Wikipedia:Teahouse

Marchjuly, a Teahouse host

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

Ask a question

Question forumMeet your hostsArticles to improveBecome a host

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

Help Wikipedia

My post was removed and someone said I was trying to promote

I didn't want to promote but I was kinda explaining the account and I really only need my wiki thing up for at least 10 hours so I can get what I need to happen which is trying to get my Twitter verified somehow. I'm just 13 so you also can't expect a wiki paragraph that I write to look good OverLord Official (talk) 05:31, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

OverLord Official, we hope that paragraphs look good, but we don't demand it. After all, we can make them look good, if they say something worth saying. What you wrote in your sandbox read in part If anyone knows me and sees this then add anything that is NOT info at all. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not some kind of "social media" proving ground or playground; any sensible 13- or 83-year-old knows the difference. -- Hoary (talk) 05:49, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

And don't ask the same question here and at Help. Duplication wastes volunteers' time. David notMD (talk) 10:21, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

General comment for anyone skimming the Teahouse. I'm not into Twitter, but I believe they suspended account verification for quite a while and are now re-introducing it. https://help.twitter.com/en/managing-your-account/about-twitter-verified-accounts says To receive the blue badge, your account must be authentic, notable, and active. ... Notable ... Companies, brands, and organizations: ... must meet 2 of the following [three] requirements: presence in public indices, including but not limited to ... stable Wikipedia articles that meet the encyclopedia’s notability standards, ... On one hand, it's nice that Twitter has some faith in us; on the other hand the extra criteria are non-trivial: significant recent mentions in Verified news sources or top .05% (!) ranking in followers. ⁓ Pelagic ( messages ) 17:54, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

I dont use twitter, but as far as the standards in wikipedia, Incorporating Direct Links into your SNS profile / Writing a promotional Statements such as asking people to add, follow or check, your SNS profile, is not acceptable at any circumstances. And What is the benefit of having the badge anyway ? 海之 09:48, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Editors creating paintings for articles

This is an odd one so I thought I would ask here, where odd questions are welcomed. Over at this version of Barbara Teller Ornelas, the infobox image is a watercolour painting of the subject, done by the editor who created the page. I'm sure we would be OK with an editor having taken a photograph and added it to an article they created, since photographs are relatively 'objective', but I am wondering what others think about the portrait being an artistic interpretation? I've asked the editor about possible COI, but that's a separate issue. Thanks. --- Possibly ☎ 00:44, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Possibly, for letting me know via my talk page that you were starting a discussion at the Teahouse. I would also like to add my input to the discussion here, as I have done on my talk page and on the Barbara Teller Ornelas talk page. I am a professional artist. Some of my paintings are in museums. I made a quick painting, I believe a good one, for the article because there was no photo. Please feel free to add a photo to the article if you find one. Maybe Wikimedia Commons and Wikipedia should establish some criteria for paintings used as portraits. Second, I have not met Barbara Teller Ornelas. There is no COI. I created the article for the WikiProject: Indigenous women. Shari Garland (talk) 04:39, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

It seems like the discussion has taken root on the article talk page, which might be the best place to respond if anyone is interested. --- Possibly ☎ 04:42, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Here is my representation of Barbara Teller Ornelas for those who might want to know the source of this topic. Shari Garland (talk) 16:47, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

• 
  Barbara Teller Ornelas

Questions remain:

1) Should I, as a professional artist, continue to make watercolor paintings and upload them to Wikimedia Commons for Wikipedia articles?
2) Should my watercolor portrait of Barbara Teller Ornelas be added back to the article Barbara Teller Ornelas?
3) If the answer to question 2) is yes, then who should add my watercolor portrait of Barbara Teller Ornelas back to the article?

Shari Garland (talk) 18:41, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Barbara Teller Ornelas State Department portrait

I'll give you my opinion: 1) No, based on your painting and the photo I don't think interpretations like this are useful in the WP-context. 2) No, not unless it has coverage in indepentent WP:RS, and if so, not as leadimage. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:54, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Another opinion: 1) No. 2) No. (A photograph has been added.) David notMD (talk) 00:12, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Is there a new policy - revert IP users with impunity?

This is happening increasingly: I make a reasonable - but, I accept, as always, debatable - edit, which is reverted so fast, that I can only think that it was done without any kind of checking. (I mean, the edit of mine above, as with similar recent incidents, does not scream "disruptive edit" on the face of it, I believe - So should deserve at least a cursory look to check.)

As in this case, when I check the reverter's history, there are masses of reversions, often solely, or nearly so, of IP editors. There is generally a mix of good and bad reversions, as in this case. It is also quite commonly an editor who does not use edit summaries.

I accept that if I choose not to register, I have to take the rough with the smooth, and I see lots of implicit and explicit suspicion of IP editors. I know there are reasons, too. That has never worried me (too much!), but there seems to be a noticeable upsurge in this kind of thing. And it's getting disheartening. Could there be any special reason for this taking off in the last few months? For example, are there special anti-vandalism projects that newly registered users are encouraged to undertake? Or something like that? Any ideas? I'd like to know how long to lay low for, giving WP a bit of rest, if I have to ride-out an anti-IP reversion campaign. But editing has been a real life-saver for me throughout the pandemic, restrictions, etc.

Also, can anything more be done to try to encourage habitual non-users of edit-summaries to a more collegial approach? I find the discourtesy of being reverted with no edit summary whatsoever, quite in-your-face hostile. I would never behave that way to others on WP, so find it really objectionable in registered users - some of whom seem to think they're superior creatures to troublesome varmint IPs.

Rant ended. Thanks for listening. 49.177.69.7 (talk) 12:04, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

I opened a report on ANI about this particular editor about an hour ago here: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Safari web - mass reverting IP edits without explanation because they seem to be making a significant number of problematic reverts. New editors jumping into anti-vandalism work with little idea of what they're doing is a common problem, you really need a decent grasp of Wikipedia policies before doing it but for some reason it's advertised as being a beginner friendly activity. 192.76.8.74 (talk) 12:11, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

UPDATE: User:Safari web indef blocked as a sockpuppet. David notMD (talk) 13:10, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

The reported case is an outlier, but the underlying problem is real. It is certainly the case that

1. some users are a bit too quick to hit the revert button (especially with automated tools)
2. some users take less precautions when interacting with IP editors

I have no idea if those problems are on the rise, and I do not think anybody has a solution. It occurs from time to time that someone comes to complain about being reverted without an edit summary, we ping the reverter, and they come here to apologize. In the defense of those people, when you have spent the last 99 clicks reverting promotional material, you are not in a mood to carefully analyze the 100th edit that comes through the list, even if you ought to be as cautious as when you started out. Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 13:41, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Indeed, as this reverter appears to have been blocked, they were clearly an anomaly. The occasional over-correction is understandable, and I do not begrudge that from the people you mention in the sort of circumstances you describe. I am concerned that it appears to be accepted that editors exercise less care when reverting the edits of IP users (compared to registered users). I say that, while aware that unregistered users are known for disruptive and clueless editing. I don't think the fact that a disproportionate number of such edits come from IPs should be the basis for a kind of creeping disrespect for all IP users' contributions, though, nor a preparedness to accept this sort of differential approach - even if there are reasonable grounds to develop this kind of implicit bias.

One of the things I was also trying to say, though, was, far from "careful analysis" on the 99th or 100th click, all that was needed was a very quick glance. The edits of mine - and of a few other IPs I've seen - that I have been discussing here, do not even remotely look like disruptive edits. It appears at times, that the extent of the process has been: 'IP made edit; can't see what for in first millisecond; must be bad, even if not, who's gonna pick me up on it?"

I don't want or expect an apology with such events; these things happen, even with the well-intentioned editors who seem to do this. It's just one of those things, but I thought I would bring up how cumulatively demotivating and disheartening it is. With all the massive work done on WP in holding back the tide of low-quality material, while trying to widen the scope and enhance articles, I realise this is very small beer indeed, perhaps to the point of being irrelevant. I thank you all for your attention and responses. 49.177.69.7 (talk) 03:21, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

If anyone with the "rollback" user right is abusing it consistently (not just making an honest mistake now and then), that should be reported at WP:ANI or to the administrator who granted the right. Rollback should be granted only to users who can be trusted with it. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:27, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Errors will of course occur - I make more than my fair share! - but that seems more of an argument for the use edit summaries when reverting - always. And I am not certain if "rollback" was used in the cases I am thinking of. But, even when editors use WP tools to revert, is there still the capacity to briefly mention the perceived issue in the ES?

As for "occasional mistakes": It's more about patterns of reverting and communication (or lack of) that I am thinking of, and what that suggests about WP's real-life approach to unregistered editors. Just to give a flavour of what I mean, note the edit summaries employed by this editor. They extensively revert, for sound reasons from what I can tell, and they are always quite terse in their ES. However, when it's a registed user, there is some brief effort to explain. When it's an IP user, there is only ever one explanation: "Revert IP". And that is my concern, (not from this editor, to be clear, just using them as my example.) I note in passing that I asked on this editor's talk page - and then later, on mine - to discuss a reversion they made; I received no reply, so re-instated the reverted reference repair. (While not very talkative, this editor does usually reply to questions from registered editors on their talk page.) But that experience echoes several I have had. I realise there's no "fix" to all this: I guess I just hoped to raise awareness.

Anyway, thank you very much, @192.76.8.74, @David notMD, @Tigraan and @Anachronist for taking the time to respond. 49.177.69.7 (talk) 03:21, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Although one isn't supposed to edit while not logged in, I have done so deliberately in the past to remind myself of what it's like to edit as an IP address. I encourage every experienced editor to try it: put in a few hours on Wikipedia as an IP address to see what it's like, see how others treat you. It gives you a new perspective that makes you think twice about how you respond in edit summaries and talk page comments, causing you to treat any good-faith editor the same regardless of whether it's an IP address or a username. ~Anachronist (talk) 14:00, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

I might actually do that. Although if I'm allowed to I would use a VPN so that my real IP address isn't revealed Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 14:03, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

@Blaze The Wolf See WP:VPN. ― Qwerfjkltalk 21:26, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Makes sense. Also you got the wrong one. It's WP:NOP Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 21:36, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Oops (I typically just guess the shortcuts and assume I'm right if it's blue). ― Qwerfjkltalk 21:41, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Draft:The World of the Orient (journal)

•  Courtesy link: Draft:The World of the Orient (journal)

Dear colleagues, Could you help me to improve my draft to publish it. Scientific articles about history of our academic journal (The World of the Orient) was published in Ukrainian language, so I can not give: "...the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject". Please help me in this problem. Spectatorius (talk) 12:07, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

@Spectatorius: Hello, welcome to the teahouse! There is no requirement that sources should be in English, if this journal has received coverage in Ukrainian language sources then it is completely fine to use those sources as the basis for the article. 192.76.8.74 (talk) 12:22, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

