk) 01:45, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If after being fixed, how do I submit it as a candidate to be an article? Dan Earth (talk) 01:55, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Earth, I've added "{{subst:AfC draft|Dan Earth}}" to the draft. When you're confident about it, click on "Submit the draft for review!". -- Hoary (talk) 02:55, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To merge or not to merge

I'm considering merging Enhanced podcast into Podcast and wanted some input. I think Enhanced podcast passes WP:N and could continue to exist as a stand-alone article, but WP:MERGEREASON suggests that smaller topics should sometimes be merged into broader parent topics and I don't think the article will ever be much bigger than a stub. I didn't open a merge discussion because the article and the podcasting wikiproject get so little traffic that I don't think I would've gotten any input.

I was also curious what other editors thought of the sources. A lot of them seem to be promoting software used to create enhanced podcasts. Does that make those sources unreliable or non-independent because they have a vested interest in the use of the medium? Should those sources be removed or should the conflict of interest be mentioned in the article itself? TipsyElephant (talk) 02:37, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What I think of the sources? WP:REFBOMB, for one thing. As for your main question, I suggest that you ask at Talk:Podcast. -- Hoary (talk) 04:25, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible to bring articles from other language Wikipedias here?

Would there be any issues with copyright if I take an article from a different language Wikipedia (that does not yet exist here), translate it into English, and then add it to the English Wikipedia? Since the text would not be originally written by me but instead translated from text that was written by multiple editors on the source Wiki, how can I properly attribute that? Additionally, is it alright if the sources, even if reliable, are in another language/the language of the source, or does at least one/a few have to be in English since this is the English Wikipedia? Thank you - Normal Name (talk) 02:40, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for asking a good question. Yes, there are copyright issues, and there are other issues besides. Please see Help:Translation for relevant warnings and suggestions. No, there's no requirement that any source should be in English. -- Hoary (talk) 03:04, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Possibility of becoming an administrator

Based on my previous contributions and my conduct, how likely would I succeed making a request for Adminship, I thought I'd ask this here before making a request, I was blocked 1 month ago, but I believe I have learned from it and become much better, I'm reverting and removing alot of vandalism through the recent changes section as well as warning and reporting where necessary. StarryNightSky11(talk)(cont) 02:52, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@StarryNightSky11: Could you fix your signature please, your user link goes to StarryNightSky11 instead of User:StarryNightSky11. Cheers! ~TNT (she/they • talk) 02:57, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@StarryNightSky11: (edit conflict) To respond to your question though - at the moment, you would not pass a request for adminship. The requirements for adminship on the English Wikipedia are very high (some might say too high, but this certainly isn't the venue for that discussion). You will need to be an active and constructive member of the community for a good year or two before revisiting this idea Your block, while something which may be brought up, is likely to be overlooked if you have a couple of years under your belt of being helpful, friendly and constructive ~TNT (she/they • talk) 03:01, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Unlikely. I suggest that you don't apply till a full year has passed after any block. -- Hoary (talk) 02:59, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I wish you well, StarryNightSky11, but remember that success in this isn't merely a function of (i) whether/when one did something stupid oneself, and (ii) how vigorous one has been in reverting/combatting others' stupidities. Among other strengths, you really need a good understanding of Wikipedia or at least an awareness of the limits to your understanding. Here's a recent edit summary of yours: "infobox added, all other articles about real people have one so why shouldn't this". Not true: Plenty of articles about real people don't have one. And the reason isn't just editorial laziness. As just one example, Adolfo Farsari is a featured article about a real person that doesn't have one. (And, in my view, the lack of an infobox in that article is a good thing, though this is hardly the place for a discussion about the desirability of biographical infoboxes.) -- Hoary (talk) 03:18, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) @Hoary and TheresNoTime: Thanks for the advice, very helpful. Also I've now fixed my signature hadn't even realised it had an issue. Best StarryNightSky11(talk) 03:21, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@StarryNightSky11: No worries Give me a ping in a month or so if you'd be interested in having rollback rights to help with anti-vandalism. Just remember, there are simple ways to react to content disagreements, and try not to let things get to you too much ~TNT (she/they • talk) 03:28, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@TheresNoTime: Interesting could be useful, I'll keep it in mind. Thanks again StarryNightSky11(talk) 03:34, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Made a Article, is it ok?

Please someone publish this article - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Turkmen Wikiman2021language (talk) 04:37, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have published Southern Turkmen, but those references which I have looked at talk about Turkmen, but not specifically about "Southern Turkmen" so I have proposed the article for deletion. You need to demonstrate the notability of the subject, and if the article were to remain you would also need to expand the bare urls which you have used as references. --David Biddulph (talk) 05:15, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The first reference I looked at (one hosted at sil.org) was unfortunately not a paper; it merely described a paper, one that appeared in the journal article of which this is the contents list. It's specifically about Iranian Turkmen, aka Southern Turkmen. I've therefore removed the prod, though I agree that this stub needs a lot more work. -- Hoary (talk) 05:42, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Iranian Turkmens is an existing article. If the there are good sources, that article could be expanded with something about language. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:15, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

([[User talk:David Biddulph]), It still talks about the variety of Turkmen spoken in Iran and Afghanistan. It doesn't say Southern Turkmen, so should I change it to Afghan or Iranian Turkmen, or something else? (talk) , 8 August 2021 (UTC)

David Biddulph Courtesy ping. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:12, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How to create a new Wikipedia page?

