Wikipedia:Teahouse

AlanM1, a Teahouse host

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

Ask a question

Question forumMeet your hostsArticles to improveBecome a host

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

Help Wikipedia

Developing Project Around Wikipedia Ecosystem

Moved to Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) § Developing Project Around Wikipedia Ecosystem

 –  ― Qwerfjkltalk 21:04, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Complaint against a user

In the talk page of the article Mohammed Shami, an editor told me "####LOOK HERE, I AM DISCUSSING IT YOU FOOL####". Now, is this a proper language of discussing a matter? After watching my reply to him, he cunningly removed his words. Now, I think proper strides should be taken against the concerned user. Any veteran user, kindly handle this issue. Thanks Michri michri (talk) 12:57, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello; I am a veteran user. Editors should avoid calling other editors fools. Aside from once calling you a fool, this editor seems to have been polite and amiable. Please discuss the article. -- Hoary (talk) 13:06, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

@Michri michri: - I've issued advice to the editor in question. Hopefully that is the end of the matter. Mjroots (talk) 19:05, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Mjroots, thank you for your aid. My intention was just to make the concerned user aware that the kind of language he used is intolerable in Wikipedia. ThanksMichri michri (talk) 09:08, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

• In addition to the above, that edit might be a "cunning removal of words" intended to make you look bad for overreacting, but if so it was not very cunning when everyone can see the page history. Another nicer (and, frankly, more plausible) explanation is that they fixed the mess that the previous angry edit created on the page and/or withdrew their unwise language. Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 14:00, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

The editor in question has accepted it was wrong. This is now closed. Mjroots (talk) 18:22, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Page Has been reviewed

Just received a notice that "Page User:N013i has been reviewed."

What does this means? I am aware that new pages require a patrol but Its not like my user page was created yesterday. — Preceding unsigned comment added by N013i (talk • contribs) 16:26, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

@N013i: New page patrol is supposed to check all namespaces; however, patrollers usually spend the most time in the mainspace, where their efforts are most needed. Behind-the-scenes stuff like userpages are usually no problem, so less manpower (if any) is spent going through those. The patroller likely just stumbled upon your userpage and marked it as reviewed. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (talk) 17:35, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

@Ganbaruby: It was me. – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 01:59, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

@N013i: I apologise for the mobile misclick. A bit. – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 01:58, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

@AssumeGoodWraith: No problem, I'm sorry but I just can't help my paranoid tendencies. ~Nabeel~N013i 21:59, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Quora as source

Can we use Quora answers as a reliable source for citation? Religiousmyth (talk) 17:38, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

See the entry for Quora in WP:RSP. Quora is a self-published source containing user-generated content, so it is considered unreliable, although in certain specific cases described there, it can be used as a primary source. CodeTalker (talk) 17:49, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

everything is self-sourced including media, press. Quora have both false and real information based on the user knowledge and research. can't we use Quora highly up-voted answer as reliable source for wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Religiousmyth (talk • contribs) 17:46, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

@Religiousmyth: No, because what determines the highest-upvoted answer are users, and there's no screening criteria when registering. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:13, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Page Acceptance

Hello

I Would Like To Like to know If There Is A way To solve a issue Where A Article (like mine: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Rugoconites_tenuirugosus) about An Animal has Little References. What I'm Trying To say Here Is that my page (the Rugoconites_Tenuirugosus one) Keeps On Getting Rejected Due to Low amounts of References, Even Though there Are only 3 Websites Which Are References ( The Three websites I used For the page are https://www.mindat.org/taxon-P153113.html , https://paleobiodb.org/classic/checkTaxonInfo?taxon_no=153113&is_real_user=1 And http://www.ediacaran.org/rugoconites.html), They Are The only Few Websites Which Reference this Animal In The Wikipedia page I've Made. If Someone Can Find me More References or Websites Mentioning Information About Rugoconites Tenuirugosus I Would Greatly Appreciate that And I Will be sure to add it To The Page.

Thank you, have a nice day! Rugoconites Tenuirugosus (talk) 19:22, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

See existing thread #Page Acceptance from yesterday. --David Biddulph (talk) 19:39, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Readers here are unlikely to have the specialist knowledge to help you. You may have more luck on the talk page of a relevant project; see those listed at Talk:Rugoconites. If there are insufficient sources to justify a new article, you may be able to use those which you have found to support additions to the existing article Rugoconites. --David Biddulph (talk) 19:46, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

@Rugoconites Tenuirugosus: Please do not delete AfC comments from a draft. Your draft refers to a phylum called "Trilobozoa" - where did you read that information? Provide a source for that and resubmit, and you may be successful. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 20:55, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

@Rugoconites Tenuirugosus Whilst you might use capital letters in your username, be aware that specific epithets are never capitalised unless they relate to a proper noun. They are also given in italics. I've reworded your draft a bit and recommend that you start to learn how to search Google books where you will always find better sources than a simple browser search. BTW: your home-made image seems to indicate that we know what colour these organisms were. I find that worrying. please find a better way to caption such images, and to cite sources to show upon which reconstructions they are based. Cheers, Nick Moyes (talk) 17:50, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

What is the best way to have a photographer donate material to Wikimedia?

From time to time I work on articles about the band Pink Floyd (its members, studio musicians, touring musicians, production folks). From time to time I also see photographs removed from articles in these subject areas. I've usually found ways to reach out to the photographers and to sort out having these restored. This was the case recently with this file: that said, I'm not sure I'm going about this the most efficient way. If I know a photographer that is willing to donate files/photography of any of these subjects, and they are not familiar with Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons, what is the simplest, most efficient way for me to ask them to submit their work? Is there an email where they can just send a set of pictures they are willing to donate and a type of license they can specify that will cover that they are donating the picture for public use (I know there are variations, I mean whatever the simplest one might be for them to let the work be used publicly)?