@Spectatorius: You'll find more information about citing non-English sources at WP:NOTENG; however, please understand that while non-English sources can be cited, they will still need to satisfy Wikipedia:Reliable sources. In addition, you might be asked to provide information about the sources in English to help others assess them if they have concerns about their reliability. Finally, you yourself don't need to be a native Ukrainian speaker per se, but you're also going to be expected to be competent enough in Ukrainian to read the sources, self-assess their reliability and then properly use it in WP:RSCONTEXT. If you're not, then you should try to find an editor who can via WP:TRLA or maybe even at WT:UKRAINE. -- Marchjuly (talk) 15:48, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

New Article

How can a user create a new article on wikipedia. What is the eligibility 2006nishan178713 (talk) 16:53, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

@2006nishan178713, Hello! This is difficult for a beginner but here is some guidance: Pick a topic that meets the demands at WP:GNG. If you don't have the sources demanded there, what you write will be removed. Next, learn how to add inline citations correctly, this is essential. WP:TUTORIAL and WP:REFBEGIN can help with that. Guidance on how to start an article is at WP:YFA, and if you intend to write about a living person, read WP:BLP as well. Good luck! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:22, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Tack för vägledningen 2006nishan178713 (talk) 17:49, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Inga problem! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:46, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Change a Redirect page into a Stub-class article: How? (Eyal Press)

I was looking for an article on Eyal Press. All that Eyal Press has now, is a Redirect to the article on the Russell Sage Foundation. I just started a Talk page on Eyal Press, even though it's a Redirect page -- I got to the Redirect page by clicking the link at the top of the Foundation's page. The article will be pretty weak, but Press does deserve coverage. More on the Talk page on the existing Redirect page. Oaklandguy (talk) 16:59, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

}} Oaklandguy (talk) 16:59, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Oaklandguy. People are more likely to see your comment if you put it on Talk:Russell Sage Foundation. If you think that the Eyal Press meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability, then the redirect could be expanded to an article; but if you want to do so, I recommend that you treat it as a new article, and use AFC to create a draft: the reviewer who accepts it will move it over the redirect. Alternatively, if there are sources for it but not enough to establish notability, I suggest you add a section to Russell Sage Foundation (I'm assuming that there is some connection, giving a reason for the redirect): don't creqate a stub if you don't believe it can ever satisfactorily be expanded to an article. --ColinFine (talk) 18:15, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments, ColinFine. As to notability: Eyal Press is the name of an author whose book was recently reviewed by the New York Times, among others. He was a Visiting Journalist at the Russell Sage Foundation in Spring 2016 That, in itself, is not enough to establish notability, but that webpage would be a source to cite. I've seen some articles that are called "stub class", but I thought were quite decent starts -- what I meant was, a page on Eyal Press could well become more of an article, just not an elaborate one, especially if other editors improve what I would provide. I've made lots of edits but I've never started an article before. I had only a vague idea of the "Articles for creation" process -- I didn't know what it was called -- now I understand that a bit better. Also, now I know that some person in that process (but not me) could do the technical part of replacing the existing redirect page. Oaklandguy (talk) 04:44, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Oaklandguy - I assumed Eyal Press was the name of a publishing house! Again, whether or not it can be expanded to an article depends not on the skill of the editors who try and do so, but on whether the sources exist. --ColinFine (talk) 09:27, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Hello ColinFine, here's another idea. Maybe I should add Eyal Press to Requested Articles. It would go in Wikipedia:Requested_articles/Biography/By_profession#N–S. I could describe why it should be an article and the problem with the existing setup (the redirect page isn't useful except to editors). I could add some citeable sources (I have 2 so far, could easily find more). I think there will be an article someday on Eyal Fine. Oaklandguy (talk) 16:22, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

References

You're welcome to do so, Oaklandguy, but to be honest WP:RA is mostly a graveyard for ideas. In principle people might pick them up, but I don't think it happens very often. I suggest creating the draft yourself - if at some point it's left six months without being edited, it might get deleted, but as long as you keep working at it slowly, it'll stay until you think it's ready to submit, or you decide that he doesn't meet the criteria for notability. --ColinFine (talk) 18:18, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Adding a sentence to edit protected article

2021 Taliban offensive

I was asked to generate consensus here but I don't know how to, so I request somebody to do that. 27.7.10.112 (talk) 19:34, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

You generate consensus by engaging in discussion on the talk page, to convince others why your proposal should be accepted and why it is an improvement. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:35, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Anachronist, I am new to Wikipedia, so please let me know how to use the "Request for Comment" template and how to "ping" editors (and which and how many editors can be pinged).

As an after thought, I request you to read this thread and add the sentence in question (the source mentioned is the Washington Post) as you are an Administrator. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:4071:4D90:9497:4C15:4EB4:F36F:5685 (talk) 05:50, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

This isn't something that admins do, as they cannot override consensus. There's more information about how to generate requests for comments and pinging. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 15:09, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Tenryuu is correct. To become an administrator means that the community trusts you not to wield administrator tools to exercise power over others. An administrator's job is to maintain the stability of the Wikipedia project. Protecting an article from disruptive edits is one way to do that. Administrators don't get involved in content disputes, and they don't have the authority to override consensus. If an administrator participates in a content dispute, that administrator must behave as a regular editor and abstain taking actions as an administrator. If you cannot build consensus for what you want to add, then you must accept the consensus. ~Anachronist (talk) 14:07, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Is The Times Bulletin news source acceptable as per Wikipedia notable guidelines?

Hi everyone I have an interesting article to create and I am not sure about the reference can I give The Times Bulletin as an reference? Boti2481 (talk) 01:13, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

@Boti2481: It depends what you want to use it for, but it appears to be a reliable source (with history going back over a century). I suggest you create the article in draft space though, to give you time to work on it, so you don't have to worry about someone coming along and deleting it from main space. ~Anachronist (talk) 01:21, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Boti2481, the presumption is that it is reliable for news about people and events in and around Van Wert, Ohio, but certainly not for content pertaining to nuclear physics, art history or radioastronomy. Context matters. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:57, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

OP blocked per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AnonymousIndiaz. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 20:55, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Blue J Legal

Hello, everyone! My Draft:Blue J Legal was recently rejected by Tame. Since I haven’t found any advertisement or promotional content myself, I’m asking for help from more experienced users. I did my best to add sources to all the information in the article but you are more than welcome to correct me.

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Blue_J_Legal Rupertdonovan (talk) 02:38, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Note: The user first took the reasonable step to contact the reviewer directly at User talk:Tamingimpala#Blue J Legal, and was directed here for assistance. GoingBatty (talk) 05:06, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

I don't think that the current content is overly promotional but the greater problem, in my opinion, is that virtually all the references are based on interviews with the people involved or what I assume are press releases. So it is a question of establishing corporate notability using reliable secondary sources that are about the company rather than by the company. If you focus on any of these and trim some of the others, the draft would have a much greater chance of acceptance. Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:19, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Jejsiguoa

Hello! I am an non-logged editor. I joined wikipedia and wikimedia commons with Jejsiguoa account on 29th january 2021. And till yesterday, I edited and crossed 500 contributions. But now, I want to transfer those accounts to a different ip address. Is it possible? How can I do it? the device with Jejsiguoa is now of no use to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.187.240.151 (talk) 04:25, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Your account is not tied to any specific IP address. You can log on to that account from any device. - David Biddulph (talk) 04:33, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

I notice, however that a statement on your user page appears to be admitting to sockpuppetry for the purpose of block evasion. This is not permitted, and would be liable to get your account blocked. - David Biddulph (talk) 04:42, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Would I log out from the old device and join with Jejsiguoa from my new device?223.187.240.151 (talk)

As stated above, you can log into an account from any device that has internet access. You need not log out on other devices. I am occasionally logged in from a smartphone and a desktop computer at the same time, and that works just fine. However, you must not misuse access to evade blocks or to engage in sockpuppetry. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:07, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Question by Chondhi

My Chondhi page uptil not showing in Wikipedia for public why? Chondhi (talk) 06:24, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

@Chondhi In short, you wrote it in the wrong place. Your userpage (User:Chondhi) is for, if you want, to write a little about yourself and what you do/want to do on WP. When you think Draft:Chondhi is ready, use the blue "Submit the draft for review!" button. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:24, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Question by Lovingheartloving

Why my three articles are not accepted yet? It's been 4 day. Lovingheartloving (talk) 07:14, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

@Lovingheartloving As it says at (the bottom of) Draft:Vera Grabocka "Review waiting, please be patient. This may take a week or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order." Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:18, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Check also where the review waiting-template says: "Improving your odds of a speedy review". Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:26, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

For your information, the backlog of drafts used to number in the thousands, and the wait for a review could be months. Your three may take a while because the refs are in Albanian. Also, in addition to the three drafts, you created Rainita Pupi in mainspace without going through the AfC process. In my opinion, the refs do not support her being a notable performer (10 of the 12 refs are about her death from COVID, which contribute nothing to notability). David notMD (talk) 10:52, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Atomy - List of Multi level Marketing companies

I am addingAtomy Name in the list .Atomy is a multibillion South Korea based MLM Company|1= boomboom 07:56, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

I have removed your edit as we do not have an article about Atomy.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 09:11, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

@Shantavira:, maybe User:Bishwa 777 meant  Courtesy link: Atomy Korea? --Maresa63 ^Talk 10:39, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Interesting timing: Bishwa 777 first tried adding Atomy to the list article. After that was reverted, Bishwa 777 created the article Atomy Korea. However, that article has now been nominated for Speedy Deletion. David notMD (talk) 11:05, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi There Yes I tried adding Atomy under list of Business , unfortunately it added preexisting Atomy page not Atomy Korea. Hence research about it and then realized there is not Atomy Korea page. I thought it might be useful for the members who are searching about their business to get a neutral idea about it.

Since it has a millions of members world wide, it makes sense to have a wiki page. boomboom 06:17, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi There We don't have much article on Atomy Korea but their research partner KAERI has a presence here. So I thought even Atomy Korea should have a page. That was was my intention. If you check their website they have millions of members and they deserve a neutral portal like wiki. Thanks boomboom 06:07, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Atomy Korea may be article-worthy, but what you created was considered promotional. David notMD (talk) 00:06, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Sand Box

Hello Folks....What's the usefulness of sand box Emmy Rey (talk) 09:46, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Emmy Rey. Take a look at H:SAND. Basically, your sandbox is a place for you to test out your editing skills and perhaps develop articles. It is relatively free from "interference" from other users but is still, like all Wikipedia, visible to anyone who knows where to look. Don't place copyrighted information in there but otherwise almost anything you want to try out can be used. Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:03, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

@Emmy Rey: I find it particularly useful if I'm trying to figure out how to do something tricky, like a complicated table. I experiment with it in my Sandbox until I'm happy with it.--Gronk Oz (talk) 13:02, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Extended confirmed editors

Hi, I am not able to use translation tool in en wiki as I am not an extended confirmed editor. I've been en wiki editor for over 3 years and made over 1,200 edits. How can I have this turned on? Wolfmartyn (talk) 10:03, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

@Wolfmartyn Per [1] you are extended confirmed, so the problem is something else. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:08, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks @Gråbergs Gråa Sång:. This is the error I am getting, any idea what is it referring to?:

Translate page - On the English Wikipedia machine translation is disabled for all users and this tool is limited to extended confirmed editors.