 Subhaji86 (talk) 07:25, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Subhaji86 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Successfully creating a new Wikipedia article(not just a "page") is one of the hardest things to do on Wikipedia. It takes much time, effort, and practice. You greatly increase your chances of success if you first spend much time editing existing articles in areas that interest you, to get a feel for how Wikipedia operates and what is expected of article content. Using the new user tutorial helps as well. Diving right in to article creation can lead to disappointment, frustration, and hurt feelings as your work that you spend hours on is mercilessly edited and deleted by others, often for reasons that an inexperienced user doesn't understand. For that reason, I strongly advise you to edit existing articles first.
However, if you wish to attempt to create a new article now, please read Your First Article, gather as many independent reliable sources with significant coverage as you can, determine if the subject you wish to write about is notable as Wikipedia defines it, and then visit Articles for Creation to create and submit a draft. 331dot (talk) 07:30, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How to stop edit war, vandalism ???

Hiii, their is consistently vandalism happening on Neeraj Chopra. Some edit war is happening for to push his cast name on other, such as this user User:The Arora ji is reverting again and again other users edits, they also don't write summary. I think they have to be blocked from editing. Some users added insulting information about Bullying of that athlete in his childhood. They also mentioned the name by which bullies use to insult him. It's intolerable, not acceptable. Bullying is a bad thing and horrible experience by through many kids go everyday. So don't glorify bullies by mentioning their things on WP. I need you to remove it from personal life & early life sub-section and block the user who is writing it on that article. regardsNewton Euro (talk) 08:29, 8 August 2021 (UTC) Newton Euro (talk) 08:29, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not vandalism. The caste dispute edits by The Arira ji have been reverted. The mention of the term he was teased with as an obese child is confirmed in a reference. You have raised the question of whether childhood bullying/teasing belongs in the article on the article's Talk page. Continue there. David notMD (talk) 09:45, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Surge elec is doing repeated reverts on this article without discussing on talk page. As I read in WP rules and regulations, 1 can't revert more than 3 times in a article in 24 hrs. But this user reverting many many times. You can check this article's history. Take appropriate actions. Nothing elseNewton Euro (talk) 11:32, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, I have only reverted once. I have not reverted multiple times. You may check. Surge_Elec (talk) 11:34, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Resp. admins - I have reverted my revert for which they have asked you to "take appropriate actions" against me. Surge_Elec (talk) 11:59, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources."

Hello! I'm sure you can tell that I'm new here. For the past day, I've been trying to create a wiki page for my programming language. This programming language is still in a very early development stage, so there's not that much information to put in the article at the moment. I've put all the information about this programming language that I know won't change any time soon. I've made sure to reference my codebase and GitHub pages, and I did use the GitHub API to get an accurate date for the first appearance of my programming language. And I'm the creator of this language. What am I doing wrong in this page exactly? Can someone explain more to me?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Mur-Lang EnderAdel (talk) 09:58, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@EnderAdel Firstly, you need to declare a conflict of interest. If it's in early development, then it might be a case of WP:TOOSOON, unless there are multiple reliable, secondary sources. ― Qwerfjkltalk 11:04, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Second, you have no valid references. Confirming something exists (your programming language) does zero toward Wikipedia's concept of notability. Not until people completely unconnected to you or the company are publishing articles about the language, could this be considered as a topic for an article. (Wikipedia does not have "pages".) WP:TOOSOON clearly applies.

Background: It's always a bad idea to look at AfD. @Possibly: has successfully convinced me in an AfD discussion that Bruno Bergner, a German graphic artist responsible for the advertising materials of a former German petrol chain, isn't notable in himself. Bergner's article is too long and detailed given that there's only one decent source, but it'd be a pity to lose everything. The logical thing to do is to merge into an article on the petrol chain for which he worked, only we don't have an article. So I'm doomed to translating the German article so I can add the short sentence that Bergner does deserve... (and I shall cry if it doesn't qualify in itself for notability, or promptly gets prodded/sent to AfD five minutes after it hits main-space, but hey, that's life; draft under construction here [3]).

Question: The German WP article on this petrol chain, [4] has a couple of pictures of Gasolin's logo at the top, but they don't appear when referred to in the English WP. The reason is that the files are in German WP, not in Commons. They can't be transferred to Commons because of copyright issues. I believe that it's allowable to show a company's logo, even though it's copyright, provided it's done in a low resolution, as an identifier of the company? Would this be an appropriate thing to do in an article on Gasolin AG? If so, how do I go about doing it? Sorry to be a bit stupid about this, but I've not done it before... Elemimele (talk) 10:49, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Elemimele If you create an en-WP Gasolin AG article, then you can add a logo, after the article is moved to mainspace. You upload it locally at en-WP as well. This is fairly simple, start at Wikipedia:File Upload Wizard, click "Upload a non-free file" follow instructions, choose "This is a copyrighted, non-free work, but I believe it is Fair Use." > "This is a logo of an organization, company, brand, etc." A bot will take care of any high-res problem after awhile, so you don't have to worry about that part. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:23, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Gråbergs Gråa Sång brilliant! I'll get the article finished, leaving the non-functional images as place-holders, and deal with it on transfer to main space. Thank you for the instructions, it's much appreciated. Elemimele (talk) 11:38, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

how do I change a page in order to turn it to be editeble

 Abraham shoshani (talk) 10:55, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Abraham shoshani You might be looking for Wikipedia:Unprotection. ― Qwerfjkltalk 10:59, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Edit requests may be of help. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:12, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ןis it immposible to edit the page on major deptrssion added in this edit by Abraham shoshani — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abraham shoshani (talkcontribs)

Abraham shoshani, Major depressive disorder is "semi-protected". On its talk page, Talk:Major depressive disorder, feel free to suggest improvements to the article. -- Hoary (talk) 12:18, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protected means your account needs to be more than four days old, and you have to have done more than ten edits. David notMD (talk) 14:06, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying to publish a new article but the follow message appears: "Blacklisting indicates past problems with the link, so any requests should clearly demonstrate how inclusion would benefit Wikipedia. The following link has triggered a protection filter: 10 Either that exact link, or a portion of it (typically the root domain name) is currently blocked."

