Wikipedia:Teahouse

GoingBatty, a Teahouse host

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

Question forumMeet your hostsArticles to improveBecome a host

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

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

Most recent archives
1220, 1221, 1222, 1223, 1224, 1225, 1226, 1227, 1228, 1229, 1230, 1231, 1232, 1233, 1234, 1235, 1236, 1237, 1238, 1239

Trouble inserting links

Hi, there seems to have been a change to the software for inserting links, and it's no longer working for me. It used to be that if I wanted to link to a sub-part in an article, I would highlight the phrase in my draft that I wanted to link. Then I would hit the "link" button in the editing box and insert the url for that sub-part and click "insert". The software would then give a message about that being an external link, and did I want to make it an internal link? I would click "internal link" and it would insert it as an internal link. Now, when I get to that stage and click "internal link", nothing happens. It doesn't insert any link at all. Am I doing something wrong? has the software for inserting links changed? Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 02:53, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you're experiencing, but manually wikilinking to sections within pages still works: When editing the wikitext source, [[Wikipedia:Teahouse#Trouble inserting links|linktext]] generates linktext. If you're using the Wikipedia:VisualEditor, highlighting a word, hitting the link button on the toolbar, and pasting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Teahouse#Trouble_inserting_links into the "Add a link" box (within the "Wikipedia" tab, not "External site") automatically abbreviates to the internal wikilink form (alternatively, enter into the box WP:Teahouse#Trouble inserting links), and you can just hit "Done" to make a wikilink. You seem to be quite an experienced editor, but for general questions, H:WIKILINK is the first reference. – Anon423 (talk) 09:52, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I may be an experienced editor, but I am extremely techno-deficient. :) I don't know what Visual Editor is, for example. However, since I posted this inquiry, the link box now has a new button for internal links and no longer asks if you want an internal link. I think the software has had an update over the past couple of days. Thanks for the H:WIKILINK info - I wasn't aware of it before. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 04:03, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Mr Serjeant Buzfuz: When you click the "Edit" tab (instead of the "Edit source" tab), you're using the VisualEditor. For more information, see Help:VisualEditor. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 04:42, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vanishing Wikipedia citation tool

I used to be a heavy user of the for google books. http://reftag.appspot.com/ It no longer seems to work. Has it been replaced, can anyone tell me please, and if so, by what? It was a real labour saver. JonRichfield (talk) 11:59, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@JonRichfield: Welcome to the Teahouse! There are alternatives mentioned at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 192#Wikipedia citation tool for Google Books and Wikipedia:User scripts/Requests#restore the Wikipedia Citation Tool for Google Books. You can also try Wikipedia:Citation expander or Wikipedia:Reflinks or Wikipedia:ReFill. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 14:51, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks! I'll give those a try! JonRichfield (talk) 16:09, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@JonRichfield You can try User:Qwerfjkl/scripts/generatedoi. ― Qwerfjkl talk 20:15, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Qwerfjkl Thank you. Shall look into! JonRichfield (talk) 13:56, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Help with getting approval for a draft article with reliable external references

I realize I have excessive citations in the article, I will be fixing that now. I am more puzzled by why the references are not considered "in depth" for the subject, since the papers and articles that cite works from this subject clearly use this subject's expertise and works to build upon It would be odd to have an academic paper rely on and cite a work, and then start talking in depth about the author of that work, unless that would be directly relevant to a specific paper about such subjects. So I'm a bit stumped on this one, it seems like there are many external verifiable references to this subject's work.

OP: I'm having trouble with this draft article, which has reliable external references, which I believe adhere to Wikipedia's verifiability standards, but the review declined the draft from being published. What am I missing? Thank you so much. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:M._Riad_El-Ghonemy kosarjaff (talk) 14:54, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

kosarjaff, to establish that El-Ghonemy is notable enough to warrant a WIkipedia article about him, someone will have to cite at least three reliable independent published sources with extensive discussion of him. Which three of the 20 sources currently cited in the draft do you believe best meet those criteria? Maproom (talk) 15:13, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Looking into this now... thanks for the help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kosarjaff (talk • contribs) 17:21, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maproom, Would you kindly take a look at the latest draft to see if that is a better way to cite this subject? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kosarjaff (talk • contribs) 16:53, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Maproom: Courtesy ping. GoingBatty (talk) 19:40, 18 October 2021 (UTC) [reply]

Declined article

Good evening sir or madam, i have been trying to get an article published for weeks now and i keep receiving different reasons for its refusal. The latest one being about my referencing. I have made a few changes but still not sure that is why i am here to get help. Please how can i get my article published. EsipoWiki (talk) 20:43, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy link: Draft:Edo State Investment Promotion Office Maproom (talk) 21:01, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse. All the references appear to be from government websites, which may qualify them as primary sources. Please add reliable, independent, secondary sources to confirm notability of the subject. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 18:27, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is a good example of source you could reference in your article if it talks about this. Kaleeb18 (talk) 14:47, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia page on Jayshree Seth

Hi. I created a Wikipedia page of Jayshree Seth. But this page has been kept in draft format by User:Nomadicghumakkad. Can you please tell me why this Wikipedia page of Jayshree Seth can't be kept in permanent format as she is a well established American chemical engineer and author? Thegreatestmanonearth (talk) 05:12, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thegreatestmanonearth, this issue is whether Jayshree Seth is notable enough to warrant a Wikipedia article about her. This will be decided on the basis of whether the sources cited in the article include several reliable independent published sources with extensive discussion of her. Which three of the 20 sources currently cited, in your opinion, do most to fulfil those criteria? Maproom (talk) 07:42, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reduced Draft:Jayshree Seth to 16 refs and a lot of subjective-type content removed from Early life and education. Of the 16 refs, make a case here and on the Talk page of the article for the validating references. Consider resubmitting. David notMD (talk) 12:44, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You're going to struggle a bit. The Society of Women Engineers award might count for something, but the alumnus thing and the award from her own company are of limited value in establishing notability. Industrial scientists do struggle. The usual routes to notability as an academic include such things as winning independent awards from very meaningful societies, being the chief editor of a journal, having highly-cited, paradigm-shifting papers, and holding a named chair in a university (or, of course, doing research that attracts the attention of the wider press, and turning up in normal newspaper sources). None of these options tend to be in the career-path of an industrial scientist. Interviews don't count, and the major way in which a person like her hits the press will be in the form of interviews. Anything that looks like it was prompted by a press-release from her company will also fail to establish notability. If you struggle to find enough on her, then since her entire career seems bound up in the same company, it may be more appropriate to put some information about her in the article on 3M instead of making a stand-alone article. Elemimele (talk) 13:20, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed with Elemimele. That could be a start. Once she satisfies WP:Academic or any other policy, she can have her own page. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 13:34, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Template:ChongBlia Yang

A tag has been placed on Template:ChongBlia Yang requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section R3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a recently created redirect from an implausible typo or misnomer, or other unlikely search term.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. NruasPaoYPP (talk) 03:49, 18 October 2021 (UTC) ==[reply]

Hello, please do not delete my "template:ChongBlia Yang". This is because I didn't know what I did is a "redirect". I apologized, because I still misunderstood between "linking to and redirect to" a page. Now I know that I cannot do like this, from now, I'll not do it again. I'll try to work on it, but as a new article. And then I'll try to see if I can find some resources and references to support it. Thank youNruasPaoYPP (talk) 03:49, 18 October 2021 (UTC) NruasPaoYPP (talk) 03:49, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@NruasPaoYPP: The place to post the object is Template_talk:ChongBlia_Yang. However, you are mentioning wanting to create an article, and the page to be deleted is a template. Those are not the same thing. If you want to create an article, follow the guidance at WP:YFA and you can create a draft article for review. RudolfRed (talk) 03:57, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have deleted this redirect, NruasPaoYPP. I couldn't imagine how it benefitted the encyclopedia, and you failed to give any justification for it. Perhaps you intended ChongBlia Yang to redirect to Draft:ChongBlia Yang; but this would be unacceptable because article titles may not redirect to drafts. Draft:ChongBlia Yang is a chatty piece that does not look like an encyclopedia article (in part because it cites no references whatever); if you want it to become an article, I suggest that you do a lot more work on it. -- Hoary (talk) 04:38, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@NruasPaoYPP: The difference between a template and an article was explained to you at WP:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1126#Problems to link a Template page to my article namepage.. --David Biddulph (talk) 08:00, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

NruasPaoYPP, are you saying that you'll try to work on the content of your draft (from what you already know to be true, from "common knowledge", etc), and that you'll then try to see if you can find some resources and references to support what you've written? If so, you've got the wrong idea. Forget what you already know to be true, "common knowledge", etc, and start with reliable, independent, published sources. Summarize what these say, in your own words (or, where the original wording seems irreplaceable, within quotation marks). Using <ref> </ref>, clearly indicate which part comes from which reference. -- Hoary (talk) 08:31, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Does this look bad?