Wolfmartyn (talk) 10:44, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Have you read Wikipedia talk:Content translation tool and the instructions at WP:CXT#Turning the tool on and off? --David Biddulph (talk) 10:52, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

@Wolfmartyn: The ability to use machine translations is disabled on the English Wikipedia - as an extended confirmed user you can use the content translation tool but you will have to translate the material by hand. 192.76.8.74 (talk) 19:59, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Also you can't save pages into the main namespace, you will need to save your translations somewhere else. 192.76.8.74 (talk) 20:01, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Is it ok if I gradually edit this article?

As of now I have added 55 citations and I have to add 46 more + changing party colours and names. But I have some other work too, so may I edit the rest later? Or can I move the article to a draft sapce and edit it there and after completion, move it to the mainspace. Excellenc1 (talk) 10:21, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

You can leave it as it is. -- Hoary (talk) 10:42, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Because of your recent work, I removed the tags at the top of the article. David notMD (talk) 10:57, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Gradually editing an article is always completely fine! Wikipedia editors are volunteers and as such are never obligated to do anything except follow the rules. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 13:40, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Please

Can anyone delete my account forever? Please delete it. Hyderabadi (talk) 11:58, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Hyderabadi It is not possible to delete an account, for both technical and legal reasons(all edits must be attributed to someone); but you may just abandon your account, or you may request a courtesy vanishing. 331dot (talk) 12:03, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Accounts can’t be deleted for the reasons give here, but you can simply just not edit anymore if that’s what you want to do. — Marchjuly (talk) 12:07, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Although you have blanked your user page, older versions can still be read. If you want your user page (and all its older versions) deleted, just add "{{Db-u1}}" to it. If you have sandboxes or similar, you can also add it to these. (However, you can't add it to your talk page.) -- Hoary (talk) 12:29, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

@331dot, Marchjuly, and Hoary: thanks. Hyderabadi (talk) 12:59, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Updating incorrect article - help appreciated!

Hello, please let me know if I'm in the right place. I work for Writtle University College (page here: Writtle University College) and have noticed that a lot of the info on our page is outdated or entirely incorrect.

I don't want to alter the page myself (I realise this could be a conflict of interest) but could anyone point me in the direction of finding an impartial editor to add updates? I could direct editors to sources (e.g. newspaper articles from third parties) or point out incorrect sections.

The colours listed in the info box are wrong, and so is the number of students and the motto. The info on the Northumberland Building Light Well Mosaic is very, very old - our students have done a lot of exciting things since then!

For example, we have a wide range of facilities and in 2020 we were the National Student Survey's UK's top raised institution for student satisfaction (https://www.essexlive.news/special-features/putting-science-practice-writtle-university-4525887) in addition to getting 100% satisfaction for some of our higher education courses ( https://www.hortweek.com/writtle-university-college-achieves-100-student-satisfaction-rating-horticulture-degree/parks-and-gardens/article/1693582) .

We also recently launched the UK's first permanent 3x3 basketball facilities (https://www.inyourarea.co.uk/news/writtle-university-colleges-summer-sport-festival-to-launch-uks-first-bespoke-3x3-basketball-courts/)

Writtle was the first UK university to offer degrees in Regenerative Agriculture and recently launched a new MBA (https://www.farmersguide.co.uk/university-leads-the-way-with-new-regenerative-food-systems-mba/)

If anyone would like me to point out more new info or incorrect details just let me know.

Any help appreciated! Essex.Comms (talk) 12:55, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Essex.Comms You may make a formal edit request(click for instructions) on the article talk page, Talk:Writtle University College, detailing changes you feel are needed. Other editors will see this and evaluate your request. 331dot (talk) 12:58, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Help adding criticisms to the IKEA page

I am a junior member at Earthsight and have been trying to add our reports to the criticisms section of IKEAs article. I appreciate Wikipedia's rules re: conflict of interest / self promotion, but I believe our work constitutes substantial criticism, is based on concrete evidence, and is relevant to the article. I've been asking for help frequently in the IKEA talk page but basically keep getting patronised for not being good enough with the formatting and criticised for my persistence as if I'm trying to do something wrong.

There's no denying we have an agenda here - we are after-all an advocacy organisation who want our findings widely known to pressure IKEA and FSC to reform their ways. However, our findings have been internationally reported on by news outlets round the world and can objectively be considered as valid, substantiated criticisms of IKEA.

This is my latest attempt which was denied "due to laughable formatting and incredibly obvious bias" - true I could not figure out how to reference in the talk article, but I'm honestly not sure how to proceed with the bias issue. I mention and link to Earthsight because it's our work and where the full report is, it seems weird to me to cut all reference of the source out, but I'm very much an amateur having a stab at this.

Use of Illegal Timber

In June 2020 IKEA was found to be selling beech chairs made from wood which was illegally felled in the forests of the Ukrainian Carpathians - including their best-selling Terje and Ingolf chairs. In their investigation Flatpacked Forests environmental NGO Earthsight found that many of Ikea’s melamine-­coated chipboard furniture products were made from Ukrainian wood of suspect origin.

The report focussed criticism on the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC), the world’s leading green labelling system for timber, which IKEA uses extensively to prevent illegal and unsustainably harvested wood from entering its supply chains.

Ukrainian forester whistle­blowers explained how FSC audits could easily be undermined through corruption and deception, especially during the Ukrainian presidency of Viktor Yanukovych in 2011-14, who has been widely criticized for "massive" corruption and fostered an environment where fraud and the doctoring of official documents was rampant.

A further Earthsight report in July 2021 focussed on the brand's popular Sundvik children's range and Flisat doll's house as likely being tainted with illegal wood from protected forests in Russia. Ikea’s House of Horrors linked their furniture to Siberian forests under the control of one of Russia's top-50 wealthiest politicians, Evgeny Bakurov.

The investigation found that Bakurov's businesses broke numerous forestry and environmental laws, using a practice known as sanitary felling to cut down trees under the false pretext they were dead, dying, diseased or damaged. Over the last decade, these illegal deals have helped Bakurov controlled firms harvet 2.16 million cubic metres of wood.

Again, Bakurov's pine was certified by the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC), allowing it to enter into many other supply chains heading to Europe and the US, aside from Ikea's. The report argues a majority of the EU's imports from eastern Russia are potentially contaminated with FSC audits rarely mentioning or addressing the rampant illegal logging documented within Russian authorities.

Ikea denies all wrongdoing and has announced a temporary ban on sanitary felled wood from Siberia and Russia. The retailer insists Bakurov's wood was "legally harvested" – but have stopped purchasing from his associated companies, citing unspecified "practices of concern".

I'd be happy to work with an impartial editor to include our findings if anyone would be so kind TomElliott113 (talk) 13:55, 20 August 2021 (UTC) TomElliott113 (talk) 13:57, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

TomElliott113 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I would first suggest that you review this beginner's guide to citations so you can work to resolve that issue. I do kinda think that you were dismissed too easily, and have said so on the article talk page. 331dot (talk) 14:23, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

331dot sums it up nicely on the article talk page. There was also a response from Shushugah. The information is being looked at. I agree with the assessment that you should not have been dismissed so easily nor should you have been responded to in the way you were. All involved were cautioned not to WP:bite new editors who approach us in good faith and follow the guidelines and policies of reporting a COI or that they are a paid advocate. I feel very confident that your request will be assessed and handled well on the article talk page. Thank you, TomElliott113 for joining Wikipedia and hope you decide to continue to edit and contribute valuable information to the encyclopedia in other areas as well. --ARoseWolf 14:59, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Seeking reliable sources for The Village Of Brambleshire Wood

What reliable sources are there for The Village Of Brambleshire Wood? I had initially submitted it as a stub, inviting others to expand it, say, by including those reliable sources! Instead, it was moved to the draftspace.
ANY help along those lines will be muchly appreciated.
Parker Gabriel 14:51, 20 August 2021 (UTC) Parker Gabriel 14:51, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

 Courtesy link:  Draft:The Village Of Brambleshire Wood Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 15:03, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Even Stubs have to have references at time of creation. If you cannot find reliable source references for this song, the draft will never be accepted. David notMD (talk) 15:45, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Parker Gabriel, and welcome to the Teahouse. I don't want to be too negative, but... if writing Wikipedia articles was building houses, what you have done is said "I think a house would be nice here. I've propped up some walls: would somebody please build the foundations for me". Somebody might be willing to have a go at those foundations, but you're the one that wants that house there, so why should they? Furthermore, they may find that when they try to build the foundations that the ground is not fit to build on (the song is not notable). This is why writing a Wikipedia article starts with finding the sources: if you write so much as a single word before you've found the sources, you may turn out to have wasted the whole of your effort. Please sign posts on talk and discussion pages by inserting four tildes (~~~~) or using the signature tool: you've apparently signed longhand above, but haven't included a link to your user page or user talk page. --ColinFine (talk) 15:58, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Is detail about burial remains suitable content?

I would like feedback on whether the information added in this edit of Marian and Vivian Brown is encyclopedic or if it should be removed because it is not encyclopedic or otherwise not suitable for Wikipedia. Thank you. Fabrickator (talk) 15:26, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

It depends. A detail like that should probably be discussed on the talk page. For what it's worth, I personally don't think the location of their urns is unique enough to warrant inclusion. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 15:46, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Can I get permissions from old accounts?

I have had 4 IP adresses and 2 accounts. Had they all been connected, I would have had 265 days of service and ~2,000 edits, which would give me a lot of permissions (Autoconfimered, Extenddend confimred...), which would be useful for me right now. Is there some way I can get them on this account? Starship SN20 (talk) 16:08, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Starship SN20 You can make a request at WP:PERM and explain your situation, as well as your need for the permissions you are seeking. 331dot (talk) 16:15, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Jejsiguoa 2

To the answer of my recent question, I wanted to create Jejsiguoa account again in my new device. But when I am creating an with account Jejsiguoa, it is showing Username entered already in use. Please choose a different name.. What to do?223.187.240.151 (talk)

You don't need to create an account for each device you use. Simply log in with your existing account information on whichever device you are using. 331dot (talk) 16:28, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Your account, Jejsiguoa, is stored on Wikimedia's servers. You just need to re-login to the account on your new device to regain access. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 22:09, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Question

Are we allowed to use French reliable sources? ItsJustdancefan (talk) 17:23, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi there. Great question! Here's what Wikipedia says about that: "Citations to non-English reliable sources are allowed on the English Wikipedia. However, because this project is in English, English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones when available and of equal quality and relevance. As with sources in English, if a dispute arises involving a citation to a non-English source, editors may request a quotation of relevant portions of the original source be provided, either in text, in a footnote, or on the article talk page." Happy editing. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 17:30, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

@ItsJustdancefan: The information kindly provided by Pyrrho the Skeptic can be found at Wikipedia:Verifiability#Non-English sources. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 17:39, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Lo que en esta página es algo que Wikipedia no es?