The problem is that it doesn't tell me which link is on the blacklist.

How can I found which link is on the blacklist? LuisaGoncalves2021 (talk) 11:35, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@LuisaGoncalves2021 Based on your comment and edithistory I can't say, but the list is here: [5]. Perhaps you can figure it out with some ctrl-f:ing. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:02, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@LuisaGoncalves2021: Special:Log/spamblacklist/LuisaGoncalves2021 shows https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwjhqLmG_KDyAhWUrHEKHeX4ALsQFnoECAUQAw&url=https://u.ae/-/media/Science-Technology-and-Innovation-Policy.ashx&usg=AOvVaw3rsRGDIeAliu0bp2_0AXBh. You probably copied that link from a Google search results page. Add the actual url of the source: https://u.ae/-/media/Science-Technology-and-Innovation-Policy.ashx. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:19, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have tweaked MediaWiki:Spamprotectionmatch so the url is now displayed in the message. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:06, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What is second wiki?

In planning to expand and improve the article Lauricocha culture, I ran across the "second.wiki" website [6]. At first glance the second wiki article is a translation into English of the Spanish language Wikipedia article Hombre de Lauricocha. It is a much more complete article than the present English Wikipedia article on the Lauricocha culture. What is second wiki? Could I just copy the English translation of the Hombre de Lauricocha article into the English wikipedia article with attribution? Or is this a copyright no-no? Smallchief (talk) 12:31, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am not experienced at copyright related stuffs but you could add some lines from spanish wiki to english wiki, and use reference as the referenced used in spanish wiki. DONT reference the spanish wiki page. Cite the reference which spanish wiki page has used in texts. If some text is used in spanish wiki, then using similar at english wont create any copyright issue imo. Also, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Even when using own words, you still have to cite the sources sources to verify the information Machinexa (talk) 13:29, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I would still like to know what is "second wiki." Smallchief (talk) 14:22, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't easily find an about-page, so my guess is some sort of Wikipedia mirror. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:50, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to incorrect entry. I tried to fix it, but it was reverted.

Folk University is an educational institution type mostly targeted at adults in Sweden (multiple, at least 6 schools throughout country), Norway (30 offices throughout the country) and Netherlands (as far as I know, there is only one, in Amsterdam). English Wikipedia has only an article for People's University of Amsterdam.

For some reason Folk University page is a redirect to People's University of Amsterdam. This is confusing and wrong. I tried to change the redirect into a disambiguation page, but it was reverted, because only People's University of Amsterdam has a Wikipedia page.

Another wrong redirect is Folkuniversitetet. It is a Swedish word and if it should redirect to anything, it should be some page about Swedish education system, or general page about folk universities (which doesn't exist), or a disambiguation page. There is no reason whatsoever for a Swedish word to redirect to Dutch Folk University, especially that Swedish institutions of this type exist.

What is the correct course of action here? Redirecting every general definition to a single page about one Dutch institution is a bad idea. It's like instantly redirecting the word Canal to Suez Canal, just beacause there is no entry for canals in general, or Panama Canal, or Canals of Venice. Marcos [Tupungato] (talk) 12:35, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is Folk high school (where German Volkshochschule redirects to) a better target? If not, then nominating these redirects at WP:RFD is the way to go, as you make a good case why they are misleading. —Kusma (talk) 12:53, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Creating a new article when redirect already exists

Hi, I'm trying to create a new article for "Joan Irvine Smith" but a redirect already exists to a section of an existing article. Because of this I don't see the red link that gives the new page creation option. Not sure how to start the new article and remove the redirect, if necessary.

Thanks! Alan Alan Islas (talk) 12:59, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Alan Islas. See Help:Redirect#Creating and editing redirects. If your article is about a different person then please fix the links at Special:WhatLinksHere/Joan Irvine Smith so they get the right target. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:11, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I need help on editing Tokyo Metro 01 series and Tokyo Metro 03 series

 86.12.228.137 (talk) 14:21, 8 August 2021 (UTC) I keep providing unreliable sources and I need help to edit an article.[reply]

Hi! I'm not sure exactly what the issue here, but i'd recommend discussing on the relevant talk pages (e.g. Talk:Tokyo Metro 03 series or seeking help/mentorship at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains, where people who know about trains and appropriate sources for train-related articles hang out. Or let us know here a little more about the problems you are having. From what I can tell it looks like you have been mostly removing information, and others have been putting it back, but I haven't looked through your contributions thoroughly. Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:08, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Map pics