Your feedback is appreciated. 1987atomheartbrother (talk) 05:45, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

See WP:Donating copyrighted materials. --David Biddulph (talk) 10:02, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

@1987atomheartbrother The page that David linked to is quite wordy. But please note the big blue 'Interactive release Generator' button. That links to this tool which guides an image owner, step-by-step, through releasing an image for re-use here, and for generating an email they can attach their image to. So you could give them that simple link separately.

The one thing it doesn't point out (which you can tell them) is that we really don't need to have the highest resolution images, so only upload a file of a size they're comfortable with making available. Oh, and please thank them for us! Nick Moyes (talk) 17:31, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Question on Machan Taylor article

Hello Everyone - I had worked for a few weeks, on and off, on an article about vocalist Machan Taylor. I know the draft was rejected but the opportunity for improving it is still open. I hope to improve, among other things, by adding what is a a rather hefty and reputable discography. That said, I really would appreciate instructive feedback on a few things. For context, here is the article:

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

And here is the reason it was rejected for publishing:

"This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of music-related topics)."

Here are my questions:

1) I noticed an article for a similar subject to Machan. While my draft was rejected on the basis of the references that are there, I am trying to understand how this similar and apparently related subject's article was published with know references (except some linked content): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_Bartlett_(musician). It seems both Machan Taylor and Kevin Bartlett have had similar trajectories - in some respects Machan Taylor has done more international work. I think both subjects have done notable work and should have articles. But I'm not sure I can tell how Taylor's is less publishable than Bartlett's.

2) The reason it was rejected states the articles cited must be reliable, secondary, independent, and they must not just 'mention the subject in passing'. None of the sources cited mention Machan Taylor in passing. All of them are focused on her as the subject of the interview or story. Some of the resources are smaller publications but they are reputable and widely read in the markets that they are published in and for - these are geographic regions; I guess I'm trying to understand how that would be a less credible source than a larger paper: as an academic, I have a hard time understanding how a regional paper that is the most important publication in that region, isn't reputable. That said, there are a couple of international sources that are devoted to music and Pink Floyd and interview notable people on a regular basis.

3) Subjects that have done very similar work throughout their careers and have performed on the exact same projects as Taylor have published articles, e.g., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Durga_McBroom, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rachel_Fury, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Brown_(singer). I think these musicians should have articles and are notable. I just think Taylor is of the same scale of notability.

I respect the decision to decline this draft and am working on improving it. But am trying to understand, on the three points above. My intent is not to imply the existence of one article should be the basis for another, I'm trying to understand how substantively the Taylor article comes up short in comparison to any of the other articles on comparable subjects mentioned in the three points above.

Any feedback is sincerely and truly appreciated. 1987atomheartbrother (talk) 06:19, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello, 1987atomheartbrother. The English language Wikipedia has almost six and a half million articles, and many of them have evaded serious scrutiny and may have serious problems. Arguing that "I found another article with serious problems so therefore I should be able to add my new article even thoogh it too has serious problems" is an exceptionally weak argument. Instead, thousands of Wikipedia editors work every single day to either improve articles with problems or to delete them. ​

You are correct that significant coverage in independent reliable sources is required to establish notability, and then you mention interviews. By definition, interviews are not independent sources since they are based on what the subject of the article/draft says about themself. We take the word "independent" very seriously. Now, I will take a look at your draft. Cullen328 (talk) 06:34, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

A couple of your sources are from minor publications and possibly OK but most of them are very weak. If she has had such a long and distinguished career working with such major acts, then surely you can provide higher quality references. Cullen328 (talk) 06:42, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, Cullen328, I appreciate the feedback: I just want to underscore: I mentioned why I was looking at those other articles in contrast to the Machan Taylor - definitely not being argumentative at all. In fact, I mentioned that to pre-emptively avoid that giving that impression. Please note: she has had a notable career, but I think it's notable on the same scale as the colleagues whose articles I was drawing a comparison too (I find drawing those comparisons educational as far as understanding when an article might be worth drafting or not - it's the similarities in careers and sources that made me curious about the decision to decline the draft). As with those other artists, she won't generate the type of press a Madonna, Michael Jackson, or someone in that vein would generate - or that Pink Floyd itself would. But as a consumer of knowledge here, I have in the past looked for information about this subject myself and I have seen the case made for an article about her in some of the discussions and talk pages here. I'll add more resources, and hope for a robust, objective evaluation.--1987atomheartbrother (talk) 07:49, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

1987atomheartbrother, on Wikipedia, it is all about the quality of the reliable independent sources, which are like 24 karat gold here. Poorly referenced or unreferenced articles like Kevin Bartlett (musician) should either be improved or deleted. Please do not try to emulate overtly bad articles. When you say that she has had a "notable career", you are expected to prove that by providing references to high quality sources describing her career in detail. Otherwise, it is just an empty personal opinion lacking credibility among Wikipedia editors. Cullen328 (talk) 08:00, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Take heart. An important distinction is that the draft was Declined, not Rejected, the former meaning that the reviewer saw potential to succeed. I see that there has been no action on the draft since October. The greatest weakness is that refs 5 and 6 are interviews. Also, draft mentions two solo albums. Information? Any published reviews? David notMD (talk) 08:21, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Bartlett now proposed for deletion, which will happen in a week if not improved. Durga McBroom at risk for lack of references. Fury at risk for poor refs (interviews, name-mentions with no extended content about her, etc.) 08:37, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, Cullen328, for the additional feedback: I plan to add a discography to the draft, including her two solo albums and reviews. I'll do my best to provide strong resources. I appreciate all the information. Since October, I've gathered some but not added anything to the article draft. I've saved the resources. Let's hope it turns out to be a good article!--1987atomheartbrother (talk) 09:03, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