The "Species" section in this article to which I have linked, had a long list of beetles so I thougght I'll rather add columns-list. But now I feel it looks congested. Is it fine? Excellenc1 (talk) 04:45, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't notice any difference, Excellenc1. Or anyway none related to congestion. (I'm using Firefox 93.0 right now.) But since you bring up the matter of looking congested, I have to say that your signature strikes me as unusually awkward, spilling as it does over other letters. Removing padding:5px; from it would be a big help. -- Hoary (talk) 05:02, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hoary,


Padding	Signature
no padding	Excellenc1 (talk)
1px	Excellenc1 (talk)
2px	Excellenc1 (talk)
3px	Excellenc1 (talk)
4px	Excellenc1 (talk)
5px	Excellenc1 (talk)

No padding looks the worst. Excellenc1 (talk) 06:13, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Then we differ, Excellenc1. To me, using either Firefox 93.0 or Chromium 90.0.4430.212, no padding looks the best. The more padding, the more shouty. (Worse, the more padding, the more interference with other text.) -- Hoary (talk) 08:22, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Excellenc1: Looking at this, from experience, the reason that you might think one looks better than another might be because of the background padding that already comes with the line height. One way to make it look better but not as bloated at the same time would be to add only padding on the left and right, since there is already a "padding" of sorts that comes with the line height. This could be achieved with padding:0px 2px 0px 2px (Excellenc1 (talk)). You could also use a border radius to make it look a little better (in my opinion) padding:0px 2px 0px 2px; border-radius: 4px (Excellenc1 (talk)) Just some suggestions for thought :) ― Levi_OP^Talk 14:49, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Excellenc1, why not put code like this in your personal CSS page User:Excellenc1/common.css

#bodyContent a[title="User:Excellenc1"] { background:#58111A; color:#FFA700; padding:5px; font-weight: bold; }

(See my CSS page User:Verbarson/common.css for an example.) This will highlight your signature whenever you are logged on. That way, you can leave your public signature unchanged from normal, because frankly, I don't need to see it highlighted, whereas you can make it as dramatic as you like for your own consumption. (I would credit whoever told me about this, but I didn't record their name.)--Verbarson (talk) 21:07, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Verbarson I'm sorry but I didn't understand what do you mean by "highlight" when you said "This will highlight your signature whenever you are logged on". Also, what about this signature (somewhat based on Levi_OP's suggestion: Excellenc1 (talk) But I fear this is too long in the source code. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Excellenc1 (talk • contribs) 04:40, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Excellenc1, my CSS page User:Verbarson/common.css is only activated when I am logged on. When you, or anyone else, or nobody (ie anonymous user), is logged on, my signature looks like "Verbarson". When I am logged on, my CSS page is active and turns my signature into "Verbarson". This makes it easier for me to pick out my contributions in a discussion like this, or on a history page or watchlist. I don't care if my signature looks mundane to everyone else.

Of course, there are many people who do like their signature to stand out to other users, which is fine as long as it doesn't affect the way the rest of the page is displayed. Your choice.--Verbarson (talk) 09:05, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Useful side-effect: doing it with CSS means that it also highlights (when I am signed on) the places where somebody pings me or uses {{u|Verbarson}}. As far as your signature is concerned, I wouldn't worry about the code length too much (have you ever checked the Google front page source?); what affects the text around it is the top and bottom padding, which widens the current text line and (very slightly) disrupts the flow of the paragraph.--Verbarson (talk) 09:14, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Need some help with a complicated matter (reinstating a previously deleted page)

Hi. Recently the article Stuart Scheller has been deleted. I believe the deletion was premature and the subject has attracted significant attention since the deletion (if you live in the US, you know who i am talking about) making him notable per WP:BIO. My idea was to reinstate the article (per WP:BOLD , please dont attack me for doing that) and then start another deletion discussion. The problem is, when I added the deletion tempalte per the guideline I found a problem in that the deletion discussion page already exists (from the previous discussion), so I cant start a new discussion where I could provide my arguments why the article should be reinstated. Could someone help me? What should be the corret procedure if I strongly feel the subject matter of the article is notable now, even if it was not when the article was deleted? Many thanks in advance. --Daikido (talk) 08:45, 18 October 2021 (UTC) Daikido (talk) 08:45, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Daikido: I'm afraid restoring the article like you did was not the ideal first step to take; the deletion discussion closed three weeks ago, with a clear consensus to merge Stuart Scheller into another article. Since then, a few attempts have been made to revert the merge and re-create an article, and it was even protected to stop that from happening. The protection expired yesterday. WP:BOLD is a good guideline, but when there is an existing consensus from a recent discussion, making bold edits that go against the consensus is not a good idea. That is especially true when the article has very recently been protected against that type of edit.

A couple of weeks ago when you tried to create a new AfD discussion, the editor who reverted your edit mentioned WP:AFDHOWTO, which explains how to create a new AfD discussion about an article that has been discussed in AfD before. Doing so at this point might be seen as disruptive, though, especially since there was a discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 October 10#Stuart Scheller, which closed less than a week ago and concluded that Scheller isn't independently notable.

If you believe that significant new information has appeared since Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stuart Scheller closed, Deletion Review is the place to start a discussion, but take a moment to read this information first. Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 09:46, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reply. I genuinely didn't know the article had been protected (please do not assume I did it today just because the protection inspired today, I was planning on restoring it for about a week), I also didn't really check the article history for that matter either. Given the new information in your second paragraph (about the redirects for discussion), I will now revert my previous edit on the article. I've already started a new discussion on the talk page of the article as well, given the situation, what would be the best case to discuss this? On the talk page of Stuart Scheller's article or would the Deletion Review be the better place to do so? In your opinion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daikido (talk • contribs) 09:55, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Daikido, you have described this as "a complicated matter", but it really isn't. A recent AfD resulted in a clear consensus for "merge", and nothing has happened since to change that. So you should drop the issue, and find a better use for your efforts. Insisting on another AfD now will result in the same consensus, antagonise other editors, and weaken your case should future news possibly justify a new AfD. Maproom (talk) 14:39, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Two questions

Hello.

Hope you're well? Just a couple of questions. I was advised previously to ask questions (about potential tag removal) in the Talk section of a page. But, several weeks on, these seem to be unanswered. Is there an alert or something that I'm not aware of? Sorry, if so.

Also, is there a list of articles that need review? And, if so, how do I get to it? I've been using Random Article, but most of the ones it sends me to are good? So, it's pretty slow going.

Anyway, hope you're well?

Take care,

Edward BorleyBoy (talk) 11:50, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

BorleyBoy If you have no association with the subject of the article, and you feel that the issues raised by the tags have either been addressed, are no longer applicable, or the tags were invalid in the first place, you may remove the tags. You can mark talk page posts as a formal edit request(click for instructions) if you are proposing a specific change to the article(such as removing a tag). 331dot (talk) 12:03, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! That's very helpful. I'll start with the edit request. Not sure I'm ready for removing them myself! Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by BorleyBoy (talk • contribs) 12:21, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How to improve an article

How to improve an article for Wikipedia publication Bryan dewa (talk) 13:18, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bryan dewa: usually, by finding and citing reliable independent published sources with extensive discussion of the subject, so as to establish that the subject is notable. I see that Draft:Mercy Mutsvene currently cites no such sources. Maproom (talk) 13:52, 18 October 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Re-using photos of other versions of Wikipedia

Hi, I want to use a photo in English Wikipedia which is published in Romanian Wikipedia. Now, I just want to know that will be there any copyright warning in this case. Like I want to use this and this images in English Wikipedia, now will I be able to do it or not? Ahp (talk) 14:10, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse Ahp101. The images you want to use are logos, which were uploaded to the Romanian Wikipedia (not WP Commons) under the same sort of non-free use as is allowed on the English Wikipedia for logos. Read WP:LOGO carefully and then you should be able to copy them across here. Make sure you fill in all the necessary details when you use the non-free upload Wizard available at WP:File Upload Wizard. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:20, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ahp101 As these are non-free files, you are only able to use them under fair use guidelines, and they will need to be tagged as such accordingly. WP:NFCC is the best page to read for information on this. The files appear to be appropriately marked for use on the Romanian wikipedia so you really just need to follow that example. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 14:14, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ivins-Conover House

Italic textI have written A short article for Wikipedia about my ancestral home which is included in the National Register of Historic Places for Burlington Co. New Jersey. No such article exists for the entry. It probably doesn’t need a standalone page. Wrote it in the sandbox and it completely disappeared. I’m disabled with MS so it would be nice if I don’t have that happen again. Fingers don’t work well. I am a reference librarian and a fairly good writer. Here is the link where I think the article should go. I also have pictures and citations. Where should I create it?https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Register_of_Historic_Places_listings_in_Burlington_County,_New_Jersey JillerMc (talk) 14:12, 18 October 2021 (UTC) JillerMc (talk) 14:12, 18 October 2021 (UTC) JillerMc (talk) 14:12, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

JillerMc I see no evidence in your Contributions that you had done any editing prior to this query at Teahouse. Were you working while not logged in? Were you working in the Wikipedia Sandbox (which is blanked periodically) rather than in your own Sandbox? David notMD (talk) 14:32, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Edit conflict) Welcome to the Teahouse, JillerMc. The edit above is your only contribution to Wikipedia from this account, so I suspect you didn't "publish changes" (which would have meant "save changes into my sandbox", not "place this article in the main encyclopaedia"). According to the list page you linked, all places on the National Register should already be present in the list, although many have red links meaning they do not yet have full articles in Wikipedia. Is your ancestral home one of these? If so, you could use the articles for creation process to draft something for it. If it isn't on the list, you'll have to provide evidence it should be and then add it to the list page, initially as another red link. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:35, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Superscript in an article title

Hi. So, there was a crappy article about M³AAWG, which someone deleted because it was crappy. No argument there. But it's a big organization that nobody argued wasn't notable, and was referenced from a bunch of other places on Wikipedia, so I'd like to get a new article going about them. The issue is that their name is "M³AAWG", with embedded superscript. I keep trying to use {{DISPLAYTITLE:Pagetitle}} with no luck, and can't find any examples of article titles with embedded superscript to look at.