Hello Teahouse hosts. I'm working on an article that is in my sandbox HERE, and I'm having some trouble when I insert images. For example, THIS ARTICLE'S IMAGE of the Plymouth Sound map is splendid with the location identified with a red dot and label which reads Plymouth Sound. I very much desire to use this red-dotted and appropriately labled image. However, when I copy the image file and paste it to my sandbox-draft-article, the dot and label drop out. So, how do I get the information to transfer with the pic? Kind regards to allHu Nhu (talk) 15:16, 8 August 2021 (UTC) Hu Nhu (talk) 15:16, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Hu Nhu: Hello, welcome to the teahouse! There are a variety of ways of making maps for articles, Wikipedia:Maps for Wikipedia is a relatively comprehensive list of the various types and styles available. The ones with the red dot are made using Template:Location map, which requires you to specify two parameters, the map, and the location and style of the marker. The template documentation includes an explanation of the various parameters you can use and a couple of examples of how to set up a map with a marker. Hope this helps, 192.76.8.91 (talk) 15:32, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @192.76.8.91:. I've give this an attempt which you can see HERE I'm utterly baffled by what I'm doing wrong. From the page Plymouth Sound I also see no template yet a location map is definitely on the Plymouth Sound page. What am I doing wrong? Kind regardsHu Nhu (talk) 19:57, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Hu Nhu: You've almost got it, there's just a few errors in the way you've called the template: The template is called "location map" rather than "Relief location map", the map you want is called "Devon" rather than "Devon UK", and you've got an extra decimal point in your lon_deg parameter (you can either use decimal degrees in the lon_deg parameter or you need to use the lon_deg, lon_min and lon_sec for degrees, minuites, seconds). Try this code:
{{location map|Devon
|alt     = 
|lat_deg = 50.359667
|lon_deg = -4.143
}}
The reason you can't see the template in the other article is because the infobox includes a copy of the maps code. Hope this helps, 192.76.8.91 (talk) 20:17, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much. I've tried this with mixed results. In the end, I decided it did not really work so well for the article. I do very much appreciate your kind attention. Most kind regardsHu Nhu (talk) 03:45, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No any reference in internet will my page published in wiki

Hello Shihan Ramji Prasad Bajracharya is my father who passed away few months back due to covid 19. He was a martial artist and he is highly admired in Nepal. I just wanted to write about his history and contributions in wiki so that People in Nepal get chance to know more about him but there are no any reference in internet as a son I just wanted to publish some of his history through wiki will my Page get published as there is no any reliable references in internet. But I have his all historic pictures and videos. As a son I know his history. 43.245.86.8 (talk) 16:12, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 43.245.86.8. Very sorry to hear that. Unfortunately, this isn't really what Wikipedia is for. You could potentially write an article about him but there would have to be significant coverage of him in reliable sources, which per what you stated there probably isn't. You can use offline sources, if those exist, but they need to be reliable sources and we can't use people themselves as references. Wikipedia also recommends not writing about subjects where you have a conflict of interest, and isn't meant to include your own research and findings. Hope this helps, Rubbish computer Ping me or leave a message on my talk page 16:26, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia has rules. The relevant policy here is WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Articles written to memorialize someone are not allowed. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:22, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello IP editor. May I both offer you my condolences for the loss of your father to this awful virus, and also offer some practical advice to achieve your goal? I understand your desire to write about your father and to share memories and achievements with the world. (One day, I may do the same for members of my own family who have passed on. I have boxes of material I could use for this task) But you really don't want to waste your time trying to do this on Wikipedia. Instead, why not create a webpage about them using a free tool such as Google's Blogger? I have created a few such sites with https://www.blogger.com/, and they cost nothing to run, and so remain online for many years even if its creator has passed on. You would also have total control over what you put there, with nobody else able to alter anything (unlike here on Wikipedia). You would find the experience far less stressful, and it may also be a very therapeutic task for you and perhaps other family members to come together to collate those important memories of your father. Kind regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 23:14, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Urgent:How to stop a user from unexplained removal of multiple citations from many pages.

Hi, in the process of updating the flag bearers with Citations for various countries participating in the 2020 Olympics, I discovered that this user(Skpaw)(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Skpaw) is actively deleting all the citations for flag bearers for multiple countries. He has already done this to the country pages for ROC/Singapore/Spain/Sri Lanka/Estonia/Argentina and many other countries in his contributions. I am in the process of reverting the edits but there are too many. Is there any way to stop him from removing all these citations? Atom105 (talk) 16:30, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Atom105 I have issued user a final warning, I thought user only did it to Singapore 2020 olympics article but seem like user didn't stop. If user continue with the disruptive behavior, please report user to WP:AIV. Paper9oll (🔔📝) 16:40, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In addition, from the contributions log, user also happily added content without actually adding the source by simply just mentioning them inside the edit summary which is pretty much useless and incorrect way to do it. Paper9oll (🔔📝) 16:44, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Paper9oll Hi, yes i noticed. However i am new here and not really sure how/what to do for WP:AIV. Can you report instead please? Meanwhile, I am trying to find and revert the citations he deleted. Thanks! Atom105 (talk) 16:47, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Atom105 No problem. I will continue to monitor the user to see if user stop their disruptive behavior. Paper9oll (🔔📝) 16:52, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I have finished reverting 15 edits done by Skpaw(in which he removed all citations) Atom105 (talk) 17:35, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is Draft:Stephen_Hogan still that bad?