1987atomheartbrother, if you want the article to survive as an article, you should concentrate on finding reliable independent published sources with extensive discussion of the subject. Adding a discography won't help it survive. Maproom (talk) 13:14, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

maproom, thanks. Context for that was the brief exchange on her two albums.--1987atomheartbrother (talk) 13:55, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

User keeps adding back reverted content, trying to avoid an edit war

On the article Malharrao, a user has been incrementally adding unreferenced information since 12 January 2022 about someone named Bellamkonda Malharrao. This user also submitted an article about this person to AfC, which was denied on 14 January. A few hours ago I manually reverted the article to its original state before the user's additions, which removed about 13.6k bytes, and left a warning on the user's talk page about adding unreferenced material. About 10 minutes later and the information was copy pasted back by the user. I reverted it once again and left a longer edit summary trying to explain why I reverted the edit, but since then it has been added back a third time by this user. I don't want to revert more and cause an edit war, but I'm not sure how to get the message through to them. I'm also not sure what to do next, if the appropriate step would be to report the user (and if so, where) or to try again explaining how/why to use their sandbox for this instead of adding it to this article, which is not about that person. Any advice appreciated, Normal Name (talk) 06:37, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

@Normal Name: Obviously disruptive edits are exempt from the three revert rule. I've reverted the edit and reiterated what you've pointed out. If it happens again, the place to report is is WP:AIV. Meanwhile, I see that you put your revert reasoning in an edit summary; we usually do it as a talk page message since many new editors may not know edit summaries exist and won't see your reasoning. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (talk) 07:59, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

@Ganbaruby: Obvious vandalism is exempt. Also, why not put reasoning in an edit summary? It would be like rolling back a good faith edit. – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 10:20, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

question

hello, how do i add my company to Wikipedia and it appear in the google search as well Mwanzotoursuganda (talk) 10:36, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Mwanzotoursuganda Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Like many people, you have a common, fundamental misunderstanding as to what Wikipedia is. It is not a place for companies to tell the world about themselves, and is not a directory where mere existence merits inclusion. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia with criteria for inclusion. Wikipedia is not concerned with your company's online presence or in enhancing search results for it. A Wikipedia article must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about your company, showing how it meets Wikipedia's special definition of a notable company. This is usually extremely difficult for people in your position to do. Please read WP:COI and WP:PAID for information on required formal disclosures you must make, as well as additional information. 331dot (talk) 10:49, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Declined my Article on Zimri Palaseen

Why my article titled "Zimri Palaseen is declined twice. The link to the drafted article is as below. KIndly help me in publishing it https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Zimri_Palaseen LalKhan2022 (talk) 11:09, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

The explanation is in the feedback boxes, both on the draft and on your user talk page. The words in blue are wikilinks to further advice. --David Biddulph (talk) 12:18, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

@LalKhan2022: Whole sections of the article are unsourced. For example, in Livelihood section, it has two setences. Where are the references for that? If it is published in the state, ir will either be deleted or sent back to draft. For the whole article, you have one reference. Follow the guidance of the reviewing editors, specifically read WP:RS, WP:PSTS. Also please look at the short tutorial, WP:REFB that describes how to create inline citation. To create references for village, for example, look for source amongst geographic gazetter's. These are usually government or university sites that have details on specific villages, lakes and other geographic features. They are ideal for sources. Hope that helps! 12:22, 17 January 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scope creep (talk • contribs)

Farming Simulator 16

FYI

 – Created section header. GoingBatty (talk) 16:18, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Harrypot0122 (talk) 15:02, 17 January 2022 (UTC) I have been playing FS 16 for quite some time now but there are lots of things that I am still curious about. There is no satisfactory content anywhere on the internet nor on Wikipedia. Can anyone update it, it would be a great help.

@Harrypot0122: Welcome to the Teahouse! Since Wikipedia has an article about Farming Simulator, you could post specific questions on Talk:Farming Simulator if your goal is to encourage editors to improve the article. Hope this helps, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 16:22, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

@Harrypot0122: You can also add information about the game in Farming Simulator yourself if you want to! Just make sure to back your information with reliable sources. ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 17:53, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

i need help regarding a entry

hi, i really need some help with my wikipedia entry. i am working for an artist and his estate and I want to create an article for him. for some strange reason the jpg got uploaded but not the wording and i just noticed that i got blocked. here is the link to the jpg. that should be changed to an text entry: https://it.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Carlo_Valsecchi.jpg can someone guide me through? I am clearly making some mistakes here. very best,  Colettedelamaison (talk) 15:05, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Collettedelamaison Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Since you say you work for the artist, you must make a required formal declaration of that, please read the paid editing policy. 331dot (talk) 15:09, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

@Collettedelamaison: I have reverted the addition on the Commons file page for that image commons:File:Carlo_Valsecchi.jpg where an IP user (you?) had added a biography. Files are held on Commons for use across all language versions of Wikipedia but only the individual projects may hold biographies. Also, I note that the file says the photograph was taken by Robert Matza, sourced from a webpage. That page says "all rights reserved", so there is no evidence the image is licensed in a way that would allow its use within Wikipedia. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:25, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

@Colettedelamaison I'd also recommend that you make sure to remain object and only source data from reliable and notable sources. Note the emphasis. If you attempt to make use of either original research or other information that you have got from the subject, the chances of your article being review successfully will be very slim. (If not impossible.) _Signed, Pichemist ^{( Contribs | Talk )} 19:27, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

thank you very much for your respond. robert matza is a friend of mine. but yes, I took the images from this homepage. should i just start all over again? and take a image which I can use? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Colettedelamaison (talk • contribs) 15:31, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

I have an other question. is there someone who could help me creating this page? is there such community i can adress? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Colettedelamaison (talk • contribs) 15:34, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