Lo que en esta página es algo que Wikipedia no es?  Nave espacial SN20 ( charla) 17:39, 20 de Agosto 2021 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Starship SN20 (talk • contribs) 17:40, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

¡Hola y bienvenido! ¿Qué quiere decir? ¿Podrías preguntar de otra manera? ¿Está esto relacionado con su otra pregunta? Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 17:44, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Non! C'est une blague!

This isn't really something you should joke about. Also, there is a template that you should put with your question to indicate it's a joke, and you really shouldn't be making joke questions on Teahouse anyways. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 18:55, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Also, please speak English in this Wiki. There's a French Wikipedia though if you're more fluent in french (i don't know how to link to it) Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 18:56, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Why would someone who posts in Spanish be more interested in French Wikipedia than in Spanish Wikipedia? You'll find links to all Wikipedia versions from the main page of Wikipedia. --bonadea contributions talk 19:03, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Oh, it appears they used a mixture of French and Spanish. The question was in Spanish but them saying that this is a joke is in French. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 19:08, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Blaze The Wolf: You could provide links to French Wikipedia or fr:Wikipédia:Accueil_principal. GoingBatty (talk) 19:05, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Ah ok thanks! Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 19:09, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Since they seem to have copied their signature from another language wiki I'm adding this Starship SN20 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) in case anyone wants to get to their talk page. FWIW their first edit is to redirect an IP talk page which is a bit odd and might reveal more info then they realize. MarnetteD|Talk 19:16, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

propose removal of massive unsourced content from Dogpatch?

There seem to be massive amounts of unsourced content in Dogpatch, San Francisco, and to be clear, I have no interest in making the effort to provide such citations. A repeated mantra that I hear on WP is that unsourced content may be removed without notice or discussion. But I still feel kind of cautious about this. So please provide some feedback as to whether it's really perfectly okay for me to remove unsourced content, such as from § Attractions and characteristics and § History. Fabrickator (talk) 19:50, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Go ahead and do so. If an editor disagrees with you they will revert and you can start a discussion per WP:BRD. Although if you would rather propose it then you can do so on the article's talk page. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 19:55, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Unclelam - still an active editor as recently as Sept 2020 (COVID?) - was the person who more than doubled the length of the article back in 2012, so perhaps ask that person to come back and fix stuff. In general, I feel under-referenced place articles are less urgent-fix than biographies. David notMD (talk) 20:09, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

@Blaze The Wolf: This raises a point that (based on your comment) seems to be in dispute. Because it is the responsibility of the person who adds content to provide sources, a revert of unsourced content (without having added the required sources) is interpreted as being against policy, or at the very least, is subject to itself being reverted. What part am I misunderstanding? Fabrickator (talk) 20:15, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

I.... am not actually sure. I'm a bit misunderstanding as well as WP:BRD says that if you think an edit should be made, be bold and do it yourself and if an editor disagrees they will revert which will start a discussion of the edit so a consensus can be reached. However you make a good point that it's technically against policy to revert unsourced content as it is the job of the person who added the content to source it. However this seems to not be heavily enforced as unsourced content is removed all the time and then added back by a different person with sources. So I'm not exactly sure what the correct answer would be in this situation. Maybe another editor could help answer this. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 20:22, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Fabrickator, I think you are technically sound. It is the policy as you have stated. However, I don't think the intent is to have editors running around deleted every sentence on every article that is unsourced. Maybe that is the intent of some, I guess I would be more likely to either add sources or place a citation needed template on a few unsourced sentences, otherwise I would leave it as it is unless it is a clear violation of NPOV or BLP. That is just me. I tend to leave articles alone unless I plan on working on them anyway. --ARoseWolf 20:24, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

FYI - "BLP" is Biography of Living Person, and for those, all content must be referenced, removed if not. David notMD (talk) 22:39, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Here is the sequence of edits to WP:Verifiability which introduced the sort of self-contradictory guidance, stating at once that "the burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material" while observing that "editors may object if you remove material without giving them a chance to provide references".

Notice how this compares to WP:Editing policy which states "unsourced content may be challenged and removed". I would note that "challenging" is distinct from "removing". According to WP:verifiability challenges, a challenge is "a good-faith claim that unsourced material cannot be verified in any reliable source".

In the absence of there necessarily being such a good-faith claim, these statements of policy would seem to be incompatible, and one or both of them needs to be changed. Fabrickator (talk) 00:07, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

There is no significant policy conflict here, though maybe differences in emphasis. All of the relevant policies and guidelines emphasize that we are here to build an encyclopedia and that there are many alternatives to removing content, although it is proper to remove hoaxes, vandalism, WP:BLP violations, copyright violations and obviously non-neutral content immediately. Other good faith content should be kept and tagged "citation needed", unless a diligent search fails to verify the content. In the spirit of full disclosure, I have lived and worked in or near San Francisco for 49 years and worked for nine years quite close to the Dogpatch neighborhood. In those years, I drove through that neighborhood several times a week. The article states that the Irving M. Scott School is an historic school there, that the clubhouse of the Frisco chapter of the Hells Angels is in that neighborhood, and that there is a Caltrain express station in that neighborhood. All unreferenced. Less than two minutes on Google convinces me that all three claims are verifiable and true, and that the former school building is on the National Register of Historic Places, and therefore deserving of its own article, not removal from the encyclopedia. Editors who "have no interest in making the effort to provide such citations" should never remove such content. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:52, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

So what? We don't each get to decide what the rules are that would be best for the encyclopedia, we establish (through some form of consensus) a set of policies that hopefully cover all possible situations. For instance, the underlying premise is that we would like the content to be accurate, but the policy is that it must be verifiable.

Notwithstanding WP:IAR, if you think a policy is not in Wikipedia's best interest, then the solution is to propose changing the policy, not to ignore it. Otherwise, everybody has the excuse that they are doing whatever they think is best, and there's really no challenging that.

So I agree we're here to build a useful encyclopedia, but the policy is that claims must be supported by reliable sources, unsourced claims can be summarily removed (i.e. as an alternative to adding {{cn}}), and such removals may not be reverted unless a source is provided at the same time. So after I remove all this Dogpatch content, you can go ahead and put it back with citations, but if it's not convenient to you to provide citations, then we'll all just have to live without the content because I made the decision to remove it as allowed by policy. When somebody has the time to add in the citations, then they can restore everything. You don't think that's a difference? Fabrickator (talk) 05:00, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

A visit to WP:Deletionism and WP:Inclusionism might be useful. Again, my own opinion is add citations needed over deleting unreferenced content for place-articles, the opposite for biographies. David notMD (talk) 12:14, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Userpage redirects

Hello! So after Colin accidentally forgot to capitalize the T in my username, it gave me a thought. Are users allowed to create user pages that are redirects to their own if the only difference between the usernames of the user pages is the case? I feel like this can cause issues if usernames are case sensitive (so for example, if I redirected the user page Blaze the Wolf to mine, it would cause issues if another user could create an account for Blaze the Wolf). Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 19:59, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Blaze The Wolf, I don't believe redirects to cover alternative case are needed. I just tested and searching for:

User:Blaze the Wolf

or

User:Blaze The Wolf

Both provide a link to your user page.

No one else will be able to create a username which is identical to yours but just different by case (At least not without an override which is unlikely to happen)

I just did a quick review of Wikipedia:Redirect and I'm surprised to see that this is not discussed unless I missed something S Philbrick(Talk) 20:22, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Interesting. The weird thing is, when someone links directly to it User:Blaze the Wolf it doesn't redirect to my page. Is this a bug? Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 20:24, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

I know my former user name User:Tsistunagiska redirects to my current user page but it is an interesting question. --ARoseWolf 20:28, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

I think that's because when you change your username, it turns your old user page into a redirect. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 20:33, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Not at first it didn't. A sockpuppet created an account using my old user name and they had to change it and then were blocked upon completion of the investigation. --ARoseWolf 20:44, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Oh that's actually kind of interesting. They were more of an impersonator then than a sock. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 20:49, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

It was very odd. They weren't necessarily impersonating because we never edited the same articles. I have no proof but I did suspect they were watching for account name changes. I'm not really sure about the motive because I never contacted them. I wanted to be as far away from them as possible. This is my one and only account and I never want another one. It was a little unnerving until they were instructed by admins to change their name because of the connection with my account. What's even more odd is when I go to the redirect it says it was redirected the same time the change request was approved and moved. I guess there may have been a glitch of sorts or maybe they created the new account at the same time as the change was being processed, I honestly don't know, but it was weird to say the least. --ARoseWolf 20:57, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

The search bar automatically fixes alternate capitalisations (and a load of other things, like accents on letters) direct links don't and would require redirects. If you want to redirect User:Blaze the Wolf to your user page I think the best thing to do would be for you to register that account as a Doppelgänger account and leave it around unused, to prevent the redirect colliding with a later user. 192.76.8.74 (talk) 20:46, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

I just tried to do that, however it said that it's too similar to my username, so I think it's safe for me to simply redirect it because if I can't create an account with that username, no one else can. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 20:51, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure there's any point in doing that, Blaze the Wolf: nobody is going to search for that user page, and I doubt that creating it will cause a wrong ping to get to you. I've intentionally pinged you using the wrong version of your username just to see. --ColinFine (talk) 10:13, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Does this Draft need anything else?

Hello! I'm trying to get my first wiki post published ... is there anything else I need to do to my draft? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Dr._Prudence_Carter

Also, someone else (don't know who) seems to have another draft on the same person ... (my draft seems more complete). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Prudence_Carter

Any advice would be appreciated :) Ddiptee (talk) 21:03, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Ddiptee meet Yhtomitttl, Yhtomitttl meet Ddiptee. As Ddiptee noted here, you are both working on a draft about the same person. Wikipedia actually has a guideline about what to do when there is a draft and an article about the same person (see Wikipedia:Processing drafts with duplicate titles). There is also a guideline if one draft has already been submitted (that one takes precedence and the other one is declined). Your situation is a bit different, as neither draft has been submitted. What I suggest is that the two of you communicate on your Talk pages, decide which draft to collaborate on, and let the other one go fallow. Could be which one got started first (Y), or which one has more content (D). If either of you have a personal connection to Dr. Carter, declare that on your User page. Good luck. David notMD (talk) 21:20, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Comment: Draft:Dr. Prudence Carter now redirects to Prudence Carter. GoingBatty (talk) 23:43, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

How do I disclose that I am being paid to write an article for my company?

How do I disclose that I am being paid to write an article for my company? Merckie514 (talk) 21:13, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Merckie514 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I will post information about this on your user talk page. 331dot (talk) 21:18, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

For future reference, please see WP:PAID. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 21:27, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Carol Hooven, Department of Evolutionary Biology at Harvard book: The Story of Testosterone....