I cannot believe there is not a single inclusionist left here. After I elaborated on his stage performances, he should be notable enough. I don't know what kind of depth the other deletionists are looking for from reliable sources. It's a cruel world that seems to suppress the actor from being recognized. Thanks. Supermann (talk) 18:10, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Supermann, it's no better than before. It reads like a collection of links which mention Hogan, tied together with dodgy PR language. On 22 July, you were requested: "If you would like your submission to be considered for the millionth time, please identify the WP:THREE highest-quality, most in-depth sources about the subject and paste them on the talk page [of the draft]. Once you have done so, you may resubmit for consideration of those sources." You haven't done that yet, most likely because the sources don't exist.
If you are an undeclared paid editor working for The Lisa Richards Agency, or are in any way connected (socially, employment-wise, etc.) to Hogan, you must declare your conflict of interest on your User page or risk your account on Wikipedia being blocked.--Quisqualis (talk) 19:36, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Conflict of Interest? Please ask Deep Throat to expose me. There isn't conflict of interests whatsoever. Nil. Zilch! WP:THREE has been done on the talk page. And they still like to diminish him. So unfair with all the other craps out there. This is a violation of the Wikipedia:Five pillars. Thanks. Supermann (talk) 19:59, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Your WP:THREE are pretty weak tea by Wikipedia's standards, being superficial and not in depth, and the last one being ad copy. You are advised to clearly declare on your user page the nature of your connection to Mr. Hogan, if any. Rather than pursue this article to the highest levels of Wikipedia while playing the role of victim, and WP:Wikilawyering in vain, I would suggest assuming good faith and not investing any more energy into Hogan's draft. Yes, he is talented, but no, not notable. This world is indeed a cruel place.--Quisqualis (talk) 20:35, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
How is the last one from the previous THREE from a film review person who has his own page on wikipedia then an ad copy? This just doesn't make sense. And while you ask me to assume good faith, has anyone assumed good faith towards me? It's like guilty until proven innocent!!! Even after deleting all the agency mention? There is nothing to declare in terms of conflicts of interests. You look at his long list of filmography, which each of has its own page, except for the Brooklyn one, and how come that still isn't enough? The following THREE clearly shows his lead role status on stage performance. Yes, it's quite cruel! No wonder the Taliban is winning in 2021. Allahu Akbar!
13) Burnet, Andrew (Sep 22, 2002). "John Mighton's dramatic love story Possible Worlds teases the audience into a parallel universe of romance, murder and mathematics". Sunday Herald. p. 12.
14) Hulme, Alan (March 26, 1999). "FAST FOOD Royal Exchange Studio - Recipe for a tasty night out". Manchester Evening News.
15) Nowlan, David (Nov 26, 1997). "Reviews: Surprise Package". The Irish Times. Retrieved July 27, 2021. Supermann (talk) 20:45, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Irish Times: name mentioned once
Manchester Evening News 1999 is inaccessible
Sunday Herald 2002 is inaccessible
--Quisqualis (talk) 21:05, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You need Factiva or world-class university digital libraries to access these old stuff. During this editing process, I have grown to appreciate them more. I otherwise can't afford the various paywalls out there, because I am not paid by anyone. If you are interested, I can print these reporting back then into a PDF for you to verify it. I am not sure if there are anyone that are stupid enough to fake stuff like this. Supermann (talk) 01:22, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Free link containing the pdfs:
Manchester Evening News - https://www.dropbox.com/s/g2vqjp6u8yq4lsv/%28FACTIVA%29%20FAST%20FOOD%20Royal%20Exchange%20Studio%20-%20Recipe%20for%20a%20tasty%20night%20out.pdf?dl=0
Sunday Herald - https://www.dropbox.com/s/5lphlqxrye4ji9d/Factiva-08August20212129.pdf?dl=0
Non-free Factiva link:
Sunday Herald - https://global.factiva.com/redir/default.aspx?p=sa&an=sundhe0020020923dy9m0000c&cat=a&ep=ASE
Manchester Evening News - https://global.factiva.com/redir/default.aspx?p=sa&an=mn00000020010907dv3q00jjy&cat=a&ep=ASE Supermann (talk) 01:36, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for providing dropbpox versions of those two sources. I've checked both, and found no discussion of Hogan at all, just mentions of him. Maproom (talk) 06:39, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

HELP with moving a page from sandbox to Wikipedia page

I finished an article in my sandbox, tried to convert it to a Wikipedia page, but must have incorrectly used the Move function. All I got was a renaming of my sandbox page with the name of the article, "Fibroblastic/myofibroblastic tumors." I do not know how to correct this change nor how to move it to a new Wikipedia page. I need help here.Joflaher (talk) 18:10, 8 August 2021 (UTC)joflaher Joflaher (talk) 18:10, 8 August 2021 (UTC) Joflaher (talk) 18:11, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Joflaher: Welcome to the Teahouse. I've gone ahead and moved it to Draft:Fibroblastic/myofibroblastic tumors for the time being. If you think it's ready, you can add {{subst:submit}} to the top of the page for review. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 18:19, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Quick Facts" box