@Colettedelamaison — You can create a draft at Articles for creation. Just enter your page name, and it will load as “Draft:(page name here)”. However, you must have Mr. Matza’s permission before using his images, as this could potentially be a copyright violation (see WP:COPYVIO). As for the community, there are WikiProjects; the subject could potentially fall within the scope of one of them. — 3PPYB6 — TALK — CONTRIBS — 16:15, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Your draft is currently at User:Colettedelamaison/sandbox. You can copy/paste content from there into a draft. As Robert Matza is alive, he could create an account and add his own photos to Commons, for you to put in the draft. He needs to be aware that by doing so he would be renouncing all rights to the photos, including commercial usage. Also, your Sandbox draft has no references. You must find and add references ABOUT him. Listing his shows does not in any way whatsoever establish notability in the Wikipedia sense of the word. David notMD (talk) 16:54, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

The photograph you uploaded to Commons is a low-resolution image that Robert Matza may be willing to release under an appropriate license. See WP:Donating copyrighted materials for how he can do that if you were to ask him to do so. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:58, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

How to find my undeleted edits

Hi there, I just want to know what is undeleted edits and how can I check my undeleted edits  Onmyway22 talk 15:57, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

@Onmyway22: At the top of the page is a "contributions" link which shows your edits. See Special:Contributions/Onmyway22 RudolfRed (talk) 16:12, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

@RudolfRed: I did not get. clarify more ? I mean how to find the count ? Onmyway22 talk 16:15, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

@Onmyway22 — Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse. Undeleted edits are edits that are publicly visible, and show up as accessible permanent links on your user contributions page. However, deleted edits are edits that will not show up as permanent links, or are deleted from your contributions page altogether. There are multiple reasons as to why your edits might be deleted. For one, an administrator could have deleted the page you were editing, or deleted a single revision (WP:REVDEL). Or, it could be privacy-breaching, and, in that case, an oversighter will come and suppress your edits. Hopefully this helps. — 3PPYB6 — TALK — CONTRIBS — 16:20, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

And, to find your edit count, go to Special:Preferences and see your edit count (note that the counter will include both deleted and undeleted edits). To find a more detailed report, look here. — 3PPYB6 — TALK — CONTRIBS — 16:25, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@Onmyway22: Welcome to the Teahouse! To get the count of your undeleted edits, you can do the following:

1. At the top right of any Wikipedia page, click "Contributions" to go to Special:Contributions/Onmyway22.
2. Scroll all the way to the bottom and click on "Edit count" to go to https://xtools.wmflabs.org/ec/en.wikipedia.org/Onmyway22
3. Under "Basic Information" on the left, I see that you have 1,485 Live edits (undeleted edits) plus 286 Deleted edits for a total of 1,771 Total edits.

Hope this helps, and keep up the good work! GoingBatty (talk) 16:29, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Both you are awesome. Thank you Onmyway22 talk 16:35, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

@Onmyway22 — No problem. — 3PPYB6 — TALK — CONTRIBS — 16:36, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Love is a losing game

I have edited Genre of Amy Winehouse's Love is a losing game about 3 times and advised not to edit it again without approval. Sorry about that! I recently added https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mWHRrkxTZG4 quotes Tony Bennett "We've lost one of the Jazz greats" as the source but this was not accepted. The genre is shown as Soul. Do you agree that the genre should be jazz? I'm looking for consensus on this. I was unable to add this to the articles talk page as I saw no option for doing so. Many thanks. Signed, Lyricality. Lyricality (talk) 19:11, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Lyricality. Bennett's remark is not adequate because singers often perform several genres of music. You need to provide a reference to a published reliable source that says that this song's specific genre is jazz. Wikipedia editors cannot just listen to a song and say, "that sounds like jazz to me". That is original research which is not allowed on Wikipedia. Cullen328 (talk) 19:17, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Lyricality, please read Wikipedia:Genre warrior. Cullen328 (talk) 19:22, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Please also read Amy Winehouse#Critical appraisal where you will find quite a few reliable sources that verify that she was a soul singer as well as a jazz singer. Cullen328 (talk) 19:28, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

@Lyricality: Welcome to the Teahouse! Per the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, you may discuss this on the article talk page Talk:Love Is a Losing Game and provide a reliable source. Hope this helps, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 20:09, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Making A new project

Hello,

Hello people , It's been A Nice Time Editing And Asking Questions On The Teahouse about My First Wikipedia "page" And How To improove (Sorry For my bad Spelling and Grammar I am not english) The page itself, It ultimately Failed , though , It was Fun To make. Though , I am Now started A new Page About Eoporpita Medusa, And I Can't Seem To Get The Sandbox Which I Have To Work with, if Anyone knows How To make A new Page By Working In the sandbox, It Would be greatly Appreciated.

I Would also Like to Say What The Possible References For That topic might be, if their unreliable For The page / Are Suspicious, Please Let Me Know by responding to this message, Here Are The References I might include In that Page: http://www.ediacaran.org/eoporpita.html https://www.mindat.org/taxon-8686328.html https://paleobotany.ru/palynodata/species/77951?page=1&order=ageOld&dir=asc https://extinct-animals.fandom.com/ru/wiki/%D0%AD%D0%BE%D0%BF%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%BF%D0%B8%D1%82%D0%B0 (and yes that IS A unofficial Wiki , but I Had To use It To have More references To work Off of) https://bioone.org/journals/paleontological-research/volume-7/issue-1/prpsj.7.43/Ediacaran-biota--The-dawn-of-animal-life-in-the/10.2517/prpsj.7.43.full https://www.palass.org/sites/default/files/media/publications/palaeontology/volume_15/vol15_part2_pp197-225.pdf And https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=KsFFIrJ8IxEC&pg=PA270&lpg=PA270&dq=eoporpita+medusa&source=bl&ots=4qnz7Co_BS&sig=ACfU3U3YaHhltVFDXH_Jm2yOvpSy0hsTdw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj7_864wbn1AhXKasAKHVxRBf4Q6AF6BAgYEAM#v=onepage&q=eoporpita%20medusa&f=false.