For reference, here's an archived copy of the old page, which had a correct-appearing title:

https://web.archive.org/web/20210813212657/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M³AAWG

...but whoever created that page cheated, and used the unicode ³ superscript-3 character in the article title, and put in redirects from "MAAWG" (which is actually a valid former name of the organization) and "M3AAWG" so people could get to it. But it seems pretty clear that you're not supposed to do that, but should instead create a page with the title "M3AAWG", and use {{DISPLAYTITLE:Pagetitle}} to just display it as M³AAWG.

Except that doesn't seem to be working for me. What am I missing? Or should I just give up and do what they did?

Thanks! EVhotrodder (talk) 14:30, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That use of unicode is what appears to have been done on E=MC² (Mariah Carey album), which has a "good article" tag, which suggests to me that's OK in general, EVhotrodder. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:44, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, fair enough. Thanks! EVhotrodder (talk) 14:50, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Michael D. Turnbull and EVhotrodder: The Mariah Carey title is only allowed because it is a genuine mathematical formula. MOS:TITLE is pretty blunt about typographic effects. "Do not attempt (with HTML, Unicode, wikimarkup, inline images, or any other method) to emulate any purely typographic effects used in titles when giving the title in Wikipedia" - X201 (talk) 15:35, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That was certainly how I read it, which was what lead me down the {{DISPLAYTITLE:Pagetitle}} rathole, but everything I tried threw a "doesn't match" error. That was before the page was created though... Perhaps I should try again after creating the page... EVhotrodder (talk) 15:53, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think your best plan of action is to forget about DISPLAYTITLE. Create the article at M3AAWG with an opening line something like: "M3AAWG usually stylized as M³AAWG..." and then create a redirect from stylization as per the ALIEN³ example halfway down MOS:TITLE. - X201 (talk) 07:54, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to add an article on wikipedia on a event in andaman & nicobar islands

I Added appropriate sources covered by local media & official references but it was rejected after review. Why ? Wiki Gyanwala (talk) 15:10, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Wiki Gyanwala it was not rejected. It was declined - pushed back to you for further work. The reviewer has said why.

Generally, however, Wikipedia is not a newspaper, covering events. Instead it records what reliable sources have said about some events Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 15:16, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

how to lock page

how can I permanently lock a page because of vandalism Eddysocial (talk) 15:18, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Eddysocial Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Pages/articles are rarely permanently protected("locked") from editing, except in the most extreme cases of persistent, intractable vandalism. You may request page protection at WP:RFPP if you can show an issue with vandalism. 331dot (talk) 15:21, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Eddysocial please visit Wikipedia:Requests for page protection where you may make a case for protection Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 15:22, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What is name of article? From your contributions, not apparent where vandalism is a problem. David notMD (talk) 17:01, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How to add videos or images from Wikimedia to an article?

Hi so I wanted to edit a wikipedia page to add a photo related to the topic but I don’t know how to do that Wikilover126 (talk) 16:04, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikilover126 If you've already identified the photo or video you want to use on Wikimedia, just copy its title and use [[File:title|thumb]] to add it to the article. There are some more detailed additions to consider too, if you want to use a caption for the file, and if you want to add alt text so a screen reader can understand it. Ideally your file should look like [[File:title|thumb|alt=a description of what the file depicts|a caption for the file]]. Let me know if you need any further guidance. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 16:11, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To be more specific - you can only do this if the image file is already on Wikipedia's servers. Is it? DS (talk) 16:18, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Soccer Team Notability (Continued after archived)

There was a discussion here regarding the notability of a soccer team that was never resolved. Please use this the link for context. The team meets notability to due participating in the US Open Cup, its standing and importance to the community, rostering multiple players who have met notability and have articles, having a large fanbase, and having a large social media presence for the team as well as the supporter group. 90% of other NPSL teams have pages which shows the NPSL is meeting notability, I am just not sure what I am doing wrong to keep getting rejected. Draft: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Georgia_Storm_FC Kevinw33 (talk) 16:40, 18 October 2021 (UTC) Kevinw33 (talk) 16:40, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Consider that it may be WP:TOOSOON, as the team only became a non-youth team a number of months ago, according to what I'm seeing. Might want to wait until it has been around longer and established itself. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 18:50, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pyrrho the Skeptic, I thought about that as well so I waited for the 2021 season to be in the books, which it now is. I don't mean to get into "whataboutism" but, most of the other teams in our league have pages that were approved, just trying to determine what avenues they took. Kevinw33 (talk) 19:09, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

When I look at this list, I see that teams founded recently (2020 or newer) appear to NOT have articles. Thus, nearly all of the teams in that league that have articles have been around significantly longer than your team. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 19:22, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pyrrho the Skeptic, ok I see that now. I guess I will keep updating the page and see how it goes. Maybe one day... Kevinw33 (talk) 19:57, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please help contribute to page

My page Capital on Tap isn't being approved, despite me trying my best to write from a fair and neutral perspective. Could someone please help me edit?

As one of the fastest-growing companies in the UK that has been recognised by Forbes, Sunday Times and Financial Times and has now expanded into the US, it is definitely worthy of an article. HollyWoodward97 (talk) 16:49, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@HollyWoodward97: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I see that you declared a conflict of interest; if you are an employee, you must make the stricter paid editing declaration.

Your draft just tells of the existence of the company and what it does. Wikipedia articles about a company must do more, they must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the company, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. Press releases, brief mentions, staff interviews, announcements of routine business activities, and other primary sources do not establish notability. 331dot (talk) 16:52, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy link: Draft:Capital on Tap TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 06:04, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

FYI

– Added section header. Wikignome Wintergreen^talk 17:47, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused about the complaint that some of the references in my Sidney Thompson biography are self-promotions, like Negro Fort. I am an author of historical fiction; so I'm thinking people would want to know where they can find books on the history of places like Negro Fort. That might arguably be self-promotional because the information is in my peer-evaluated books vetted by a university press, but the information is history--and history that is hard to find because most of the traditional records are whitewashed with few African-American references and contributions. Srthompson721 (talk) 17:18, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse. Could you clarify or elaborate on which links or references are being contested. Negro Fort appears in the article as a Wikilink. I see no edit or comment about that. Help us understand what you're asking. Thanks! Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 18:22, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Srthompson721, hello and welcome to the Teahouse! I'm looking at this [1] edit so I'll comment on that (though it's not really your question). As I understand it, inspired by history though it may be, it's fiction, correct? Then you can't add it to WP:FURTHER READING, that is fairly clear. What you can consider is something like The_Citadel#Depictions ("In fiction" works as section title), but what you need then is an independent WP:RS, not blogs, wikis, amazon, goodreads etc etc, who bothered to write about this book and that Negro Fort was in it to use as a reference, existing is not enough. Hope this helps some. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:25, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Created a new page but not publishes on wikipedia

Hi I Have areated a page Muhammad Azizul Islam on wikipedia who i followed him from long time. I publishes the page but i do not know why it is not on wikipedia. can anybody advise me on this would really help as it is my first article creation on wikipedia. Mshfuz1979 (talk) 18:44, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mshfuz1979 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. "Publish changes" does not mean "publish this to the encyclopedia". It simply means "save changes". You need to submit your draft for review, I have added the information to allow you to do so. 331dot (talk) 18:49, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Before you submit Draft:Muhammad Azizul Islam, check all references to confirm that the references are about him. I removed many but not all that were to existing Wikipedia articles - those need to be converted to Wikilinks. I also removed refs that confirmed existence or an organization - for example a university - but not that Islam graduated or worked at those places. Also, you used the same refs in multiple places, so shows up as separately numbered, whereas there is a process for multiple use of same refs. I stress, a lot of work needed before considering submitting. David notMD (talk) 20:18, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on Personality page

The current article selected by WP:Articles for Improvement is Personality. I have posted some suggested revisions on the Talk page there and would welcome discussion and help implementing changes. I am also looking for interested editors to help get WP:Psychology going again. Many other pages besides Personality in this topic area need improvement! Hypoplectrus (talk) 19:09, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hypoplectrus, the WikiProject on psychology isn't as moribund as many. I suggest that you post at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Psychology that you've already made general proposals at Talk:Personality for the article Personality: doing so might get more people to take a look at what you propose. -- Hoary (talk) 22:16, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Edit counter on my talk page

Edit counter on user talk page

Hi all,

This is my first question in the "Teahouse"... please don't "bite" :)

I was curious if there is a way to plug a quick and easy "edit" counter widget into my talk page? Is that possible?

Thanks!