Hello! Im new to Wikipedia editing (kinda, i made an edit in 2018, but it was only one edit) and i was wondering how to create the box that usually has facts such as the name and age of the person/thing the article is about (the box is labelled "Quick Facts" on mobile). Thanks! NowInHD (talk) 18:39, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello NowInHD (talk · contribs). I am here checking on a question I posted and I saw your post. I'm not a Teahouse host and so hope I am not somehow violating etiquette. Apologies to all if this is the case. Nevertheless, I may be able to assist you. I've created several articles and included the type of box of which you reference. What I do to accomplish this is look for articles of a similar topic and the copy and paste the box from the edit tab of that article. For example, for a biography article, I look for another biography and use what that editor used. Kind regards,Hu Nhu (talk) 19:35, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
NowInHD, FYI, the box is generically known as an WP:INFOBOX.--Quisqualis (talk) 19:39, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Quisqualis and Hu Nhu! NowInHD (talk) 23:01, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely allowed and encouraged to respond to people on WP:TEAHOUSE, thank you for your helpful answers! Shushugah (he/him • talk) 08:38, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notability tag on high-ranking government official

Hello, pls kindly give opinion on Talk:Yin Yin Oo#Notabality. As I'm an experienced Burmese editor on Wikipedia, I strongly believed that she clearly passes WP:NPOLTaung Tan (talk) 18:41, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Taung Tan, there are a few things happening here. First, please assume good faith, and don't accuse Onel5969 of bullying you just because they PRODed or placed a notability tag on the article. The burden is on the page creator to demonstrate its notability, so if the sourcing isn't readily identifiable as strong enough, reviewers may add those tags. They are making their way through a gigantic mountain of new pages that need to be patrolled and using their best judgement about what is likely to be notable, and I highly doubt they have any particular animosity toward Burmese topics. However, you've made it clear at this point (through de-prodding and then removing the notability tag) that you stand behind the notability of the page, so I think it's incumbent now for Onel to either nominate the page for deletion so that it can go through the community process or let you remove the tag if they are convinced on second look/by the sources you've added that it's notable. @Onel5969, does that sound reasonable? {{u|Sdkb}}talk 19:50, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sdkb Thank you for fair point. I already made it cleart at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Htein Lin (colonel). But he ignored. Taung Tan (talk) 03:21, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Taung Tan. Her notability under NPOL does not seem at all clear to me. She is a member of an advisory board to the military junta. She was formerly a deputy director general of a subdivision of the foreign ministry. Those positions are far from a clear pass of NPOL. Also, the references in the article are passing mentions of her, not significant coverage. If she meets NPOL, then it should be easy to add references to independent sources covering her in much more depth. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 19:56, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi all. The individual clearly does not meet WP:NPOL, as per the current content or sourcing. And the current sourcing does not support GNG. I tagged it to prod (not PROD) other editors to provide sourcing to substantiate any claim to notability. My usual modus operandi is to allow the tag to sit for 1-2 months to allow time for development. At which point in time, if no other editor has improved the article to meet WP notability standards, I'd send it to AfD. A PROD would not be appropriate in this instance, since it would clearly be contested. So I would disagree with Sdkb (although thanks for the ping) that it is now incumbent on me to nominate it for deletion at this time. I think a more appropriate course of action would be for interested editors to improve the article. BTW, I ignore personal attacks or uncivil posts from other editors for the most part, such as that left on the article's talk page. Onel5969 TT me 20:14, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hum ? Deputy head of state level government department does not meets WP:NPOL? Oh my god, really? Do you confusing with head of township level department or district level? I agree that current sourcing does not enough and should be tagged {{refimprove}}. Also an advisor of Union Government of Myanmar is meet NPOL, clearly consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Htein Lin (colonel). onel5969 taken my article to AfD even he was a state minister. Just say it again "minister doesn't passes WP:NPOL". How amazing Wikipedia editors. You should ask to other Burmese editors about Myanmar's political office ranks. Don't judge other country's without knowledge. Ok I'll take back-door nomination. Thanks Taung Tan (talk) 03:09, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Irrawaddy featured her career and position with a paragraph "Daw Yin Yin Oo worked as deputy director general of the foreign ministry of President U Thein Sein’s administration. She retired in 2016 before the NLD government took office. She is the daughter of late president Dr. Maung Maung, who ruled for a month, following the 1988 nationwide uprising. " It is not only single source also can be found at [7]
No. It does not feature her at all. It merely mentions her.--Shantavira|feed me 07:58, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Help, help again in moving my sandbox page "Fibroblastic/myofibroblastic tumors" for review?

Tenryuu, thank you for your speedy reply. I asked the following question "I finished an article in my sandbox, tried to convert it to a Wikipedia page, but must have incorrectly used the Move function. All I got was a renaming of my sandbox page with the name of the article, "Fibroblastic/myofibroblastic tumors." I do not know how to correct this change nor how to move it to a new Wikipedia page. I need help here.Joflaher (talk) 18:10, 8 August 2021 (UTC)joflaher Joflaher (talk) 18:10, 8 August 2021 (UTC) Joflaher (talk) 18:11, 8 August 2021 (UTC) @Joflaher. Ylj replied "Welcome to the Teahouse. I've gone ahead and moved it to Draft:Fibroblastic/myofibroblastic tumors for the time being. If you think it's ready, you can add {{subst:submit}} to the top of the page for review. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 18:19, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