Do Note That I Did use The same Websites (ediacaran.org and mindat.org) Which Were In My First File, If Those Two References Are Enough To Take Down The page I Would be making By using help From the teahouse, I Will be sure To Immedietly (sorry for my Bad spelling , as mentioned before , I am not an english person) so that the Article Could atleast have A Little Amount Of Possibly Reliable sources.

Happy editing everyone! Rugoconites Tenuirugosus (talk) 19:39, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Please stop capitalizing words. (My fear is that you will do the same in your draft.) In your first sentence, the only word that should have been capitalized was English. Use WP:YFA to create your draft. However, rather than attempt an article for Eoporpita medusa, I recommend you work on improving the article Eoporpita, as medusa is the only species. David notMD (talk) 20:03, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

@Rugoconites Tenuirugosus: Since English is not your native language, you may wish to post your suggestions on how to improve the article Eoporpita on the article's talk page: Talk:Eoporpita. GoingBatty (talk) 20:16, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

So setting aside the fact (as has been pointed out) that Eoporpita already exists and implicitly covers Eoporpita Medusa, I am concerned about the comment

... that IS A unofficial Wiki , but I Had To use It To have More references ...

If the info is actually not available from a reliable source, and so insist that you need to rely on an article from some wiki, that would have you off to a bad start. It's difficult to avoid running into disputes on a variety of grounds, but the explanation you offer in this case would just not hold water. Fabrickator (talk) 20:57, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

@Rugoconites Tenuirugosus I need to make the following points:

• The articles about species in this encyclopaedia must be based on sound science. User-generated websites are not reliable and should be ignored.
• You only need one really good scientific paper to demonstrate that a taxon is validly published for us to accept an article about it. Our justification for this can be read at WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES.
• I have cleaned up Draft:Rugoconites tenuirugosus and am happy to accept it, and have moved it into the main encyclopaedia (which we refer to as 'Mainspace')
• This source suggests the taxonomy is very unclear, and could need to be assigned to a newly-erected genus (Wadea).
• If a genus only contains one species, then we only ever create an article about the genus. We do not need a second article about the species itself. Should scientists decide that R.tenuirugosus should be renamed Wadea tenuirugosus, then we would rename the article to just Wadea, and keep a WP:REDIRECT to help people find it from the earlier name.
• Always try to keep your fingers off the 'Shift' key on your keyboard unless it is the beginning of a sentence, or you encounter a proper name like China, Jesus, London or a genus name, like Homo, or a recognised geological period like the Carboniferous Period.

I hope this all makes sense. And well done on your first article, but please bear in mind the copyright issues I raised with you earlier. And avoid using amateur artist's impressions of species unless they can be shown to derive from a scientific source. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:26, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

E.O. Wilson

The article for E.O. Wilson says that him and Irene Wilson were married. However, he says that he married a woman named Renee in his book Naturalist. They were married up until his death last year. How is it possible that this is the case? Is Irene a version of Renee? Cerambycidfreak (talk) 20:17, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

@Cerambycidfreak: Welcome to the Teahouse! I suggest you post your question on Talk:E. O. Wilson with the details of the passage from Naturalist. It's possible that sources disagree on his wife's name. Hope this helps, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 20:26, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

It would be more correct to say that Renee is a version of Irene. See Irene (given name).--Shantavira|^{feed me} 20:31, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

@Cerambycidfreak: I went to https://archive.org/details/naturalist00wils_0/mode/2up?q=Irene and searched for "Irene", and it seems that E. O. Wilson wrote "My wife Irene (Renee)..." GoingBatty (talk) 20:31, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

So, Irene is interchangeable with Renee? Cerambycidfreak (talk) 20:33, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Cerambycidfreak. His New York Times obituary says that he married Irene Kelly when they were young, and that she died a few months before he did. This website hints that Renee was her nickname. Cullen328 (talk) 20:34, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! That clears things up. I was just confused... Cerambycidfreak (talk) 20:43, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Unexpected question

What is use dmy dates ? 2603:8000:F400:FCEA:E508:761C:2416:11B0 (talk) 20:27, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:DMY.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 20:32, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Welcome to the Teahouse! The template {{use dmy dates}} tells editors (and scripts/bots) that the given article uses dates in the form of day-month-year, as in 17 January 2022. Other articles use mdy dates, as in January 17, 2022. Hope this helps, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 20:33, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

This has to do with the English language variations about dates on Wikipedia. An article about an American might render their date of birth as July 4, 1901 because that is how dates are commonly displayed in the United States. A British person born the same day should have their date of birth displayed as 4 July 1901 since that is the most common way that British sources display dates. Cullen328 (talk) 06:27, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Using official Facebook page as a reference

Hi! I was editing the page Islamabad Football Association, and found that it does not have an official website. However, it does have a Facebook page [1] which it uses instead of a website. All official announcements, events, and even newspaper articles and media coverage are posted on this Facebook page (in the form of a post, image or a video). I was wondering if it was possible to use these posts and images as relevant references when editing the page. Regards. Toofllab (talk) 22:03, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

@Toofllab: Only in a limited way. See WP:ABOUTSELF RudolfRed (talk) 22:07, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

fixed the link. RudolfRed (talk) 22:08, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