Oh, and while I am asking, I was also curious if there is a way to easily download the complete wikipedia offline. So that I could look for simple typos or other innocuous edits in a massive way, or experiment otherwise (not the sandbox)? Is this possible? I think I found it, but each time I tried to download it it failed (was maybe 18GB, but wouldn't let me download the torrent). Th78blue (talk) 22:35, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To answer your first question, User:UBX/LiveEditCounter is probably what you're asking for, but you'll need to follow some instructions to set it up. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 22:40, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As for your second question, Th78blue, please read Wikipedia:FAQ/Forking. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:22, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Th78blue: Check out Wikipedia:Typo_Team#Methods_for_searching_and_correcting_typos. There are some tools such as AWB that can help you efficiently scan for typos. You may be interested in joining the Typo Team. RudolfRed (talk) 00:39, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @RudolfRed: I'd love to join the Typo Team! Please sign me up! Where/how do I do this? Th78blue (talk) 14:33, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Th78blue: Just add your name to Wikipedia:Typo Team/Members, and you'll be a member. Deor (talk) 19:54, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

hi i am new

hi i am new to wiki and um why is wiki call wiki and again hi i dont know about wikipedia so also i got a message from some robot that say it changed what i edited and i was scared. o can someone tell me why? Zoeziy (talk) 23:53, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For "wiki", Zoeziy, see "wiki" in Wiktionary. If you don't know what's wrong with your edit, Wikipedia is not a place for you. -- Hoary (talk) 23:59, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

hi its me agian

hey all so um is wiki in every language my friend is from burundi lives there really and his mother likes to listen to news but they dont have tv so he has a phone but he does not see the language kirundi that tge language his mother speaks so could wiki put that language ^.^ : ) Zoeziy (talk) 00:15, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Zoeziy, Kirundi Wikipedia exists. -- Hoary (talk) 00:31, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gatekeeping

I have an issue with Gatekeeping.

I am new to Wiki, and I am trying to post a CONTROVERSY section to the Our Lady of Fatima page. My first attempt was removed for expressing opinions.

I have since revised my controversy section to eliminate all opinions. But when I try to repost, a gatekeeper swiftly takes it down with the tag “undid my revision.”

So if anyone can help moderate, that would be very helpful, because Fatima certainly warrants a controvery section. Ghost apparitions (religious or otherwise) are inherently controversial.

The absence of a controversy section on the Fatima page after so many years is bizarre and almost suspicious—especially since this vision of Mary promoted violence towards children. This is a particularly questionable, potentially very dangeorus “miracle.”

It makes me think Catholic gatekeepers have been removing the controvery section for many years without discovery.

The gatekeeper in this case is using semantics to block the page. He says my use of the term “self-harm rituals” is not encyclopedic language. Fact: the Mary appartion instructed small children to wear ropes tied so tightly around their waists that the ropes became bloody. How is that not a self-harm ritual? The children died afterwards. I have cited the child’s own journals with Mary instructing them to do this rope ritual.

My first source is the book, THE IMMACULATE HEART, published by the reputable Farrar, Straus, and Young. It was written by a Priest who interrogated the witnesses firsthand.

The other book, FATIMA IN LUCIA’S OWN WORDS, was published by the Catholic Church (Imprimatur), which in normal circumstances would be considered a biased press; however in this case it should be admitted, because they are the memoirs of the Saint herself.

If any Wiki moderators could oversee, so that the controvery section doesn’t get automatically deleted, I would appreciate your time so much. The Fatima page is incomplete without thoughtful opposition. Thank you guys. Natalie. Spyrazzle (talk) 00:18, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The place for discussion is Talk:Our Lady of Fátima. --David Biddulph (talk) 00:32, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Further discussion

:: Yes, and on the Talk Page is an attempt by another editor to explain why this good faith addition was removed. Please continue the discussion there. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 00:36, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think my fear is that primarily Catholics and Catholic editors visit the Fatima talk page. I do feel the lack of controversy section is gatekeeping and am requesting a more moderate moderator. [User: Spyrazzle] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spyrazzle (talk • contribs) 01:01, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does not have moderators to the extent which you seem to be suggesting; sysops/admins are more of a book-keeping role mostly for maintenance, and carry no additional authority when it comes to discussing article content. The best--really, the only--way to discuss content for an article is to engage in collaboration the article's talk page. If you feel the section is important, discuss why you feel so, ask why it was removed, and see if there is a middle ground that will work for everyone. Not all content is removed because someone disagrees with its sentiment, it can simply be a matter of not meeting our requirements for sourcing and verifiability, so working with the editors of the article to find the best path forward is in your interest and in theirs. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 01:09, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the input. I am asking will a neutral editor who sees it here visit the Fatima page, review the controversy about harming children, and restore the controversy section? I have used two reputable sources and I think a neutral (non-religious) editor would find my submission worthy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spyrazzle (talk • contribs) 01:20, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Spyrazzle: At the top of Talk:Our Lady of Fátima are five WikiProjects, each of which has a talk page where you could invite interested users to the Talk:Our Lady of Fátima#GATEKEEPING discussion. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 01:36, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

With the full disclosure that I'm non-practicing Catholic, looking at the material itself the main issues I see are essentially the same as have been explained on the article's talk page itself; the material is essentially describing everything as fact with Wikipedia's voice, rather than attributing claims to those who have made them—this is the difference between "X happened and was very Y" and "So-and-so reported witnessing X, and described it as 'very Y'". For example we have the line The vision of Mary praised them for their self-harm rituals. Firstly we can't simply state as fact that the vision of Mary said or did anything, only that someone has claimed that she spoke to them, so this needs to be attributed to the person making that claim. Secondly as was pointed out, the term "self-harm rituals" also needs to be attributed to someone, as otherwise this reads as Wikipedia, not a third-party source, offering this characterisation. Zfish118 on the article's talk page seems willing to engage in discussion on this, having posted there with critique, so I would suggest engaging with them at Talk:Our Lady of Fátima#Controversy Section to see if the material can be re-written to better fit. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 01:42, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for looking at the material. I am more than willing to change the text to "Lucia said that Mary said" rather than "Mary said." But removing "self-harm rituals" seems to be a semantics gatekeeping game as the direct quote from the witness was that Mary instructed the children to keep knotted blood-stained ropes around their waists during the daytime. That is self-harm, because the children tied the ropes themselves. It is a ritual because they were instructed to do it daily. Lucia said that Mary praised them for it and encouraged them to do it during the daytime hours. Something you do each day during the daytime is a ritual. Something you do to yourself, for the reason that it causes pain, and that causes blood to be drawn from the skin, is self-harm. Spyrazzle (talk) 01:56, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, no, I'm not saying the term should be removed, but that the author who described the behaviour in those terms should be attributed, something like "behaviour characterised by XYZ as "self-harm rituals"" for example. The main thing to bear in mind when writing for Wikipedia is that we always have to follow what another source has said, and to attribute that source as best as we can, so it's good practice to do so in text especially when it comes to anything that might be challenged. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 02:02, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've attributed the quote to the author that Mary encouraged the ropes, I've attributed the quote to the author that they were blood-stained, and I've attributed the quote to the author that they were worn every day, on command by the apparition. The author didn't use the phrase "self-harm rituals" but that's what they were clearly, and it seems that nothing would get on Wikipedia if every single word had to be a direct quote from a book. Spyrazzle (talk) 02:08, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not every word has to be direct quote, but every claim has to have a verifiable source. WP:V is the main policy here, and a vital one to the project. If we don't have a source explicitly calling this "self-harm" then I would avoid the term, as it has connotations very different to mortification (which, again, I would not use unless there was a source to attribute that to--in the absence of either, just cite the behaviour and don't name it, and then we're not creating a label where there isn't one). 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 02:21, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Citing the behavior without calling it "self-harm" seems an attempt by Catholics to dilute the fact that two children died after being instructed to do monstrous things to their bodies by the vision. In reporting, a news writer would not water down the word "kill" to "hurt." Calling it self-harm is exactly what it is. This is semantics. They were encouraged to harm their own bodies, with ropes and dehydration, and they did, and they died. I find it similar to blocking a user from using the word "cat" when the source said "the pet meowed." Spyrazzle (talk) 02:30, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion belongs on the talk page, but I don't want to go there.No, Spyrazzle. The very fact that you are insistent that the words "self harm" should be used indicates that the words are not neutral, like "cat". Quoting a reliable source that referred to self-harm would be fine; but in Wikipedia's voice it is editorialising. See WP:RIGHTINGGREATWRONGS. --ColinFine (talk) 09:28, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Colin, if someone asks you to cut yourself with a knife, and you cut yourself and it bleeds, did you harm yourself? Spyrazzle (talk) 17:38, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Spyrazzle, our role as Wikipedia editors is to accurately summarize what reliable sources say, and it is contrary to policy to draw conclusions that do not appear in the sources. Please read WP:SYNTHESIS which is part of a core content policy. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:44, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I will work on word choice to make it satisfactory to Wiki, but I am worried about a larger issue. The Fatima page on Wiki has existed for many years---this is a major event in Catholicism---and the fact that there is no existing controversy page after so many years is frankly suspicious. It makes me think that Catholic editors are slyly blocking this info from emerging. A Mary apparition encourages small children to not drink water for 30 days in a row and to tie cords so tightly around their waists that the cords become blood-stained, the Mary apparition is 3 feet tall and sometimes appears with no eyes and no hands, two of the children die with ropes tied around them right up until their final week on their deathbeds, this information is readily available in all libraries, there is a photograph of the dead little girl that you can easily find on Google, and no one has mentioned it on Wikipedia after so many years? I find that bizarre. Everyone keeps saying to reroute this conversation to the Our Lady of Fatima page, where surely only other Catholics and Catholic editors will read it. I thank everyone for their help, but fanatical religious gatekeeping is my concern. Spyrazzle (talk) 18:28, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If the sources are this readily available, the good news is that you will be able to provide one to back things up. I think you need to drop this idea about "fanatical religious" editors and focus on what has been explained to you--sourcing. Perhaps the best thing to do is to visit a library, check out a few books on the subject (or identify some on Google Books, or perhaps search JSTOR for papers), read what they have to say, and write up a summary of what they have said. Cited and attributed material backed up by reliable sources can't just be removed because editors have theological differences, and if that truly does happen, you can request uninvolved editors have a look at the page, so this fear is not one you need to worry about. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 18:34, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I already have cited credible publications. I will attempt reposting tonight. Thank you to everyone for listening.Spyrazzle (talk) 20:52, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You've got to work with other editors on the article talk page (not here). If you just repost the same thing it is almost certainly going to be removed again. MrOllie (talk) 20:55, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How to edit using 2017 wikitext editor