However, I can bring up the full text only when I click on your "Draft:Fibroblastic/myofibroblastic tumors" and see no place at the top of the page, even when I bring up the Move function. Can you give me more directions on how to move the page using {{subst:submit}} or, better still, move it for me?Joflaher (talk) 20:58, 8 August 2021 (UTC) Joflaher (talk) 20:58, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Joflaher: Simply edit the draft, and paste the template {{subst:submit}} at the top of the page. --bonadea contributions talk 21:07, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bonadea, thank you for your reply. Could you be more specific in describing where I past in "{{subst:submit}}" and do I past in just {{AfC submission|||ts=20210808213347|u=Joflaher|ns=4}} rather than the former term. Also, I can not get into my sandbox except to bring up a page which states: Redirect page Jump to navigation Jump to search Redirect to: User:Fibroblastic/myofibroblastic tumors. I really need to get back my old sandbox page along with all of its history of my additions. I tried erasing the above statements but it's still not my old sandbox page. I had planned to start another Wikipage that directly relates to the Draft page topic. Again, thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joflaher (talkcontribs)

@Joflaher: Just edit in {{subst:submit}} at the top, which will notify a reviewer that the draft is ready for review. Your draft is no longer in your sandbox; please work on it at Draft:Fibroblastic/myofibroblastic tumors. Its article history has been moved with it. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 22:14, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) First of all, please don't paste the template into this page – when you do that, it submits this page for review, which is not what you intended! I have added a template to the top of Draft:Fibroblastic/myofibroblastic tumors, so now all you need to do is click on the blue "Submit" button. It needs to be you who does that, to make sure that you show up as the draft creator and are informed of the review process.
I have also tagged for deletion two pages you created by mistake when you moved the draft. Your sandbox history is still visible here, and you can create a new sandbox if you wish, at User:Joflaher/sandbox. I hope this helps – otherwise, please do not hesitate to ask for more help here. I am off to bed (it is past midnight in my time zone) but there are plenty of other helpful editors around. --bonadea contributions talk 22:16, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Citations for information in InfoBox

Hi, I am having a conflict in editing Citations on the Canada at the 2020 Summer Olympics page.

As per WP:HEP 1.3 "Generally, sources are added directly after the facts they support at the end of the sentence and after any punctuation", I am trying to copy the Citations in the main article to the Infobox to reflect that the information is cited. However, another User has now twice reverted my Edits with:
WP:INFOBOX " generally not needed in infoboxes if the content is repeated (and cited) elsewhere" WP:INFOBOXREF

Can I clarify, what is the best practices here? Which WP takes precedence? Is consistency not recommended since other countries Flag Bearer's citations are beside the player names in the infobox? Thanks! Atom105 (talk) 01:05, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:HEP 1.3 tells you how references are added in a situation where they are needed, but WP:INFOBOXREF says they aren't needed in this situation. --David Biddulph (talk) 01:16, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@David Biddulph Ok. So to clarify for country pages which don't have the Flag Bearers with Citations mentioned in the Article itself, I can add the Citations besides their names in the Infobox instead? Atom105 (talk) 02:02, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I take back my previous comment. After some thinking, I decided that I will follow best practice as per WP:INFOBOXREF "However, editors should first consider including the fact in the body of the article." and create paragraph for flag-bearers in the article pages themselves and move the citations to the paragraph from the InfoBox. Atom105 (talk) 04:35, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

new submission

How do I submit a bio for Wikipedia? Jenifer Hood (talk) 01:19, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Added a header to this question. RudolfRed (talk) 01:24, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Jenifer Hood: Can you elaborate on your question please? Are you asking how to submit a biography as an article to be created? Is this an autobiography, biography of a living person, or some other biography? ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲 talk 02:09, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
First step: have a suitable topic. If you don't have a suitable topic, then everything else is a waste of time. Who do you want to write about, and why? DS (talk) 02:10, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My edits to IBM_POWER_microprocessors

Hello, I made significant changes from the existing page because it is wholly inaccurate all the way through - most of it is entirely made up fiction. I am the original inventor of the RS/6000 and POWER series of processors, and I am the sole shareholder and owner of IBM, so all of the information I put in it is 100% accurate.

My edit should be posted publicly. Ndrw010 (talk) 02:43, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What on earth does IBM POWER microprocessors have to do with organized crime? Diff. ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲 talk 02:50, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
IBM is a public company with many shareholders. Don't feed the trolls. -- Longhair\talk 03:24, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Policy Question: Removal of Content At Behest of Living Person

Greetings!

I have had an account on Wikipedia for a bit now and I mostly partake in RC patrolling. During my patrol today I noticed the following edit: link.

I'm actually... not too sure how to handle this. The only policy (that I can find, though I didn't look for too long) that might apply is WP:REDACTION, though that seems to more so be a disclaimer about inappropriate content being on Wikipedia, rather than the redaction of information. My intuition tells me that this is not how Wikipedia works, and that content should be added and be present so long as it is truthful, but I'd like to get the opinion/advisement of more senior editors. Sirdog9002 (talk) 04:25, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To add-on a query; shouldn't there be a link or verification email from the User(User Naldo247 in this case) editing it which shows that the real Ms. Bisnath has actually told him/her to remove these references? else I can also claim to be Ms. Bisnath and request deletion of certain information. Atom105 (talk) 04:42, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NPF and WP:AVOIDVICTIM seem pertinent here. WP:BLP1E too for that matter. I'd be inclined to nominate for deletion actually, under BLP1E. PrimalBlueWolf (talk) 05:00, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Many editors keep disliking pageant bios and many editors keep creating them. I have argued for deletion for sub-country pageant winners before, but I don't think I would support deletion of country winners. They usually easily pass WP:GNG. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 05:34, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Article nominated for deletion by PrimalBlueWolf
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ysabel Bisnath is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ysabel Bisnath until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