Why isn't her book covered and annotated? SkybirdISLM (talk) 21:39, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

@SkybirdISLM: She's been in the news recently for gender controversies. Sounds like nobody has taken an interest in adding her or the book yet, but I haven't checked to see if there are enough reviews to warrant a book article yet. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:58, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

This topic's also under sanctions, so I'd imagine that the editors working on it are making sure everything is in apple-pie order before submitting an article. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 22:44, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Header added

by ColinFine (talk) 10:23, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

You said: Unambiguous: not open to more than one interpretation. So, you are only interested in if and by golly stories. Since truth is narrowly defined, that would mean the truth does not abide in you. 97.115.149.226 (talk) 03:37, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

This is presumably about the speedy deletion of Draft:Biblical Evolution, which was described on your user talk page as "unambiguous copyright infringement". IP user: your draft was rejected because its content was copied from somewhere else: that's all. Note that creating a new article is extremely difficult for inexperienced editors, whatever the subject. You may find that what you want to say is already covered in one of the sections of Rejection of evolution by religious groups#Viewpoints or in one of the articles linked from there. --ColinFine (talk) 10:23, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

article submission process

1. The best way to submit articles for review - as a draft page or as sandbox page

2.Do i need to include tags for easy and quick review, and if i need to what is the syntax going to be like? Prosperhaven (talk) 07:13, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Help:Your first article will help. --David Biddulph (talk) 08:12, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Reliable Sources demonstrating Notability

Morning all - I'm trying to get a page approved (Scott Bateman MBE), and I perceived that my sources were reliable and showed notability. The editors don't think so, but I'm not sure what could be improved with them? I've got a significant number of other sources that I haven't used but I don't want to use trial and error to get it approved. Would rather understand what's actually being looked for. Thanks Katherinealee (talk) 10:21, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Draft:Scott Bateman (British TV and film producer) --ColinFine (talk) 10:24, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Katherinealee, and welcome to the Teahouse. At a quick glance many of your sources do look reliable, but they do not contribute to meeting Wikipedia's criteria for notability, because they are not independent of Bateman. Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost entirely interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources. --ColinFine (talk) 10:27, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

How to link to a 2nd subsection with the same name?

I know how to link to a (sub-)section of another article. I need to link to a subsection that has the same name as a subsection of another, earlier section in the same article. How do I make sure it doesn't link to the earlier subsection? Dutchy45 (talk) 10:36, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Please read up on, and use, Template:Anchor: this will solve this problem (and other problems too). And it's very easy to use. -- Hoary (talk) 11:15, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

@Hoary: "it's very easy to use" lol, no it's not! It might as well be Chinese. --Dutchy45 (talk) 11:44, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi Dutchy45. Please give the full title or URL of any page you're asking about. You can usually add " 2" to the end of a section link to link a second section with that name, but Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Section headings says section headings should be unique within a page. A link with " 2" will break if the first section heading is later renamed or removed. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:57, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

@PrimeHunter: Here 2005–06 UEFA Women's Cup is 1 where different subsections have the same name (times 4). Other seasons articles have the same thing. For this "2" do I need to do that after a pipe? --Dutchy45 (talk) 12:07, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

@Dutchy45: No pipe is needed but there is a space in " 2": 2005–06 UEFA Women's Cup#Group 1 2. It's confusing to have two "Group 1" in the same tournament. The second external link [2] says A1 and B1 like 2007–08 UEFA Women's Cup. I don't know whether such group names were officially used in 2005–06. The UEFA link [3] is dead. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:21, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

@PrimeHunter: The second link may be dead, but I got more info by clicking further inside the first link. Thanks for your help. I probably am gonna try to straighten everything out. --Dutchy45 (talk) 12:35, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Dutchy45, the "Anchor" template is very easy to use; however, its "documentation" is indeed confusing and soporific. Let's suppose that an article contains two instances of "===In collaboration===" and you want to point to the second and think that later you might also want to point to the first. Then change the first and the second to "==={{Anchor|collabo1}}In collaboration===" and "==={{Anchor|collabo2}}In collaboration===" respectively. Point to the second via "[[#collabo2|exhibitions in collaboration with others]]" (if within the same article) or "[[Hieronymus Bourbaki#collabo2|Bourbaki's exhibitions in collaboration with others]]" (if not). (Incidentally, there's no need for the names "string1" and "string2". You could call them "tweedledum" and "tweedledee", or "pork" and "cabbage", or whatever. They just have to differ.) Above, PrimeHunter points out that "A link with '2' will break if the first section heading is later renamed or removed." A link to any section heading will break if the heading is later renamed or removed; however, links using Anchor don't carry this risk. -- Hoary (talk) 21:24, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Aside: unlike in-text section links, the /* section name */ in an edit summary can't be changed after the fact. So once it's broken, it stays broken. :( ⁓ Pelagic ( messages ) 00:12, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks @Hoary:, I think I get it now. I'll do some practising in my sandbox later to make sure. Dutchy45 (talk) 05:11, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Good, Dutchy45; and if you were thinking, "Jeez, more instructions I'm supposed to read; no!", I sympathize. I hadn't used Anchor for some time before I needed to do it recently and I realized I'd forgotten how to use it; so started reading how to use it, dozed off, looked at an article in which I'd used it previously, figured it out in mere seconds, and applied it successfully. -- Hoary (talk) 06:31, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia page is not searchable

I have created a wikipedia page in hindi wikipedia but it is published but it is not searchable in google this is the link plkease make this link searchable in google https://hi.wikipedia.org/wiki/बृज_किशोर_शर्मा 110.224.177.35 (talk) 10:37, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Hello, IP user. This is the English Wikipedia, which is a separate project from Hindi Wikipedia: you need to ask at hi:विकिपीडिया:सहायता. Each Wikipedia has its own policies, but in English Wikipedia new articles are not searchable by external search engines until they have been reviewed. That might also be the case at Hindi Wikipedia: I don't know. --ColinFine (talk) 11:10, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

The Hindi Wikipedia allows search engine indexing right away but we don't control how quickly an external search engine like Google visits and indexes the page. It was created a few hours ago. Just wait. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:46, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

No surprise that it's been G11ed. Usedtobecool ☎️ 17:16, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Who is the best dancer in the world

 Bandile Mabaso (talk) 15:00, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

The purpose of the Teahouse is to answer questions about editing Wikipedia. Your question is, of course, entirely a matter of subjective opinion. --David Biddulph (talk) 15:03, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

I agree with David, but the answer is of course, me. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 15:30, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Can I someone please review this article?

This article now has 118 citations (You're welcome). Can this have any upgrade on its quality scale? (Note: The citations may not cite the "Since" column of the table in the "List of presidents.." section. Also, the sites France Bleu and actu.fr are used 10 to 12 times each in the article). Excellenc1 (talk) 15:35, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Excellenc1. Unlike typical articles with grades of Stub, Start, C, B, GA, A, and FA, "list" articles are restricted to two grades: List and Featured List (FL). Featured articles and featured lists have very rigorous standards and undergo a lot of scrutiny in the peer review process. Thus, the only way to move a List-class article up a grade is to prepare it according to the featured list criteria to the best of your ability, submit it to the page for featured list candidates, respond to and amend criticisms, and see if the list article passes or fails. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 16:38, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Is it OK to make a Wikipedia page's name start with Wikipedia:?

Answer my question. EditJuice (talk) 15:36, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

@EditJuice: I am not an experienced editor, but as per my knowledge, Wikipedia: is for articles regarding Wikipedia's policies and stuff related to users (like the Teahouse). Have you read WP:TITLE? Excellenc1 (talk) 15:39, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

You can try it, but it won’t be a regular article. Wikipedia:Youtube is not the same thing as Youtube, so it will be subject to different policies. Shushugah (he/him • talk) 15:41, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Hello, EditJuice, and welcome to the Teahouse. There are two different things that may be going on here. Wikipedia has a number of namespaces, such as User:, Draft:, and Template:: the namespace appears at the beginning of a page name, followed by a colon. Encyclopaedia articles, in the main-space of Wikipedia' have no prefix; for example Germany. So a page should begin with the prefix Wikipedia: only if it is a page about the workings of Wikipedia, or is used to manage Wikipedia: examples are this page, Wikipedia:Teahouse, policies such as Wikipedia:Five pillars, discussion pages such as Wikipedia:Village pump/Proposals and essays such as Wikipedia:an article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing. If what you are talking about is (or is intended to be) an encyclopaedia article, it should not have Wikipedia: on the front (it might have Draft: on the front, if it is a draft article).

Separately, a few encyclopaedia articles which are about things related to Wikipedia have names that begin with "Wikipedia", but without a colon; for example Wikipedia community. Does that answer your question? --ColinFine (talk) 15:50, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Short answer: yes it OK to create something in the Wikipedia: namespace, but it is extremely unlikely that a new user would have any valid reason to do so. See WP:WPNS. I suspect that ColinFine is correct and that you meant an article name starting with "Wikipedia" Meters (talk) 16:03, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Clarify and Dead Link templates broken?

I'm a long-time reader of Wikipedia and I've made lots and lots of minor edits here and there. Only recently, I've started going a little deeper with more involved edits, including things like templates and citations. Just in the past few days, I've needed to add a Dead link tag to a citation on the article for Hugo Boss (fashion designer) (the person, not the company); and a Clarify tag on the page for the movie Evil Eye (2020 film).

I don't know if I did something wrong, but when it actually showed up in the editor, it added all of it's bare mark-up code to the text of the article, followed by the "clarification needed" tag. I tried both visual and source editing and I got the same result.

What am I doing wrong?

PS. Right before I posted this, I did a quick check on those pages to see if they were both still showing the bare code. They aren't, but that only raises a different question. Why do those templates show up as bare code in the editors, but not on the actual pages? JDspeeder1 (talk) 15:58, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

@JDspeeder1: when you added the template in this edit you entered the date as {{Dead link|date={{subst:Aug}} {{subst:2021}}|fix-attempted=yes}} This means that the "date" you entered was actually a copy of Template:Abbreviated user group (which has the shortcut {{Aug}}) and a copy of Template:2021 ({{2021}}), which is a error catching template for people accidentally entering the year as a template. When you use the dead link template you either need to enter the date without the template brackets ({{Dead link|date=August 2021}}) or use the DATE template ({{Dead link|{{subst:DATE}}}}) which the server will automatically replace with the date when you save the page. The templates were fixed automatically because there's a bot that runs around fixing dates in maintanance templates 192.76.8.74 (talk) 16:21, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Renaming Graphic charter of government communication in France

Shouldn't this article be named "Logo of France" or something like that, because anyone interested in the topic wouldn't find this and even Google won't show this article for logo of France (it shows the Emblem)? I know that this logo is not offically recognised as a national symbol but it is used in governmental communication. Excellenc1 (talk) 16:16, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

@Excellenc1: I suggest posting your question on the article talk page. If you don't get any response in a few days, then I suggest asking Wikipedia talk:WikiProject France to comment. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 17:25, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Can get some help?