Can you give us more info about editing using 2017 wikitext editor? 2001:44B8:41C6:F700:BDC4:F472:60E1:79BC (talk) 01:45, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse! See "2017 wikitext editor" on MediaWiki for more info. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 04:45, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note to the IP, you'll need an account to enable the 2017 wikitext editor in the Beta section of preferences. — Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 08:49, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reducing bias of an article to cite more peer reviewed material.

See other note. This was an accidental typo that was created separately. It can be deleted. Snapdginger (talk) 05:27, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Snapdginger: Welcome to the Teahouse! The proper place to discuss an article's content is the article's talk page, as you have been doing on Talk:Vision therapy. While you can definitely "fill pages and pages more", you may find it easier to build consensus with smaller recommendations. Hope this helps, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 12:58, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How do I get editors to pay attention to other legitimate sources?

The page on Vision Therapy has a lot of errors, misleading information and cites only sources that conform to one bias.

An example is the intro statement that says there is no scientific evidence supporting it. The CITT study, double blind, placebo controlled, and peer reviewed says otherwise.

I am trying to open a discussion with other editors to make the page more objective. Discuss the studies that say it is not supported, and the studies that support it too.

I’m running into a problem. Nobody wants to discuss it in the talk section, but they are happy to revert any edits made to make the page more objective.

I realize my first attempt at editing it faltered because I hadn’t read enough of the wiki rules. I am now better versed.

Looking for help on what to do. Snapdginger (talk) 05:32, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Snapdginger:

Courtesy link: Vision therapy A great way to encourage participation is to make your comments more succinct. People won't read a wall of talk page text for an article that's considered fringe by prior consensus. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 05:59, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:APPNOTE can help. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:29, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Timtempleton:

Thank you very much! I will try that approach! Snapdginger (talk) 13:08, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Timtempleton: Is there a specific title I should use for a talk section to try to get the editors who came to a previous consensus to open up a discussion? This is a bit of a challenging topic because ophthalmology publications are always anti-optometry and anti-vision therapy while optometry publications are often the opposite. Do I tag previous authors? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snapdginger (talk • contribs) 13:15, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Timtempleton: Courtesy ping. GoingBatty (talk) 13:18, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Snapdginger: GGS’s suggestion above to check out WP:APPNOTE is excellent. Be careful to not canvas by inviting only people you think already agree with you. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:29, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Timtempleton:, @Gråbergs Gråa Sång and Gråbergs Gråa Sång:,

Solid advice. Read WP:RS at length. I've gained a lot of respect for the WIKI process by doing this. Quick Questions: 1. What do you do if one of the previous and established editors or mods seems to be very attached to their perspective? Is there a way to pull in a third party who doesn't have attachment at some point? 2. Is there clear criteria on which peer reviewed journals meet WP:RS. For example, Optometry and Vision Science (peer reviewed)^[1]. I am having difficulty with an editor dismissing any source I cite (including peer reviewed optometric journals), while they include opinion pieces if it fits their narrative. 3. I have doctorate in Optometry, which allows me to understand the area well. I do not wish to see WP:FRIND. How do I ensure other editors of the fact that all I want to see is an actual neutral point of view that uses sources from established peer reviewed and reliable sources that both support and question something. It seems as though just asking for a more neutral point of view and citing reliable sources has caused one editor to re-write the article in an even less neutral manner that could be perceived as punishment for seeking neutrality.

All of that said, I am very open to feedback if my recent edits were not neutral or violated any wiki terms. If someone not emotionally attached to the current narrative on the page could review the edits of the past few days it would greatly help me learn the process and understand how to best proceed. Excuse the paste, I’m on mobile right now. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vision_therapy?wprov=sfti1 Snapdginger (talk) 13:16, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Snapdginger: See WP:RFC to learn about bringing in unconnected third parties to a dispute on a talk page. You can also ask at the reliable sources noticeboard for an unbiased determination of a source’s reliability. Always be succinct and specific. Focus on one thing at a time and you’ll be more likely to get a response. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:51, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mahendra Singh Dhoni article

Dhoni article have lots of travia material and its some point is looks like fan written. I suggest to clean-up it for grammar, styel and tone. If a native speaker edited it , it'll be better. Newton Euro (talk) 05:48, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Newton Euro: Welcome to the Teahouse! The best place to discuss the MS Dhoni article is on the article's talk page: Talk:MS Dhoni, as you've already been doing. Feel free to tag the article (or individual sections) with {{trivia}} or {{fanpov}} or {{cleanup}}. You can also ask the Wikipedia:Guild of Copy Editors to review the article. Hope this helps, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 13:03, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Newton Euro: I see the article already has some of these tags. You can specify details of these issues on the talk page. You can also cleanup the references with incorrect authors, as I did for a few in this edit. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 13:20, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Splitting an article: Second thoughts

As a newish editor, I maybe got a bit ahead of my level of knowledge, by attempting a split of a very long article: Livingstone, Zambia, in this edit. Now I have started to feel nervous this wasn't the right thing to do - it seemed perfectly reasonable at the time! - as my split was to return recently added material back to a draft article page, Draft:Munokalya Mukuni, here. That is not really covered in the WP:SPLIT guide. Maybe I should have told lots of people first, or advised the original editor? Sorry that these thoughts did not occur until I had already moved the material. Wish I had panicked before, rather than after, I did it. What do you think? Have I done the wrong thing? If so, can you advise how to rectify, please? AukusRuckus (talk) 09:44, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps discussing this on the talk page of the page would be better. Thanks Lightbluerain❄ (Talk | contribs) 18:12, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I did write it all up on the Talk page, in advance. Just later got nervous, and wanted a general view on whether performing an article split by returning interposed material to a Draft article would be okay, or would cause a problem (and not whether the move itself was warranted. Sorry that I buried the main point!). I am going to assume my first instinct was correct, or at least acceptable, in light of the lack of reaction here, and on the article pages. Thanks for your response, though, Lightbluerain. AukusRuckus (talk) 01:09, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome. I really appreciate your hardwork. If you need help with reverting the edits, feel free to ask me. :) Lightbluerain❄ (Talk | contribs) 08:45, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Replace a redirect with a disambiguation

I am seeking some guidance or assistance on how I should approach replacing the redirect for Bell Resources with a disambiguation Bell Resources (disambiguation). I am also drafting the following stub article Draft:Bell Resources. All help and guidance welcome. SiamBill555 (talk) 10:10, 19 October 2021 (UTC) SiamBill555 (talk) 10:10, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@SiamBill555 Since both entries at the DAB-page goes to the same place, I think having a dab-page is unnecessary at this point. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:27, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång You have mis-understood. I need advice on how to remove the redirect so I can use a dab-page to point to a new article. How do I remove the redirect? SiamBill555 (talk) 05:38, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Replied at Talk:Bell Resources (disambiguation). Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:01, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

മലയാളം

2409:4073:296:AD61:0:0:F81:B8A5 (talk) 10:20, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You probably won't find many people here who understand Malayalam. For the Malayalam Wikipedia, please go to ml:പ്രധാന_താൾ. --ColinFine (talk) 10:26, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Help with declined AfC

Hello, I have been working on an AfC ([[2]] that has now been declined twice. The main, rather general and vague criticism seems to the lack of reliable/notable sources/references. I do however think that the collection of sources/references that includes major English/European/German news sources (The Independent, Spiegel, Zeit, El Pais) plus English- and German-language academic work is solid, particularly when compared to some existing articles. Further inquiry with both reviewers about what part exactly they consider problematic has only yielded "Sorry I don't have the time to check your sources" answers. To be honest, it's rather frustrating when the reviewers don't give concrete expamples of sentences or passages they deem problematic. It would be very helpful if someone said, "Source xyz isn't reliable or notable in my opinion because of this and this" or "This sentence sounds too much like an advertisement if you phrase it like you do", that's something I can work with to improve it. So any help in this matter is appreciated. I have openly disclosed that I work for the theater in question in some capacity but I am not paid for writing/editing Wikipedia, I do this in my spare time. POC74 (talk) 11:39, 19 October 2021 (UTC) POC74 (talk) 11:39, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