@Toofllab Please do not attempt to copy and upload any images from any organisation's website or social media account. Unless they are very clearly licenced for commercial re-use (which is most unlikely) , these images will all be copyright. So you may not upload them and release them for commercial reuse as if you actually owned them. If you think they might be suitable licenced, please pop back and give us a hyperlink to the relevant page so we can check them for you. Thanks, Nick Moyes (talk) 23:34, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm referring to images like this news article found on the organisations's Facebook page. Only the newspaper name and publishing year of the article are mentioned, not the date. This means I cannot search it up online. More examples of such news articles can be found here [2] [3] [4]

I believe these articles come under independent secondary sources of information. However, since they are being shared by the concerned organization, does this make them questionable? Toofllab (talk) 14:09, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Paywalled Sources

For one of the articles I am working on, there is a source which is completely paywalled and the article which is cited is inaccesabile otherwise. What is the protocol around this Thank you in advance Siguida (talk) 22:46, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi, Siguida, and welcome to the Teahouse! WP:PAYWALL may give you some insight into this, but we may be able to give you a more comprehensive, tailored answer if you specify the article and the paywalled source. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 22:54, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

This is the article I was referencing, the other sources in the article can be used instead anyways as they state the same information this source is cited for, outside of something which needs to be updated anyways.

Regards,

Siguida (talk) 00:47, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

@Siguida Some paywalled sources such as journals may be available to users via the Wikipedia Library, but this won't apply to news media, I'm afraid. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:35, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

@Siguida:, It's not clear to me if it's a paywall, or just registration required. The page I get when I clicked the link requested registration, but I don't know if they'll follow that up with a fee request; did you try registering, to see if you can access the article for free? Otherwise, you can make a resource request at WP:RX, and possibly someone with access to the article will stop by and help you out with what you need. Mathglot (talk) 06:00, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

talk page sections

Can I remove a or section from my talk page? If I need to refresh my memory, I can go back and view what I was warned about. Any feedback is helpful. Thank you! 73.167.238.120 (talk) 00:49, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes you can. Since you invite any feedback, mine is that in view of the array of idiocy that has been perpetrated by that IP number, you should create a user ID and be sure to be logged in with this ID whenever editing. -- Hoary (talk) 00:58, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse. Per WP:NOTWALLOFSHAME, you’re allowed to remove anything from your own talk page, but not other talk pages. Usually, we don’t like to grave-dance, and your talk page is not a wall of shame for you. Thanks. — 3PPYB6 — TALK — CONTRIBS — 01:34, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

I guess if I asked for any feedback, I should expect negative feedback as well, although I could do without the rudeness. 73.167.238.120 (talk) 02:13, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

 Self-trout — Oh dear! Did I give you the wrong impression that I was rude? Sorry about that. Basically, just remove anything from your talk page. It shouldn’t be a wall of shame. — 3PPYB6 — TALK — CONTRIBS — 03:10, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

New article

Hi, I've just drafted a new page on Wikipedia and I have 2 questions. In the first place, I've already published it and it appears as "Draft". How long does it take to be verified and published? Second, I don't know how to add a resume chart (the chart that appears on most of the Wikipedia pages). Many thanks! Noeliagarone (talk) 01:01, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi, Noeliagarone, and welcome to the Teahouse. I believe you're referring to Draft:Dawn After Dark. Drafts at this point generally take a a few months to review, as there's somewhere around 3,000 pending submissions. I'll note that the sources listed in the article don't seem to demonstrate notabillity, and I'll break them each down. I can't find any indication that The Midlands Rocks has any sort of editorial oversight (see: WP:RS), the Rough Trade one is just a blurb written by a record label, the Brave Words & Bloody Knuckles article is almost exclusively quotes from the band themselves (see: WP:INDY), the Classic Rock source is an interview (WP:INDY), and the TotalRock ones are quite short. This should be improved before the draft is reviewed, and inline links to external sites should be removed as well. Additionally, quite massive portions of the prose are uncited; please see our verifiability policy for why this is an issue. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 01:18, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

I'll also note that the draft hasn't been submitted yet. However, I would resolve these issues before submitting it, as – in my opinion as an AFC reviewer – it's likely to be declined in its current state. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 01:28, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

To clarify, "Publish changes" means save. Once submitted to Articles for Creation (AfC) for review, can be days, weeks, up to two months before a Reviewer makes a decision. "Declined" means the reviewer thinks the topic may be article-worthy, but not good enough yet ("Rejected" is more severe). David notMD (talk) 01:43, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

When to defer to talk vs making own judgement call

Hello. I have two questions. I am relatively new so while these are specific I am trying to apply answers to these more generally.

First of all, I want to apologize if I am linking articles in not the most efficient way. I'm not sure how to link them internally to Wikipedia other than just posting the full hyperlink.

I am having trouble understanding a sentence I would like to edit in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippine_Airlines#Destinations . The sentence begins, "Following the 1997 Asian financial crisis, " The source cited I cannot get to. I believe from at least one other reputable source I have found (Associated Press), that sentence is not accurate and I could rewrite it. Would it be best to ask on the talk page for someone to clarify this? And if nobody does for maybe a week I could just change it to reflect what I have found and I believe is correct? Then if reverted we would have to figure out why we have differing understandings of what really happened.

Secondly, this is about some jargon. I searched https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Aviation/Style_guide for guidance on referring to directions on an aircraft as forward and aft. I think it makes the context more clear than saying something points left when the aircraft is pointing right and vice versa. In absence of any applicable style guide, for something that minor, I guess it should be a judgment call for me as an editor to use those terms. MOS:JARGON seems to indicate adding a quick parenthetical definition would suffice. Does that seem accurate? Ardentmetaop (talk) 04:47, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

@Ardentmetaop: Welcome to the Teahouse! For your concern about Philippine Airlines#Destinations, it appears you can register at JOC.com for free to get a limited number of free articles, so you could view the article. Or, you could post at Talk:Philippine Airlines to see if other editors have access and could help (maybe even adding a |quote= parameter to the reference).