I need some help with Draft:Great Lakes Fleet because I don't know how to cite sources. Could you help me with that? Yours truly Z.M.ZorroMothim (talk) 16:17, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

@ZorroMothim: The three sources in the draft appear to be formatted correctly. The reviewer is asking for additional reliable sources that have significant coverage of this company. See all the links in the gray box at the top of the draft, which starts with "This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article..." Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 17:32, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Notifications on my phone - all the time

Just the past week, anytime I check my watch list, the list of notifications slides in from the right, and I have to click it to get rid of it. There are no pending notifications; I've read them all, and unticked the little circles, so they're grey. Any thoughts on how to make it stop? Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 16:28, 21 August 2021 (UTC) Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 16:28, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Hello @Mr Serjeant Buzfuz, you should have got an answer already, if it were coming. So, I might as well give it a shot (before recommending some other place to take your question):

Have you tried opening an incognito window/private browsing or whatever else it's called, and logging in? If you do that and the problem is still there, something is different with how Wikipedia handles your account; something to do with your preferences or other modifications you may have made, or just a bug. If it is not there in incognito mode or a different browser, then your current browser data is stuck, so you'll have to clear your cache and cookies. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 17:30, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, I think that's it. I'll give it a try. I think maybe that I was checking the notifications so much on a GA/DYK project that my phone has cached that notifications check as the automatic response in my memory. I'll try clearing things. (I am not a tech guy, so appreciate the help. I didn't even think it was a cache problem until your post; thought I'd accidentally turned on a setting somewhere.) Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 19:23, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, that seems to have fixed it. Appreciate the help. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 20:52, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Stories for kids?

Can l create a stories for kids in Wikipedia article Amossimphiwe1 (talk) 16:48, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Gave this query its own title. David notMD (talk) 16:54, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Amossimphiwe1 Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, so not a place for stories. David notMD (talk) 16:58, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

@Amossimphiwe1: You already asked this question in the "Activities in Wikipedia" section above. Instead of creating a new section, you may post a follow-up question in the same section. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 17:35, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Rishton Ka Manjha please fix a issue

I am having an issue in Draft:Rishton Ka Manjha please anyone help because we need to get the article to the main page soon Raviana48 (talk) 17:29, 21 August 2021 (UTC) Raviana48 (talk) 17:29, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

@Raviana48: You may not copy text from another website and paste it into Wikipedia. Instead, you should find reliable sources and summarize/paraphrase what they say. If you haven't done so already, I suggest reading Help:Your first article. Who is "we" and why do you "need to get the article to the main page soon"? GoingBatty (talk) 17:38, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

We need means our production team needs as all the viewers how is going to watch our Tv show needs additional information such as overview cast etc. Please help us to get the draft on mainspace. Raviana48 (talk) 17:44, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

No, you (plural) absolutely do not need to have a Wikipedia article in main article space. Wikipedia is never to be used as a publicity medium. Emphasis on never. If you want to publish information about the show, do it on your own website.

Furthermore, you are evading your block by creating new accounts, and until you get your original account unblocked, you will get no more traction with your help requests. Your block is the only thing that matters now. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:07, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Article Not Appearing in Google Searches/Results

Hi, the recently created article Jeremiah Lisbo for some reason does not appear in Google search results, and I am wondering why this is so? The only page that does appear is my Request for Peer Review of the same article. The Lisbo article is relatively new, but there are even newer articles that do appear on Google search results (e.g. Angela Ken). Is there anything I can do to make it appear on Google? Koikefan (talk) 18:02, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

@Koikefan: You can ask Google about it. What Google chooses to list or not list in their search results is entirely out of Wikipedia's control or influence. I'd say give it a month. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:14, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

New articles are hidden from search engines until they have been patrolled by WP:NPP or after 90 days, whichever comes first. Please remember that this is an encyclopedia, and not a venue for promotion. There should be no rush to get it into Google. RudolfRed (talk) 18:33, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

I feel like that's a factoid I knew a long time ago but somehow escaped from my memory. Thanks for bringing it back. Looks like the page was patrolled about 3 weeks ago, though. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:03, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps there is something strange with the logs, maybe because at one time the article was redirected, then redirect removed. Special:NewPagesFeed shows the article as unreviewed, & the article source shows <meta name="robots" content="noindex,nofollow"/>. --David Biddulph (talk) 19:30, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

@David Biddulph: The redirect was replaced with an article on the 3rd, which was then reverted back to being a redirect (also on the 3rd) due to not demonstrating notability. The redirect was then automatically reviewed by DannyS712 bot III. The redirect was turned back into an article on the 4th, which has not yet been reviewed, hence why it isn't showing up in google. 192.76.8.74 (talk) 20:09, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. In that case, do you think the delay in being reviewed since the 4th is a normal occurrence, or do you think, as has been suggested above, that something strange has happened with the logs, thereby causing an unnecessary delay? If that is the case, should there be something I do or a proper place this delay should be reported? Koikefan (talk) 00:08, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

@Koikefan: There's nothing weird going on in the logs - the page has just been reviewed multiple times as the article has been repeatedly created and turned back into a redirect. The delay is also completely normal - there are pages from 2005 in the queue still awaiting review. Your page will be added to the list of indexed pages either 90 days after creation or when it is reviewed by a new page patroller, whichever comes soonest. 192.76.8.74 (talk) 00:19, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Understood, thank you! Koikefan (talk) 00:20, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Confirmation That I Created New Article Correctly

Hello, I recently created the article Petersen Vargas. I am not sure if I created it correctly, as I first drafted it on my userspace and then moved it into mainspace (I am not sure if I created it as a draft, or if creating it as a draft is required). I would like to get some feedback on whether I did anything incorrectly, or if there is anything else I should do about the article. Thank you! Koikefan (talk) 18:17, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Koikefan. Everything looks fine. Drafts are optional, so you did nothing wrong. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:43, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

From technical point of view, looks correct to me! You may want to add Template:BLP to the talk page at Talk:Petersen Vargas and any other relevant WikiProjects, so that they get notified of its creation. A Wikipedia:New pages patrol will formally review it and tag it, if there are any issues. Shushugah (he/him • talk) 18:56, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Drafting Edits

Feels like a trivial question, but can I use my user sandbox to draft edits that I want to copy over into pre-existing articles, rather than for building new articles? PlasticStylus (talk) 18:25, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes! That is exactly what your sandbox is for, happy editing. Theroadislong (talk) 18:29, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

@PlasticStylus: Welcome to Wikipedia, and thanks for wanting to improve it. Yes, you can use the sandbox for most anything related to Wikipedia, such as learning how to edit or to work on some changes to existing articles that you will add to the article later. RudolfRed (talk) 18:31, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Change draft article url (category?) from Draft to User

Hello. I have a few draft articles I am working on and have not been able to get to them in several months. A bot has reminded me about one of them. I noticed it has a different URL than my other drafts. Does anyone know whether it is possible for me to change the url name or category from Draft to User? And if so, would you please explain how? Currently it is:

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

and I wonder if it would make more sense to have it as

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ballet_Florida

similar to my other drafts? I would just like to keep it in a safer draft format until I have had more time to develop it. Many thanks. Remando (talk) 20:10, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Remando, and welcome to the Teahouse. User:Ballet Florida would be the user page of a non-existent user called "Ballet Florida". Nobody but that user should use it, and it should not contain an article or a draft of an article. Draft:Ballet Florida is a good place to draft an article about "Ballet Florida". An alternative place would be a user subpage of yours, that you could call User:Remando/Ballet Florida. In my view, Draft space is a better place to prepare drafts, but user subpages were where it was done before Draft space was added, and many users still use them. (Note that I have specified these pages by putting their names in double square brackets, eg [[Draft:Ballet Florida]]. This is more concise than writing a URL, you can retain most spaces and punctuation that is in the name, and it shows you, as a redlink, if any of the pages don't exist). --ColinFine (talk) 20:20, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks @ColinFine. I think I did mean to ask how to change it from Draft:Ballet Florida to User:Remando/Ballet Florida. So you recommend I keep it as-is? I was worried that it would be deleted before I have a chance to spend time on it after seeing this note on my talk page User_talk:Remando#Concern_regarding_Draft:Ballet_Florida. -Remando (talk) 21:02, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Remando. Unedited drafts are subject to deletion after six months of inactivity. All you need to do is make a minor edit to any such draft, and that gives you another six months. Moving drafts is also an option. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:19, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Remando! If I understand correctly, you can make a small edit to the draft and that will reset the 6-month timer(?) But if it's something you want to set aside for yourself until "someday", you could move it to your user space. The goal with Draft: space was that other people might find drafts there and work on them, but in practice that rarely happens. (Disclosure: I'm not a big fan of the 6-month limit on drafts, but that's a whole other discussion.) ⁓ Pelagic ( messages ) 03:12, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks @Pelagic and @Cullen328! All very helpful. Remando (talk) 19:12, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Automatic soft redirects to Commons on all pictures?

Sometimes when an image becomes the subject of discussion it takes place both on en-Wikipedia and on Commons. However, most images are hosted on Commons, you can't directly edit or replace the image on en-Wikipedia etc. so the talk page on en-Wikipedia doesn't seem to add much.

Does it make sense to somehow add soft redirects to Commons on all pictures automatically?

(e.g. have File talk:Jack London Lake by bartosh.jpg redirect to c:File talk:Jack London Lake by bartosh.jpg.) Egroeg5 (talk) 20:53, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

@Egroeg5:. This could be a good topic of the idea lab at WP:VPI. Since neither of those talk pages has any content, I suggest you provide an example of pages with the problem you are trying to solve RudolfRed (talk) 00:25, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

@Egroeg5: Good idea. I have jumped straight to suggesting code at MediaWiki talk:Newarticletext#Talk page of a file hosted at Commons. We can implement it here at the English Wikipedia without a MediaWiki change, and we can tell whether the file exists at Commons but not here. I suggested use of {{Did you mean box}} which is also used in other situations on non-existing pages. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:44, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Edit a page - how to adit a. Wikipedia page

 Radha Raju Ahmed (talk) 01:13, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

@Radha Raju Ahmed: Welcome to the Teahouse! I added a link to an editing tutorial on your user talk page. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 03:00, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Great Highway

Can anyone help to stop activism NPOV violation s and it's being sneaked mid sentences? Great Highway BikeExpertCA (talk) 01:13, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

@BikeExpertCA: Welcome to the Teahouse! I see that you have made some edits to the Great Highway article, which have been reverted. Per the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, I suggest you post on the article's talk page - Talk:Great Highway - where you can discuss your suggestions and concerns, and come to a consensus with your fellow editors. Please also provide reliable sources whenever possible. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 03:04, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

UPDATE: BikeExpertCA has been blocked from editing Great Highway for one month. David notMD (talk) 04:19, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Rejected

FYI

 – added section header GoingBatty (talk) 03:28, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Jaintnp (talk) 03:26, 22 August 2021 (UTC)my article is rejected Jaintnp (talk) 03:26, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

@Jaintnp: Draft:Sushma Adhikari was declined, not rejected. This means you can continue working on it and resubmit. Each award needs an independent and reliable source. Wikipedia isn't looking for links to her videos, but news articles that provide significant coverage about her. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 03:32, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Numbers in infobox being forced to be links without double brackets

In the infobox at the top right of LEARN journal , the ISSN and eISSN (under "indexing") are forcing those numbers to be links, even without the double brackets. I'm certain that the numbers are correct, yet the pages that the numbers themselves link to don't look like the intended effect. Is there a syntax for forcing text/numbers to NOT be links?