POC74 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. If you work for the theater, you are a paid editor, you don't have to be specifically paid to edit. Please also review conflict of interest. I might suggest that you also change your username to be more individualistic- please do so at Special:GlobalRenameRequest or WP:CHUS. 331dot (talk) 11:41, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the draft, it's not the sources themselves that are the problem, but their content. A Wikipedia article should not just merely tell of the existence of something and what it does. It should summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the theater company(not based on any materials put out by the company or on mere reporting of what it does), showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable organization. 331dot (talk) 11:44, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Prmotional Words

See this page Jeena Isi Ka Naam Hai see the first line "Jeena Isi Ka Naam Hai was an Indian award-winning talk show" see that an user writes that this is an award winnig talkshow without any citation so I think that the page is fully written by a paid editor so my request is to review that full page because I think there are many promotional words on that page. Thankyou written by UserABCXYZ (talk) 11:53, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @UserABCXYZ, I've had a knack at it here – since the article only has a few sentences worth of prose, I think that should about cover it, so I've taken the liberty of also removing your advert and undisclosed paid tags. The bit about the "award-winning" talk show seems to have been around since 2008, but stuff like this isn't necessarily the result of paid editing – in this case I think it is more likely that the author was simply a fan of the show. Hopefully this addresses your concerns! AngryHarpy‍^talk 12:11, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@AngryHarpy, it appears the article has only one source & was created a very long time ago, this is rather strange. Celestina007 (talk) 12:20, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Celestina007, yep, some stuff does just fall through the cracks – you wouldn't believe the kind of corpses you can dig up by going through something like the list of pages with bare URL sources sorted by least recently edited, for example. In this case, though, I'm happy to leave final judgment to folks more specifically familiar with the genre. AngryHarpy‍^talk 12:37, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@AngryHarpy, oh my! What an epiphany, now this is beyond problematic. I don’t even know what to say. Celestina007 (talk) 12:43, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

UserABCXYZ, hello and welcome to the Teahouse, I’m a prolific anti UPE editor, so I’d do as you have asked, so whilst I check the article after this post, I’m presuming you do not know how to report what you suspect to be paid editing, if you observe what seems to be paid editing, WP:PCD makes it clear WP:AN/I is an acceptable venue to report paid editing but if your report contains private material that may lead to WP:OUTING, you are advised to send a mail to WP:ARBCOM. Celestina007 (talk) 12:14, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't my edits to the page appear?

I spent a few hours yesterday on research to add links to articles on the "External Links" section of a Wikipedia page. I followed all instructions. Today, they don't appear. Please advise, many thanks! Fellowfeline (talk) 13:45, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fellowfeline Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Your edits were removed according to the article edit history, with the editor citing the page Wikipedia:Further reading in doing so. Quickly looking at it, it was an extremely long list of external links- Wikipedia is not a collection of links; external links must serve some purpose in furthering the encyclopedia. If you think that your edits were valid, please discuss them on the article talk page, Talk:Nina Sobell. 331dot (talk) 13:49, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I spent hours researching additional links for the Wikipedia page of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nina_Sobell. I added them yesterday to the "External Links" section and they do not appear today.

Can you help? 13:49, 19 October 2021 (UTC)Fellowfeline (talk) Fellowfeline (talk) 13:49, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fellowfeline Please see my comment above. If you have additional comments, please edit this existing section, instead of creating additional sections. 331dot (talk) 13:55, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I also suggest you read Wikipedia's policy on external links to understand what links are appropriate.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 16:33, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, thanks for your explanation. However, can you or the editor who removed the links to Nina Sobell's page provide specific guidance on the number of links I may add to the "External Links" section? For example, may I add three to five links to this section provide support for Ms. Sobell's work and influence? Please advise. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fellowfeline (talk • contribs) 22:12, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Official dark mode css

I know that there is custom css that you can use on wikipedia. I have found things like this dark skin, but I don't want something with green text. Is there anything like this that is just darker than the normal wikipedia? Thanks, ― Levi_OP^Talk 14:01, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I think this would answer your question. You can enable this gadget from the “Testing and development” section of Gadgets in your preferences. This will give you a black background with white text instead of green text. (Note that this gadget won’t work if you’re using the Opera Mini browser or the Timeless skin.) Hope this helps! GMX^{^{(on the go!)}} 14:58, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Direct link to the css: mediawiki:Gadget-dark-mode.css) GMX^{^{(on the go!)}} 15:02, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This looks great! Thanks for the help. ― Levi_OP^Talk 10:28, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source citation templates

How do you use templates such as "harvnb" to cite sources when you have multiple books/journals with the same author and date? Iskandar323 (talk) 14:16, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Using {{sfn}}, give each different book published in the same year a different suffix letter - 2021a, 2021b, 2021c etc. Mjroots (talk) 15:27, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am confused. Why did this happen?

when I submitted an edit onto the Dorothy Eady/Omm Sety page, the information was removed, saying it was "not constructive." the information entered was the fact that she was said to be dead and then revived after falling down the stairs. Please explain why this happened. PandaTheExplorer (talk) 14:42, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, PandaTheExplorer, and welcome to the Teahouse. It happened because Equine-man didn't agree with you that it was a constructive edit. This is part of how Wikipedia works in general: you boldly made an edit, Equine-man disagreed with the edit and reverted it, and your choice now is either to let it go, or to open a discussion on the article's talk page. Nothing says that either you or equine-man is right or wrong: you simply have a disagreement about what is best for Wikipedia, and it is up to you both (and anybody else who is interested) to discuss it and reach consensus. See WP:BRD for how this works. In this case, a major question is whether Hansen's book (the source cited for that sentence) says that she was said to be dead, or whether you got that from somewhere else. If the source says it, then it is at least possible that the information could be included: if it doesn't, then that information should not be there (unless it is cited to another reliable source). But you need to discuss this on the article's talk page as your next step. I have pinged Equine-man here, so they should see this reply. --ColinFine (talk) 16:10, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@PandaTheExplorer, hello! In your case I'd ask the editor who made change and posted on your talkpage, Equine-man. It's possible they thought you vere joking[3], but the source [4] sort of agrees with you, though not exactly. If you have a WP:RS that says "pronounced "dead" you can use that. Hope this helps. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:12, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, @PandaTheExplorer I did indeed think you were making a joke about someone dying and then being alive again. Equine-man (talk) 16:20, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Providing links to wiki pages with 's in them.

I recently created a wiki page, Forresters Manuscript, about a 17th century manuscript of Robin Hood ballads that had only recently been discovered in the late 20th century. I list all the ballads in them, they all have wiki pages, and so I linked them. Much to my consternation, several of the ballads won't link to their wiki pages. The pages do exist, I spelled them correctly, and marked them the right way with [[ ]], but they won't link. The one thing they all have in common is an ' within the title (Robin Hood's Progress to Nottingham, Robin Hood's Chase, Robin Hood's Delight, etc. What's especially frustrating is that on the main Robin Hood pages, these ballad titles all link properly, but on the edit page, there doesn't seem to be anything different about how these links are marked up from what I'm doing.

How do I get to link wiki pages that have an ' in the title? K9feline2 (talk) 14:43, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I had a look at it and made the changes--it can be hard to spot at a glance but the apostrophe character you had used was slightly different, we use the single straight one here ( ' ) rather than a curled one, and that's the difference maker. It might not be a bad idea to create redirects based on the red links you previously were seeing but most of them should now link to existing articles. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 14:47, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi K9feline2! To avoid this sort of problem, my practice when making wikilinks is to go to the page I want to link to, copy the title, and paste it where I want the link, before wikilinking it (by highlighting it and clicking the the link button at the top of the edit box, or by adding the double square brackets). That way no conflict arises between the title on the article and the perhaps subtly or invisibly different characters supplied by one's keyboard or whatever.

This also avoids the problem of the correct article's title having a disambiguating description in parentheses that one hadn't realised might be there. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.193.128.151 (talk) 20:31, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why was my Ben Duracell Jones page declined?

I am struggling to get my page accepted and published. I have changed it un told amounts of times and its still being rejected due to not enough notable info etc im citing everything to show its real info. Can you please help me? LaylaDakota (talk) 15:09, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy link: Draft:Ben Jones (boxer) Karenthewriter (talk) 16:12, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@LaylaDakota: I made some updates and tagged two unreferenced sections for you. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 16:39, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion about adding the names of the "Head of Departments (HOD)" of the subjects taught in ABN Seal College

The names of the "Head of Departments (HOD)" of the subjects can be added as there aren't as many people, that is only the people marked with HOD in this website: [5]https://abnscollege.org/teaching-staff-list.php Please give your opinions for this article: ABN Seal College. Partha Basak 15:36, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Partha Basak: Welcome to the Teahouse! The proper place to suggest improvements to a specific article is the article's talk page (e.g. Talk:Acharya Brojendra Nath Seal College). Hope this helps, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 16:41, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Help With Publishing Articles