PrimalBlueWolf (talk) 06:27, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Sirdog9002 your intuition is correct. This is not how Wikipedia works. The article is not her CV. It is not her profile. It is not her page. Whether it adds value to her future career is the farthest thing from what would be valid inclusion or exclusion criteria. It appears that the only reason she even has an article is the pageantry. With that removed, the article is WP:A7. We do not need to verify whether the account is being truthful in claiming that they are acting on behalf of the subject, because in either case, the way we treat them does not change. They have a WP:COI which they should follow. That said, they can remove content per WP:BLP in which case the content can't be restored without consensus. Or they can ask for an AFD per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE; editors may ask for proof of identity in this case. I doubt there will be consensus to deleting an article on Miss [Country] just because they'd like to be known as a lawyer. But who knows? It could be, though unlikely, that she fails WP:GNG. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 05:12, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Usedtobecool Thank you for your lengthy answer, the clarification is appreciated! The same goes for you taking the time to revert the edit yourself. Cheers! Sirdog9002 (talk) 06:22, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers! Usedtobecool ☎️ 06:56, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

is it acceptable to place wikisource author template https://it.wikisource.org/wiki/Autore:Marianna_Candidi_Dionigi on Marianna Candidi Dionigi. if yes, what is the right way? 28july21 (talk) 04:32, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@28july21, hi! (Not any kind of expert in these matters but) the wikisource link is included in wikidata[8]. The article on Italian Wikipedia seems to show that link on the left sidebar but the English Wikipedia does not. So, I am thinking these choices were made deliberately. If the Italian wikisource link were suitable for the English Wikipedia article, the system should have also put it into the "In other projects" of the left sidebar where there is only a link to Commons currently. Best, Usedtobecool ☎️ 08:57, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources

What are reliable sources and how to add them? I'm confused about reliable sources. Can someone help me? Thanks. MrDude1881 (talk) 05:05, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@MrDude1881: Did you read Wikipedia:Reliable sources? It explains everything. ~Anachronist (talk) 06:27, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
MrDude1881, did you read the responses in the lowermost thread in "archive 1119"? (They're written especially for you.) One recommends Help:Menu/Site map. You look within that for "reliable source", and you click on the link. -- Hoary (talk) 07:00, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Declined Draft: Lalitha Kanneganti - Problem with Resubmission

I have recently submitted a draft titled Lalitha Kanneganti which was declined. Thereafter, when i try to resubmit the draft with the suggested changes it shows the following error "Your edit was not saved because it contains a new external link to a site registered on Wikipedia's blacklist or Wikimedia's global blacklist"

How can I resolve it? Acrobat248 (talk) 07:14, 9 August 2021 (UTC) Acrobat248 (talk) 07:14, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Acrobat248, direct external links should not appear in the content of Wikipedia articles. I have therefore removed one from Draft:Lalitha Kanneganti. I don't know if this is related to your blacklist problem. Maproom (talk) 07:29, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Maproom, it is still showing the same error. How can I identify the link?

Help with my article

I wrote an article about a French-Afghan journalist, would anyone be able to look at it? I am especially curious about if the sources are alright.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Mortaza_Behboudi Fredellis01 (talk) 07:41, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Fredellis01: Since this is a BLP, some of the primary sources are unlikely to hold up. ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲 talk 08:00, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Level of changes

When you state your preferences, you can choose the difficulty of the changes you want to make, but for me, the ast difficulty level is locked. I tried creating a page, make ten changes but that didn't unlock it. Do you know how to unlock it ?Craffaeldabest (talk) 08:10, 9 August 2021 (UTC) Craffaeldabest (talk) 08:10, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Craffaeldabest Welcome to the Teahouse! Are you talking about WP:AUTOCONFIRM? If so, you're not there yet, see [9]. If you are thinking about starting new articles, take the time to read Help:Your first article. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:17, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Net worth policy for public figures?

I think that in the past net worth of business magnates was in their info box, maybe something changed, is there a Wikipedia policy on this? My question is (1) does net worth belong in the info box and (2) what is considered a proper source for this? There seems to be many unreliable websites for this info. I was not able to find this info at WP:BLP. For example it seems useful to have net worth in the info box for https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_Bezos and other similar people, instead of buried in the page content. CosmicNotes (talk) 08:35, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@CosmicNotes, hi! It was deprecated. See Template talk:Infobox person#Deprecating the net worth parameter?. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 08:59, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Usedtobecool Thanks! CosmicNotes (talk) 09:47, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How do I get responses regarding deleted contributions?

Hi there, my contribution to the article Locach was deleted by Cassiopeia in a few seconds after I published it. It only took Cassiopeia less than one minute to read, delete, write and send me an email telling me that I hadn't included a reliable citation. However, after I responded and explained what reliable source I had used, I haven't received any response for three days. How may I hear from Cassiopeia and get the problem resolved? Thank you.

The Talk communications are included below for your convenience:

Hello, I'm Cassiopeia. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Locach, but you didn't provide a source. I’ve removed it for now, but if you’d like to include a citation to a reliable source and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Cassiopeia(talk) 06:22, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

You are so fast! However, I did include a reliable source, a scholarly article by a senior scholar in the field published in a peer-reviewed leading journal that is over seven decades old. Did you see it? Thanks. Laodaahh (talk) 07:05, 6 August 2021 (UTC) Laodaahh (talk) 09:41, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]