Thanks in advance for any guidance. Mmiklas (talk) 05:17, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: LEARN Journal - GoingBatty (talk) 06:39, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Mmiklas, it's a feature of {{Infobox journal}}. The intention, I presume, is that a reader can click/tap through to Worldcat and find a library that holds copies of the journal. There doesn't appear to be a way to suppress it. ⁓ Pelagic ( messages ) 11:08, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the prompt response. Mmiklas (talk) 12:42, 22 August 2021 (UTC)mmiklas

File:O hudyma cr.jpg on Olesya Hudyma (BLP person), no fair usage template on file

i usually find fair usage template, however there is no such words. can somebody please look into it. 28july21 (talk) 06:26, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

I don't understand what the problem is. The file is hosted at Commons. Saying that it's their own work, Lyubomyr76 uploaded it there. If it really is Lyubomyr76's own work, then there's no issue about fair use. If on the other hand you have reason to think that it is not Lyubomyr76's own work, then you should bring up the matter at Commons. (On the page commons:File:O_hudyma_cr.jpg there's an option to nominate the file for deletion.) -- Hoary (talk) 06:39, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Image Alignment Help

Hello, I am looking for help adjusting the image alignment in the Kangxi Emperor article. As you can see from the article, there are some weird effects on the sections "Personality and Achievements" and "Family", due to the two left-aligned images, making a large white space on the left and making the bullet-point list difficult to read. I looked through a couple of the WP help articles and I played around with it a little myself, but I wasn't able to get the formatting right. Part of the issue is that I really don't understand how the placement of an image in the source text translates into the placement in the article. As far as I can tell, all the images are placed completely randomly in the text but somehow show up more or less where they should. Anyway, I would appreciate any help you can provide. Thank you. Shmarrighan (talk) 06:44, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

@Shmarrighan: This is referred to in MOS:SANDWICH. Left aligned images are known to mess up the display of some structures, and there should never be text between a left aligned and right aligned image because it doesn't display well on narrow displays (like phones). looking at that article there honestly seem to be far too many images in use - 14 seems excessive. I would be tempted to remove a couple of the less relevant or duplicate images or move some of them into a gallery section. 192.76.8.74 (talk) 07:05, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

@192.76.8.74: Thank you! And thank you for the edit you made on the article, it looks better already. --Shmarrighan (talk) 07:14, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

VisualEditor

Hi, I come from the Italian Wikipedia and I'm used to using the VisualEditor, without it I work really badly. I tried to activate it here too but I can't, if I go to my preferences under "beta features" no VisualEditor appears. I have activated all the experimental features but I have not solved anything, so even if I want to, I cannot work on the pages. Beaest (talk) 08:15, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

I think you can change it in Special:Preferences under Editing. Set the edit mode to "Use Visual Editor if possible". ― Qwerfjkltalk 09:24, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

How to resubmit 'declined' article Victor Ross (businessman)?

I have responded to helpful comments to improve my article and follow the recieved formatting (I think!), but canmot seem to resubmit...the 'Resubmit' button does not activate. New links and sources have been added. Victor Ross (Rosenfeld) recieved a significant half page Obituary in The Times (London) and was an internationally known public figure, particularly active within the Jewish community. I ould also like to remove '(businessman)' but cannot (Rosenfeld) would be more apt as a title, as VR was asked to anglicise his name when serving in WW2 to avoid reprisals if captured. (I am working in Visual Editor.) Many thanks for your help, hopefully! From RondDeJambe RondDeJambe (talk) 10:08, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

You don't have any inline citations. See Help:Referencing for beginners. Until you have any, it would be pointless to try to submit. As far as the title is concerned, that is something to be decided if/ when the draft is accepted for publication in mainspace. Victor Ross is currently a redirect to another article. - David Biddulph (talk) 10:17, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Victor Ross (businessman) has a resubmit button. Before you do, fix the referencing mess. David notMD (talk) 11:05, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

If possible, is there someone who can help me and modify it or approve it

[3:49:37 PM] <EmeraldRhino84> An article with many sources, why did you not agree with it?

If possible, is there someone who can help me and modify it or approve it

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Moamel_Ahmed_Shakeer If possible, is there someone who can help me and modify it or approve it Muamalq (talk) 12:52, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

@Muamalq: Hello, welcome to the teahouse! Part of the issue you have here is that you've included too many citations which is making the page hard to review - this is called citebombing. A simple statment of fact like "This person is a programmer" does not need 11 citations. A statment like "He found a security issue for the department of defense" does not need 21 citations. Cut it down to 1 or 2 really high quality, substantial sources for each fact - googling the name of most of theses sources suggests that there are a few good quality citations here, but there's also a few citations to stuff like press release sites? 192.76.8.74 (talk) 13:29, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

In my opinion, reduce to about 10 citations. David notMD (talk) 14:21, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Article for creation

Hi there,

Could someone help me make my draft better please.

Thanks TickTokTickTok (talk) 14:22, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

The problem is that you are attempting to create an article about the 2021 Greenlandic Football Championship, with each previous year being the subject of an article, BUT THE 2021 SEASON WAS CANCELLED. (Yes, I shouted.) An article cannot exist about a season of games that did not occur. David notMD (talk) 15:17, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

@David notMD: So I think this brings up an interesting point: how notable would a sports season need to be for it to be an article despite being canceled before ever beginning? If the cancelation did (for whatever reason) gain international attention, would the article then be '20XX Blahblah Sport Cup', or would it be 'Cancellation of the 20XX Blahblah Sport Cup'? Not asking specifically about this article, of course; it seems clear that this is well behind whatever that threshold would be. I should also note that TickTokTickTok may not have considered this a problem given 2020 Greenlandic Football Championship was created without much ado by a very active soccer editor. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 16:18, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

@David notMD: I'm not f*cking stupid, I am aware that the competition is cancelled and so was the 2020 competition as well. And games did occur but the Football Association of Greenland ended up cancelling it. I do research before I start writing you know TickTokTickTok (talk) 16:27, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

My point is that an article about a season of games that did not take place does not meet Wikipedia's concept of notability. I would differentiate this from 2020 Greenlandic Football Championship because that year the qualifying games took place before the championship was cancelled. David notMD (talk) 17:03, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Dieu Et Mon Pais

So my first attempt at making a wikipedia page for the McCurdy Scottish clan family motto was declined. However the Dieu et mon droit page is allowed.

My intention for the creation of the McCurdy Motto page, Dieu et mon pais, is for anyone interested in researching the ancestry of the McCurdy (MacKirdy, etc.) may find this page and be directed to the correct family motto, and the source material for this family motto (Ancestral McCurdys) Figmtnmatt (talk) 15:01, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Sorry but I have tagged your draft for speedy deletion as it is a copyright violation of https://ia800905.us.archive.org/27/items/ancestralmccurdy00blan/ancestralmccurdy00blan.pdf Theroadislong (talk) 15:06, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Figmtnmatt: Hello, welcome to the teahouse! Your article appears to be a chapter copied out of a book - you can't upload copyrighted material owned by other people to wikipedia, that's a copyright violation - please see WP:Copying text from other sources. You can use books as sources of information, but you need to write the article in your own words. Pages also need to be structured as an encyclopaedia article with enough information to identify what the article is about, as a single chapter out a book with no introduction or conclusion it doesn't make a lot of sense, e.g. it starts with a sentence which clearly relies on you having read the other chapters of the book to understand - this is why your draft was declined. 192.76.8.74 (talk) 15:13, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Isn't the work in the public domain per UK copyright laws since the author died in 1939 and more than 70 years have elapsed since then? Of course, copying from a PD source still needs to be acknowledged using {{PD-notice}}, etc. DanCherek (talk) 15:19, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Yep, you're right, it's out of copyright. Still needs acknowledgement though. 192.76.8.74 (talk) 15:40, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Furthermore Dieu et mon droit is the motto of the Monarch of the United Kingdom, not just a family motto. I suggest you simply add your information to the McCurdy (surname) article, in your own words, citing a reliable source for the information.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 15:15, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

"not just a family motto". That is possibly the most insulting verbiage I have ever read, considering my family's contribution to the Untied States of America. I understand the viewpoint of the copyright of material, however the book I copied from was written in 1930 and is most likely out of copyright. I have removed the copied material. I do not see how any additional context must be included for a McCurdy searching for anything regarding their family name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Figmtnmatt (talk • contribs) 15:20, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Figmtnmatt, whether or not a subject meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability or not, and hence whether or not there can be an article about the subject, has little directly to do with the quality, importance, popularity, fame, significance, or any other intrinsic or consequential property of the subject, save one: it depends almost entirely on whether there is enough material, written and published wholly independently of the subject to ground an article. I take Shantavira's comment as meaning not that the family is unimportant, but that there is not likely to be very much material published about the McCurdy motto (as opposed to the family), unlike the British Royal motto. --ColinFine (talk) 16:53, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. I was able to edit the McCurdy surname page and the links I added were further edited by someone to be External links. Much appreciated. Figmtnmatt (talk) 19:28, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Greenlandic Football Championship

A recent query about the 2021 season led me to Greenlandic Football Championship. I saw that each season has its own article (each with only on ref, from the league), and each team is the subject of an article, mostly with either no ref or only one ref. I have no feelings one way or the other for either football or Greenland, but do wonder about the validity of this collection of articles. Do any Wikipedia-football-knowledgeable editors want to comment? David notMD (talk) 15:29, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

@David notMD: Might be a better question for Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 15:56, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Posted there. David notMD (talk) 17:10, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

an account is vandalising an article by removing verified information

Hello-- new to editing. I have verified all of my edits with credible citations but an article on a living person is being monitored by either themselves or their publicist. This account is deleting entire paragraphs of verified information that is unfavorable to the public image of the subject. What are the rules for this? Does this qualify as vandalism? the article:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angela_Rye Blindsocialist (talk) 15:43, 22 August 2021 (UTC) blindsocialist

Hi Blindsocialist,

Thanks for asking. The relevant policies are:

• No edit-warring,
• Proper dispute resolution, first on the article's talk page (Talk:Angela Rye). A helpful essay: WP:DISCFAIL
• If there's a dispute about whether material should be within the article, the onus is on you to gain consensus for inclusion (WP:ONUS); you have not done so yet.

You have been blocked from editing the page for two weeks to prevent further edit warring, and to encourage proper talk page discussion at Talk:Angela Rye.