Annaspencer13 (talk) 16:51, 19 October 2021 (UTC)Hello. I'm Anna and I'm new to Wikipedia. I am trying to understand how things work so that I can contribute however, I guess I made a mistake and I was enlisted on the COI noticeboard. I wanted to create new articles for publishing and edit articles based on my research. Can you help me by letting me know how can I be successful in doing so? Thankyou Annaspencer13 (talk) 16:51, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Annaspencer13 and welcome to the Teahouse. About "based on my research", this meets serious problems in the WP-environment. I suggest you start with reading the following: WP:Expert editors, WP:SELFCITE and WP:GNG. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:00, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Annaspencer13, and welcome to the Teahouse and to Wikipedia. Creating new articles is not the only way to contribute to Wikipedia, and in my experience, it is a very unsatisfactory way for new editors to contribute. Creating articles is much more difficult than it first appears, and editors who try it before they have "learnt the trade" typically have a frustrating and disappointing time. I earnestly advise you to put aside the idea of creating new articles for at least a few months while you "learn the trade" by improving some of our six million articles - many thousands of them are seriously bad. --ColinFine (talk) 17:16, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

how do we create wikipedia article? 102.167.168.215 (talk) 17:07, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

102.167.168.215 (talk) 17:07, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Start with finding a subject that meets the demands at WP:GNG. Then see WP:YFA. Creating an acceptable WP-article is difficult without any previous WP-experience, but without good sources, it is impossible. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:13, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Creating a celebrity page

Hi there;

How do I create a biography page for a live person who is not showing in the database yet? Csho777 (talk) 17:18, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Csho777 See WP:BASIC. If you conclude "Yeah, I have those sources, no problem!" move on to WP:YFA. Note that creating an acceptable WP-article is difficult without any previous WP-experience. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:29, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Csho7uu Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Creating a new article (not a mere "page") is one of the hardest tasks to perform on Wikipedia. It's best to first gain experience by editing existing articles in areas that interest you, to get a feel for how Wikipedia operates and what is expected of article content. That, plus using the new user tutorial, will greatly increase your chances of success.

If you still want to attempt to create an article now, please review the Wikipedia definition of a notable person, or one of the more specific criteria like musicians, to see if the person merits an article. If they do, and you have at least three independent reliable sources with significant coverage, you may use Articles for creation to create and submit a draft.

If you have an association with this celebrity, please read conflict of interest and paid editing. 331dot (talk) 17:33, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Useful versus gratuitous url archiving

Is it really encouraged to create an archive link for every citation, even when they are perfectly live and well (as it says on Help:Archiving a source)? And is it necessary to add archive links to book references with ISBNs and DOIs or not? Iskandar323 (talk) 18:44, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's encouraged, but not strictly necessary. Websites can be taken down, or even just overhauled so their old URLs no longer work, and archiving makes future access much easier. There's no harm in doing it but potential loss in not doing it. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 18:51, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

chinese wiki for "relish" feels off

Hello. I usually help in translating english wiki into chinese wiki. Recently I found this wikipage about relish (in general), though when I check the chinese page, the name and the description feels really off. In this scenario, should the page be deleted or just heavily modified? Crescentwuju (talk) 20:37, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Crescentwuju. If you're talking about an article in the Chinese Wikipedia, then you need to discuss it at Chinese Wikipedia, not here on English Wikipedia: they are entirely separate, and few people who look at this page can read Chinese. Try zh:维基百科:互助客栈/条目探讨. --ColinFine (talk) 20:46, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Crescentwuju, are you saying that the articles Relish and 開味小菜 aren't about the same thing? I can't read Chinese, but Google translate makes fairly good sense of the latter, and they seem to me to be about the same subject, near enough. Maproom (talk) 20:55, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, they seem to give it 2 meanings: "Relish (Relish), also known as hors d'oeuvres , appetizers ... sometimes it is difficult to distinguish from condiments to a certain extent ." We don't seem to have this term in Sweden, unless it's bostongurka. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:04, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Maproom . The thing that I have with Relish translate as 開味小菜 is that it sounded as if the chinese term is a type of "small appetizer", not used as a condiment or sauce, which I think will cause confusion. Either way, I will go to the chinese teahouse equivalent and see what people think about it. Thanks for the suggestion ColinFine.

Edit: the more I think of it, the more I felt that the original chinese wiki probably is referring to hors d'oeuvres , appetizers rather than the english-term relish. Maybe the person who wrote the chinese wiki made a wrong interlink? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crescentwuju (talk • contribs) 21:23, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is an old fashioned usage, but you can find places in english language writing where 'relish' is used to mean an appetizer. If you look it up in most dictionaries it will be there as an alternate definition. MrOllie (talk) 21:42, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Crescentwuju: I'm a Chinese speaker, and I can confirm that Hors d'oeuvre is definitely the better target. The place to fix this is at Wikidata; I'll go ahead and do it now. ◢ Ganbaruby!  (talk) 00:25, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Question

QUESTION ABOUT BOLDFACE, JAPANESE LANGUAGE LINKS, AND MOVING PAST "DRAFT" STATUS

Dear Wikipedians,

Thanks to your kind help, I was able to publish my first Wikipedia article at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hakone_Onsen One question: I wanted to have the paragraph-level names of the specific hotsprings in boldface type. It makes the article easier to read, but is it congruent with Wikipedia style?

Also, I have started on my second Wikipedia article at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Aiseki_Shokudō QUESTION: Should I be linking to the Japanese Wikipedia articles about the two places in Japan (Inakadate-mura and Gotōrettō Island)? This draft article seems to have some other infelicities, but I am still a novice and am unsure what they are. Could anyone point them out? Many thanks in advance.

TNewfields (talk)TNewfields TNewfields (talk) 23:25, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there @TNewfields: as for the boldface question, while I am also new myself, I believe only the title of the article and alternate names can be bolded in Wikipedia. An alternative solution is using bullet points, although that may make the section seem like a list. Heythereimaguy (talk) 00:24, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@TNewfields: Welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia's manual of style touches on this: do not use boldface for the purpose of making them "more legible" or for emphasis. The paragraphs seem fine as they are right now. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 02:06, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@TNewfields: Welcome to the Teahouse! For each of the {{cite web}} templates in Draft:Aiseki Shokudō, the |title= parameter should have the Japanese title, the |trans-title= parameter should have the English title, and the template should include |language=Japanese. Hope this helps, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 03:02, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

TNewfields, your QUESTION: Should I be linking to the Japanese Wikipedia articles about the two places in Japan (Inakadate-mura and Gotōrettō Island)? No, because there's an article in English about both. (I've fixed both.) Clearly you found the Japanese articles; unless you're reading the "mobile" version of an article, it should link you to any articles in other languages about the same subject. Thus 五島列島 links to the English article, to Острови Ґото in Ukrainian, etc. (Incidentally, while editing this section, note how I've linked here to each of those two articles, and made the links below.) Now, suppose that you were writing an article that mentioned 前田寛治. There's no article about "Kanji Maeta" in this, English-language Wikipedia. You could write "Kanji Maeta", thereby taking the reader to the Japanese-language page; but I prefer "Kanji Maeta [Wikidata]" (ugly though it is). Why so? First, because it takes the reader to the relevant Wikidata page, which in turn points to the article on Maeta in the Wikipedia of any language. Currently, these are Japanese and German, and the reader might have a strong preference either way. (It's imaginable that other languages will be added too.) Secondly, because if a article about Maeta is ever created in English-language Wikipedia and linked to from the Wikidata page, the ugly link will automatically become a direct link to the English-language article. -- Hoary (talk) 08:17, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Alan Singh

Now the name of this king should be changed to Alan Singh Chanda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karsan Chanda (talk • contribs) 03:16, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Karsan Chanda: Welcome to the Teahouse! If you are unable to move the draft to the changed name, you can add a comment at the top of draft under the pink AfC submission template explaining why you want the draft moved. Hope this helps, and happy editing! (Please remember to sign your posts on talk pages by typing four keyboard tildes like this: ~~~~. Or, you can use the [ reply ] button, which automatically signs posts.) GoingBatty (talk) 03:22, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notability for cosmetics

Hi, I was wondering what's the notability guidelines for makeup companies? I noticed that a pretty prominent makeup company (Beauty Bakerie Cosmetics) I've been seeing on Insta a lot doesn't have a WP article yet despite me seeing multiple notable media coverage on the brand.^[2]^[3]^[4]^[5] I'd like to see an article for it but I can't find the notability guidelines for makeup brands specifically. I'm not doing this in the interest of promoting said brand or turning it into an ad per WP:COI), I'd just like to see if it's okay to create an article on said company given the notable media coverage.) Thanks! shanghai.^{talk to me} 04:30, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://journals.lww.com/optvissci/pages/default.aspx
^ Jackson, Danielle (2021-07-30). "How a Single Mom and Cancer Survivor Turned 1 Idea Into a Multimillion-Dollar Beauty Brand". POPSUGAR Beauty. Retrieved 2021-10-20.
^ "This top-rated Black-owned beauty brand is entirely inspired by baking". www.yahoo.com. Retrieved 2021-10-20.
^ Feldman, Amy. "How A Single Mom Battling Breast Cancer Built Beauty Bakerie To A $5M Brand, Got Unilever To Invest". Forbes. Retrieved 2021-10-20.
^ Freund, Tatjana (2021-07-28). "These Beauty Brands Are The Best Of The Best—And You Can Buy Them On Amazon". ELLE. Retrieved 2021-10-20.