For your second point, I also suggest discussing it on the article's talk page. Hope this helps, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 05:11, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice!

Ardentmetaop (talk) 05:40, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

@Ardentmetaop: and finally, to cover linking to a wikipedia page, you do that by putting two square brackets around the page title (e.g. [[Wikipedia:Helpdesk]] becomes Wikipedia:Helpdesk). You can also link but use wording of your choice, (e.g. [[Wikipedia:Helpdesk|Helpdesk]] becomes Helpdesk) Nosebagbear (talk) 09:46, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Alerts deletion?

How can I clean up my 'Alerts' page. I see no option for doing that. ++++++++++

Lemchastain (talk) 04:53, 18 January 2022 (UTC) Lemchastain (talk) 04:53, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

@Lemchastain: Welcome to the Teahouse! I removed the row of equals signs you posted because the wiki editor thinks you're trying to create a section header. If you're referring to the alerts on User talk:Lemchastain, you can click "Edit source", delete the alert text, and then click "Publish changes" - see WP:NOTWALLOFSHAME. It looks like you've done this several times. Hope this helps, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 05:16, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

How to make a wikipedia page

I am the author of a book - STYLE OF INDIA, PUBLISHED BY HACHETTE INDIA, I WANT TO MAKE A PAGE ABOUT THE BOOK. 122.161.88.229 (talk) 07:17, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Most books don't satisfy Wikipedia's notability guideline for books. Does yours? (NB: Wikipedia's notions of notability may be very different from your own: they're certainly different from mine.) If it does satisfy the guideline, then read Help:YFA. Still interested? Then click this link and create a draft. When you think the draft is ready to become an article, submit it for review. Once it has been accepted (if this ever happens), you should not edit it. It certainly won't be "your" article: anyone without a conflict of interest will be able to edit it, adding summaries of unfavorable reviews as well as favorable ones. ¶ Incidentally, please don't use FULL CAPS: doing so comes off like shouting. -- Hoary (talk) 07:58, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Like Hoary said, read the guideline for notability of books carefully. Sources like [5][6] are pretty good. Do you have, say, 2-3 more such sources? I may be willing/able to help make such an article. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:11, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

In Wikipedia, you don't make a "page (oh, excuse me: a "PAGE") about the book. If your book is or becomes sufficiently notable that several sources independent of you and the book write about it, then someone (ideally, not the author) might undertake to write an encyclopedia article about it. It might or might not be an article you will like (especially after a few people have edited it). I'm loathe to say this (because I despise it and its founder), but maybe you want Facebook, instead. Uporządnicki (talk) 12:48, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

UPDATE: Draft:Style Of India created, submitted and Declined because no references. David notMD (talk) 13:56, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Apart from that, it wasn't that bad. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:05, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

GGS suggested some possible references. These and more are needed to establish that this 2016 book is notable in the Wikipedia sense of the word. David notMD (talk) 22:50, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Pre-release review

Hello editors and editors of Wiki, I have created an article and it is in the draft. I used to see it for various reasons, which was written by my friends, and it had a news aspect, but now I edited it, it was edited with different sources. Do managers check whether it is authorized to publish or not? Karestoonegoli (talk) 08:26, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Karestoonegoli Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I have added the appropriate information to Draft:Zahra Meygoli so you can submit it for review; once you do, another editor will eventually review it. I would not submit it yet, as there are still some issues. IMDB is not considered a reliable source. Please see Referencing for Beginners as well. 331dot (talk) 08:30, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

331dot Hello thank you very much for your trust and cooperation. Unfortunately, many Iranian actors can not interview various foreign sources because they will be in trouble and must be accountable for domestic policies. Thank you for your sense of cooperation and help, dear manager. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karestoonegoli (talk • contribs)

Karestoonegoli Interviews are not acceptable as a source either; Wikipedia wants to know what independent sources say about a person, not what they say about themselves. I understand concerns related to the current Iranian government, but that doesn't remove the requirements needed for an article. 331dot (talk) 08:58, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Karestoonegoli, Wikipedia doesn't have managers. 331dot is an editor, like you or me. An article about an Iranian (or other) person may cite sources that are in Farsi or another language, as long as the source is reliable. Unfortunately, as 331dot says, interviews (regardless of the language that they're in) are largely unusable. -- Hoary (talk) 09:01, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Hoary Yes, you are right, editors are respected and I think they are managers. Thank you for all your compassion and help in presenting flawless articles to the people.

I hope the article will be carefully examined and the problem will be solved. Thank You.

Karestoonegoli: it is unlikely that "the problem will be solved" except by you. Wikipedia editors are volunteers, and work on what they choose to work on. Unless you manage to get another editor's interest engaged in working on your draft, nobody but you is likely to work on it. You have had advice above, and if you ask for further help and guidance, editors are likely to provide that. But it is up to you to take the advice. Find reliable published sources, unconnected with Meygoli, that have significant coverage of her - they can be in Farsi if there aren't any in English - and base your article entirely on what those reliable sources say. If you cannot find those sources, you should give up, because you will not be able to establish that she meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability. Your ping to Hoary did not work, because you did not also sign your contribution. --ColinFine (talk) 13:29, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

ColinFine: How many resources are needed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karestoonegoli (talk • contribs)

"Although in the strictest sense the word "multiple" means "more than one", and in some cases it may indeed be possible to establish notability with only two references, based on existing Wikipedia community norms, it seems that challenges to notability are successfully rebuffed when there are three good in-depth references in reliable sources that are independent of each other." So, 3 can be enough if they're good, but your chance of success increases if you can do better than that. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:15, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

ColinFine: I am preparing and finding valid links. Do I have to confirm and announce the links here? Or apply for registration in the same draft?--Karestoonegoli (talk) 20:30, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

331dot Hello, I hope you are well

I changed some of the links, please check if it is approved by the editors. Thanks to all the friends and professional editors. --Karestoonegoli (talk) 22:25, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Place called "September 11 Park in northern Sana'a" in Yemen

An article in today's GlobalSecurity.org mentioned "The Saudi airplanes also targeted September 11 Park in northern Sana'a." Sana'a is a place in Yemen, but I haven't been able to find any reference to a "September 11 Park" online.