Best regards,
~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:47, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

I don't understand-- when I see the talk page notifications is doesn't take me to a talk page Blindsocialist (talk) 15:51, 22 August 2021 (UTC)blindsocialist

@Blindsocialist: Welcome to the Teahouse! I agree that the notifications on User talk:Blindsocialist don't seem to explicitly link to Talk:Angela Rye. You may also wish to read about the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. Happy editing! 16:02, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

@Blindsocialist: It appears that the IP you were referring to (in this case, not an account, but rather an anonymous editor) has been partially blocked from editing Angela Rye for two weeks. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 16:43, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

It's August. Think of the two-week block as a vacation. An editor reverted the IP's cuts, so for the moment, most of your added content is present. I believe you can make a case on the Talk page of the article for more content to be added, or existing content edited, even though you are blocked from editing the article itself. David notMD (talk) 17:19, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Submission declined due to inline citations and footnotes

My submission has been declined due to inline citation and footnotes. I am dumb when it comes to these IT stuffs and referencing. Please, can anyone help? Jdunkwu (talk) 16:35, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Added a title for this post. Also, Jdunkwu, I'll take a look. I'm assuming you're referring to a draft at AfC. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 16:40, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

@Jdunkwu: If I'm understanding this correctly, you're referring to Draft:Peter Adinma Dunkwu, which was rejected by Theroadislong. I'll start by saying that it appears – based on the nature of the article and based on your username – that you may be the subject in question. Your username, Jdunkwu, lines up with the first initial of the subject's stated nickname honorific in the article ("JP") and the subject's last name. If this is the case, I highly suggest you read WP:AUTOBIO for why what you're attempting is not a good idea. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 16:55, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Declined, not Rejected. Autobiography is allowed, but all factual statements need to come from reliable source references. If this is about you, and you know some information about you is true, that is not sufficient to be in the article unless you can cite published content not written by you. See Help:Referencing for beginners for ref instructions. David notMD (talk) 17:27, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

@Jdunkwu: If you are Dunkwu or related to Dunkwu or have any other conflict of interest, you must declare this on your user page. GoingBatty (talk) 21:40, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

How to Edit a post

Moved from Wikipedia talk:Teahouse § How to Edit a post

 –  Qwerfjkltalk 19:00, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Hello everyone... So when I wanna edit a post, I'll just click on "home" and then read posts, and edit posts that are contrary to what the real thing is..?? Emmy Rey (talk) 17:13, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Unclear what you mean by "home". If you find content at an article that you believe to be not true, AND you can provide a reference supporting your conclusion, you can edit the article and add the reference you found. If, on the other hand, you believe you know what is true but do not have a reference, do not change the content. David notMD (talk) 19:23, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Starting a page for Zara Rutherford.

I was hoping to start a page for Zara Rutherford to help track her round-the-world solo flight as a 19 year old female. Is this not possible? Packers76 (talk) 19:12, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

You have perhaps not read the feedback on your user talk page, or on your draft at Draft:Zara Rutherford? In those feedback messages the words in blue are wikilinks to detailed advice. --David Biddulph (talk) 19:17, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not news (hence, not tracking her multi-month effort, and WP:TOOSOON). Resubmit only after she has completed her mission. David notMD (talk) 19:33, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

My article was deleted for invalid reasons

The response received is that the article is promotional and its not. How can we address this? 68.199.119.211 (talk) 19:45, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Hello. This is the only edit from this IP address. What was the title of the deleted article? As an administrator, I could look into it. You can appeal the deletion at Wikipedia:Deletion review. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:51, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

(ec) Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I think this is about Draft:Dancehall Divas. Wikipedia is not a place to merely tell about something. That is considered promotional here. Wikipedia is a place where articles summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about a subject, showing how the subject meets the special Wikipedia definition of notability. Pleass see Your first article. 331dot (talk) 19:52, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

How to join this ongoing voting.

Hello, I learnt that there is a Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees elections going on. Please how can I join..?? And what's it all about..Coz I learnt that there are rewards attached to it at the end of the voting exercise. I need help. Emmy Rey (talk) 21:16, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

@Emmy Rey: Hello, welcome to the teahouse! You are not eligible to vote in this years election - to vote you must have made a minimum of 300 edits before the 5th of July 2021 and a minimum of 20 edits between the 5th of January 2021 and the 5th of July 2021. These elections occur on meta, here's the page for this year's election: Meta:Wikimedia Foundation elections/2021. I'm not aware of there there being any rewards for voting. 192.76.8.74 (talk) 21:23, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

edit with a source included

If I made an edit, and there is already a source included, why is the edit changed without any explanation? 73.61.22.198 (talk) 21:17, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. You have no other edits associated with your IP; it is difficult to give a good answer without knowing the edit at issue. 331dot (talk) 21:41, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

When someone reverts an edit, they should explain in the edit summary their motivation. Sometimes their edit summary contains links to policies or guidelines to help you understand their motivation. Other times, it can be hard to understand. Per the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, I suggest you either ask the editor directly on their user talk page, or post on the article talk page and {{ping}} the editor to join the conversation. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 21:55, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

I have made edits in the past, so I am not sure why there is a different IP address. OK thank you for the feedback! 73.61.22.198 (talk) 22:06, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

IP addresses can change over time, even if you are using the same access device. David notMD (talk) 22:46, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Encyclopedia.com

I was planning to work on the article about the cult-film journalist and author Danny Peary, and his birth information is footnoted to Encyclopedia.com. From what I read at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_279#Encyclopedia.com, Encyclopedia.com aggregates reliable-source material. Here's my question: Rather than cite Encyclopedia.com, shouldn't we cite the reliable source instead? I've seen "via=" in some footnotes. Would that apply here?

I'll be specific. This Danny Peary Encyclopedia.com page https://www.encyclopedia.com/arts/educational-magazines/peary-dannis-1949 says at the end that the material comes from the reference work Contemporary Authors, New Revision Series. So should the current footnote ("Peary, Dannis 1949-". Encyclopedia.com. 2009. Retrieved August 19, 2019.) be more like ("Peary, Dannis 1949-". Contemporary Authors, New Revision Series. Via Encyclopedia.com. 2009. Retrieved August 19, 2019.)

Also I don't see "2009" anywhere on the Encyclopedia.com article. Should the 2009 come out?

I'm sorry to keep asking questions, and thank you everyone on Teahouse for helping me many times.

Now that I think about it, I'm not sure any of this even matters. The footnote goes to the same place. Am I being too persnickety? The Horror, The Horror (talk) 21:52, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

@The Horror, The Horror My quick passing observation is that you should not cite anything unless you have personally seen and checked that the information stated can be verified from that citation. If you can't do that, perhaps you should not be the one trying to create the article. Or try to find other reliable sources yourself that do support Notability. My point being that if Encyclopaedia.com can aggregate sources, you ought to be able to go out and find those sources yourself. Nick Moyes (talk) 22:00, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

@The Horror, The Horror: On the Encyclopedia.com page, click the "Cite this article" button (which looks like curly quotation marks), and you'll see citations that are similar to your proposal (without the 2009 year). Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 22:02, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

The Horror ×2, I completely agree with Nick Moyes. I'm not sure if GoingBatty is making a suggestion rather than just stating a fact, but if there's a suggestion that you should believe what the encyclopedia.com page says about its sources and then cite these sources on encyclopedia.com's say so rather than either citing encyclopedia.com or checking its ostensible sources for yourself, then I strongly disagree. (Incidentally -- and though not relevant to your question -- I bought Peary's Cult Movies trilogy when freshly published and found the three books to be most enjoyable reads. They go into fascinating detail. However, I gradually realized that, for those films that I happened to know well, the details were rather often mistaken.) -- Hoary (talk) 22:25, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

@Hoary: Sorry I wasn't clear. I was suggesting using a citation with "via Encyclopedia.com". I would do something similar with Newspapers.com. If The Horror, The Horror wanted to make the extra effort to find Contemporary Authors and then cite that directly, that would be fabulous. GoingBatty (talk) 22:32, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Hoary likes this.

Have I adequately resolved this template message?

I've updated the source for the Emmy awards for https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Autobiography_of_Miss_Jane_Pittman_(film); will someone please concur or further guide me in the process? Thanks. Joeythegimp (talk) 22:14, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

@Joeythegimp: Looks like you've solved the problem to me, there's no information on that page referenced to IMDB anymore! You can go ahead and delete the clean-up template if you want. 192.76.8.74 (talk) 22:28, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia shows 2 family name sheets for 1 genus: "Ariolimacidae" & "Arionidae" for Genus Ariolimax

{{subst:trim|1= As noted above. Regards, LWms

Ariolimax redirects to Banana Slug and only shows one family. Which article are you referring to that shows two? RudolfRed (talk) 23:31, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Insert image

How do I download images Comrade Fabian Livinus (talk) 23:43, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

@Comrade Fabian Livinus: Welcome to the Teahouse! To insert or upload images, see Wikipedia:File Upload Wizard, and take care to carefully answer the copyright questions. You can't just upload any picture you find online. To download images to your device, use the same process as you would to download an image from any other website. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 00:51, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Can I delete an entire section on "cultural identity" if it doesn't have a source after 1997?

I got a wikipedia and started editing some misinformation about things I care about. I can understand the impulse for people to edit in their own experiences for something as personal as Alcoholics Anonymous but I'm pretty serious about sources in general. As much as I want to delete the entire "cultural identity" section just because I know it isn't true, I think there's an argument for deleting it because it only contains three sources from 1983, 1985, and 1997. How would it be possible to have accurate information about a group's culture with information from 24-38 years ago? Can I delete this entire section while I work on a more modern section with sources from the last 5-10 years? I have a ton...see the talk page of my last edit. Thank you MxLysistrata (talk) 00:32, 23 August 2021 (UTC)MxLysistrata

@MxLysistrata: Welcome to the Teahouse! You can be bold and delete it, but it's possible that someone will revert your edit. Instead, you may want to ask this question on the article's talk page - Talk:Alcoholics Anonymous - to gain consensus and give a better explanation than you can in a short edit summary. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 00:54, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

MxLysistrata Since it’s properly sourced, it doesn’t matter how old the information is. I would simply add more updated information to the end of that section, if you can find it. We strive for balance here. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 01:18, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

More opinion on Draft:Sourajeet Majumder

Hey everyone, I had declined this draft and had requested for WP:THREE which were provided by Wikicontributor12369 here [4]. Since I am still getting back from my break, I thought it will be best to bring here for more diverse and informed opinions. Please help. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 01:39, 23 August 2021 (UTC) Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 01:39, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Editing an existing book citation

Hello, Thanks for providing and servicing this help forum.

I cited the book source #4 on this Wiki page on the Gion Matsuri: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gion_Matsuri# Book: Pawasarat, Catherine (Nov 2020). The Gion Festival: Exploring Its Mysteries. self-published. ISBN 978-0-9985886-6-7.

I used a template for the citations.

I'd like to add a URL for the book (http://www.gionfestival.org/book/), but can't find a way to edit the citation.

I have read numerous wiki help pages on editing and on citations, but have not found examples that match this citation (it has a cog symbol in the upper right window that pops up when I hover over it). And when I click on the article edit tab, I don't get access to the template and the URL field that I'm looking for. (Just to let you know I tried resolving this on my own before writing you).

Any help much appreciated. Thank you. AkasaCatherine (talk) 01:42, 23 August 2021 (UTC)