@RogueShanghai: Welcome to the Teahouse! See Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). Hope this helps, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 04:55, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, didn't know that existed. Just checked and said company is notable enough given the amount of sources, going to work on an article about it, thanks! shanghai.^{talk to me} 05:02, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RogueShanghai, I think you'll be needing better sources than those. The first gives an error message, the second and third aren't independent of the subject, and the fourth is more like a list of advertisements than an independent discussion. Maproom (talk) 08:43, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Maproom: These were just the ones I found off Google, and the first source works for me fine. How is the Forbes article not a reliable source? Thanks. shanghai.^{talk to me} 08:55, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Forbes is reliable, but that article is not independent of Beauty Bakerie. It includes "“Cashmere’s story is a story of resilience above anything else,” says Roderick Roberts, Beauty Bakerie's chief financial officer". Maproom (talk) 09:19, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Forbes in print is reliable, but forbes.com contains much content from "contributors" who are subject to very light if any editorial scrutiny. See WP:FORBESCON. In the case at hand, Amy Feldman is or was Forbes staff, but the article did not appear in the print edition. Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 09:50, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong Move

A User has moved a page wrong see he move this draft Draft:Krishna Ram Chaudhary to Wikipedia:Krishna Ram Chaudhary which is wrong he has to move to Krishna Ram Chaudhary so please move it UserABCXYZ (talk) 05:19, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@UserABCXYZ:

Fixed. ––FormalDude talk 05:20, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why are not show my name on Wikipedia - Ajay Raz

Why are not show my name on Wikipedia - Ajay Raz My article already available on Google & other social media Ajay Raz (talk) 05:59, 20 October 2021 (UTC) (Redacted)[reply]

Because we are not social media, we do not cite social media, and we do not care about your social media. I've removed the snippet above per our biographical policy. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 06:17, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Musician page

My name is Melissa Harley I’m writing regarding of well known musician artist “Lil Sporty D” Who has been mentioned in multiple news magazine and reliable source he Doesn’t have a Wikipedia page yet? I was wondering can someone please create him a WP article? MsMelissaBaby (talk) 08:13, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MsMelissaBaby, merely being mentioned isn't enough. Has Lil Sporty D been written up in depth in reliable, independent, published sources (plural)? If so, then you can create the article; if not, then nobody can. But before you attempt to create your first article, be sure to get plenty of practice improving and augmenting existing articles. -- Hoary (talk) 08:23, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure what I am doing but can someone please check my article and see I did it correctly It will be appreciate it here is the link. I don’t know how to put a picture up either I’m still Learning. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Lil_Sporty_D Can someone please approve it — Preceding unsigned comment added by MsMelissaBaby (talk • contribs) 16:26, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@MsMelissaBaby: Welcome to the Teahouse! If the draft ever becomes an article, you can use the Wikipedia:File Upload Wizard to upload a photo you took. However, you have many other issues to resolve first, as already noted on your draft. Hope this helps, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 17:06, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tags for every editors "Tag: tag example"

What are the tags for (for example, "Tag: tag example")? 2001:44B8:41C6:F700:9D7:BF4F:D02C:AFAA (talk) 08:17, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Are you referring to Special:Tags? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 11:22, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

my Ben Cleveland photo

you guys keep removing it,why Footballvoorhees (talk) 10:30, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The history of the enwiki page explains why, and your user talk page at Commons explains why the photo has been deleted from there. Copyright violation is not allowed. --David Biddulph (talk) 10:55, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In short, WP is strict about copyright. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:48, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The word "white"

Hello, everyone. I replaced the word "white" with "harmless" in an article, but it was reverted. Does English Wikipedia currently see no problem with using the word "white" to mean "trustworthy", "do no harm", etc.? Kj4bFan (talk) 12:19, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think in the article you edited "white" refers to skin colour, so it makes zero sense for you to replace with the word "harmless" unless you are intentionally being racist, in which case you will be blocked. Polyamorph (talk) 12:25, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is no way that edit is racist. And that's the problem with any idea of blocking racists. In this day and age, more and more people are being labeled as racists (and ruined for it) for being genuinely NOT racist; their "crime" is, they seek to treat everyone the same way. Uporządnicki (talk) 13:19, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I presume this was the diff. The sentence could/should be rephrased, but your way made no sense. Johnbod (talk) 12:27, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Kj4bFan: If you haven't done so already, I suggest you follow the reference and read pages 448-451 of Reynolds' book, and then ensure that the Wikipedia article accurately summarizes what is stated in the book. If (like me) you don't have access to the book, then I suggest you don't change the wording. Hope this helps, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 17:13, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fiesta (magazine)

Can someone stop the spammer on Fiesta (magazine)

5.68.124.25 (talk) 13:42, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reported at WP:AIV. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:55, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

edit history

Why are some edits in edit history highlighted blue? The Tips of Apmh (talk) 14:40, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi The Tips of Apmh. Please link pages you refer to, or give an example. I guess you refer to a page with pending changes protection like [6]. Blue background indicates an accepted edit per Wikipedia:Pending changes#Pending changes adds highlighting that is lost when disabled. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:19, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Userbox on my user page

Hi, I am bisexual and was trying to use a similar "userbox" field on my userpage as to that used by @GorillaWarfare:, she's amazing! If someone could please help me get that going on my userpage, that would be great. I may add some other details too, but just trying to get started. Thanks! Th78blue (talk) 15:24, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Th78blue: Thank you for the kind words! The specific userbox I use is {{User:GorillaWarfare/userbox template|[[Image:gay flag.svg|40px]]|This user identifies as '''[[queer]]'''.}}, though it's only a slight stylistic variation from {{User:UBX/queer}}. There are also a whole slew of other options at Wikipedia:Userboxes/Life/Sexuality. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 15:31, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! @GorillaWarfare: I also noticed you have you pronouns in your user signature!! How can I add mine automatically for when I sign with the four tilde's? Th78blue (talk) 15:50, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Th78blue, I'm not GorillaWarfare but you can change your signature by going to your preferences (here) and scrolling down to Signature. You could add [[User:Th78blue|Th78blue]] (pronouns • [[User talk:Th78blue|Th78blue]]) underneath "New signature" (replacing pronouns with your pronouns), tick "Treat signature as wikitext" then press Save. Now, when you post a comment, your pronouns should appear. :) --Ferien (talk) 16:00, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much @Ferien:, I just tried that, does it work now? It should add (They/Them/Theirs) as my chosen pronouns. They/Them/Theirs (talk) 16:12, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, I botched it there. Let me try again! [[User:Th78blue|Th78blue]] (They/Them/Theirs • [[User talk:Th78blue|Th78blue]]) (talk) 16:14, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Th78blue, you're nearly there. All you need to do is tick the "Treat signature as wikitext" button :) --Ferien (talk) 16:36, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sheesh! Alright, hoping I am good NOW. :-) Th78blue (They/Them/Theirs • Th78blue) 17:27, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Th78blue, yep, it works now. Happy editing! --Ferien (talk) 17:41, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Controversial or disputed information

How should we present disputed information on Wikipedia?

For example, if a group of people were making a specific claim, and another group of people were to make a counter claim, but there was no verifiable evidence to support either side of the claim as it happened a long time ago, how should this be presented?

Should we present both sides of the argument and state that it is disputed, or to leave it out altogether? Occasionalpedestrian (talk) 15:27, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia reports what reliable sources report. If there is "no verifiable evidence to support either side of the claim" then it has no place in Wikipedia. If reliable sources differ, then we should present both sides of the argument--Shantavira|^{feed me} 15:51, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

just checkin The Teahouse

hi. just checking. it looks nice. keep it up. 695LM (talk) 16:43, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Article resubmission help

Hi, I edited an article in Sandbox using visual editing. It was rejected. I am trying to fix the issues but I'm not sure the article is "located" anymore. Now when I go to edit it is wikitext and I don't know wiktext. How do I get it in the visual format again to work with? Thanks in advance for your help! Here is the article: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Jeremy_Miller_(businessman)&action=edit Bimshirebaby (talk) 17:10, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Bimshirebaby: Welcome to the Teahouse! Looking at the URL you posted, we can see that your draft is located at Draft:Jeremy Miller (businessman). We can also find it by looking at Special:Contributions/Bimshirebaby. Hope this helps, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 17:18, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I guess I meant where can I work with the article in visual editor. Now when I look at it I see wikitext and unfortunately I don't know how to work with this yet. How do I edit, add references etc without using wikitext with this draft? ack, I can't even figure out how to tag you lol. Tried @ing you and copy/pasting the exact format you used for my name and replacing with yours. I was able to use the visual editing really easily and now I'm just confused. I hope my question makes sense? -

Do you have any tea? 86.32.57.31 (talk) 17:51, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

[1] ttps://journals.lww.com/optvissci/pages/default.aspx

[2] Jackson, Danielle (2021-07-30). "How a Single Mom and Cancer Survivor Turned 1 Idea Into a Multimillion-Dollar Beauty Brand". POPSUGAR Beauty. Retrieved 2021-10-20.

[3] "This top-rated Black-owned beauty brand is entirely inspired by baking". www.yahoo.com. Retrieved 2021-10-20.

[4] Feldman, Amy. "How A Single Mom Battling Breast Cancer Built Beauty Bakerie To A $5M Brand, Got Unilever To Invest". Forbes. Retrieved 2021-10-20.

[5] Freund, Tatjana (2021-07-28). "These Beauty Brands Are The Best Of The Best—And You Can Buy Them On Amazon". ELLE. Retrieved 2021-10-20.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]