The article is here: https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/news/2022/01/mil-220118-presstv01.htm?_m=3n%2e002a%2e3230%2eps0ao43ss6%2e2zr7

I am just a shameless user of Wikipedia and have no idea how to begin, but if this is a real place it seems like an article might be interesting?

Thanks. SixtyRedDevil (talk) 13:41, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

SixtyRedDevil, this page is for questions about editing Wikipedia; you might ask about the park at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Miscellaneous. If OTOH you're thinking "I know next to nothing about this park; let's just start a tiny article saying that a park so named exists in Sana'a and hope that others will add to it", this isn't how Wikipedia works. Instead, one needs a bunch of reliably referenced facts; enough to generate a couple of paragraphs or so (and not just a single sentence). Good luck with your quest for information. -- Hoary (talk) 14:37, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Quantum conundrum?

Hello dear Wikipedians. I tried to improve precognition but all edits reverted. Talk page going round in circles. Specifically, under 'violation of natural law' a reference to a good paper on retrocausality is described in the following sentence as 'quantum weirdness' and asserts that it cannot give rise to macro phenomena. Sentence is unsourced. I'm not at all happy with what appears to be a false assertion. I'm not sure what should be done. Any input would be helpful. Thanks. Thelisteninghand (talk) 15:03, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

The article talk page is the place for discussion. Bringing it here is liable to be regarded as forum shopping. If consensus isn't achieved at the talk page, see WP:Dispute resolution. --David Biddulph (talk) 15:12, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

I see, I see... that in the future this will all be resolved, but not in your favor. David notMD (talk) 16:32, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Question about semi automatic editing

Hello, i already asked, is there a place where new editors can be guided trough, like semi authomatic editing? I was now talking with friend of mine who knows to edit wikipedia, but i cannot ask everything i need to know. I would love to create new articles, but just need some help for start. Thank you Nox Lumen (talk) 15:15, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

@Nox Lumen: There are a lot of semi automatic tools for different purposes. One would be Twinkle, for reverting vandalism (among other features) – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 15:25, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Nox Lumen, and welcome to the Teahouse and to Wikipedia. I don't know what you mean by "semi-automatic editing" - perhsps the visual editor will give you what you want. The Wikipedia Adventure is designed to introduce you to basic concepts and practices of Wikipedia in a fun way. When you are ready to try creating an article (which I would advise you not to try too soon - say, a few months), your first article gives you all the information you need about how to go about it. Happy editing! --ColinFine (talk) 15:25, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

How i can turn on that Twinkle AssumeGoodWraith? --Nox Lumen (talk) 15:29, 18 January 2022 (UTC)Bold text

@Nox Lumen: For information on how to turn on Twinkle, see Wikipedia:Twinkle. Hope this helps and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 16:00, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Whale Research Group Article Issues

Hi, I have been trying to create the Whale Research Group article. It was approved yesterday, but now I am getting an error message at the top of the article, which I think will cause the article to be moved to the draft space.

1. The message says the article is an orphan, however there is clearly a link to the article on the Jon Lien article. I believe it's on the first line.

2. The message says the article needs additional citations for verification. How do I know where it needs additional citations. I believe every piece of information in there is cited from a credible source.

Thanks very much for the help. Tyroneslothrop00000 (talk) 15:18, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Tyroneslothrop00000, and welcome to the Teahouse. The tags at the top do not immediately threaten the article. The question of being an orphan you can address by finding other articles which do, or might, refer to Whale Research Group, and adding links to those articles, pointing to the new one: if even one article links to your new one, it will not be an orphan, and you can remove that tag from the top.

For the "needs additional citations for verification", Robert McClenon has put a detailed analysis of the sources on the article's talk page Talk:Whale Research Group. If you need to ask him for more information, or discuss his findings, that talk page is the place to do it. --ColinFine (talk) 15:31, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

User:Tyroneslothrop00000 - First, I will tell you what you did that annoys the reviewers and is likely to get negative attention. You created two identical or almost identical copies of the article, in article space and in draft space. When you do that, other reviewers think that you are trying to game the system. So don't create multiple copies of an article. In particular, User:Onmyway22 had moved one copy of your article from article space to draft space. It would have been better to discuss with Onmyway22 rather than just creating another copy. You seem to be trying to run around a reviewer with whom you disagree. (I am not sure why they moved your article to draft space. It is sometimes a good idea to ask.) Second, tags are not error messages. Third, if Jon Lien already links to Whale Research Group, just remove the orphan tag. Fourth, most of the sources either are more about Jon Lien than about the Whale Research Group or are background information. Fifth, the article should not be moved to draft space a second time. An article should not be moved to draft space twice, although some reviewers do not know that. Sixth, any article can be nominated for deletion, and my analysis is that your article should be kept if it is nominated for deletion, but that at least one more high-quality source would help. Does that answer the questions that you have not yet asked? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:28, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, Robert McClenon. I didn't mean to annoy any reviewer, or to run away from anyone, and I also didn't mean to create two copies of the article, I just got confused where it went when it was taken down. I'm still trying to get the hang of things (talk pages etc.), so I'm sorry if I'm causing a headache with this stuff. Anyways, I just saw your analysis of my sources thanks to ColinFine, and it was very helpful. I will add more citations which will satisfy the requirements of the table you made. Thank you for the help. Tyroneslothrop00000

Robert McClenon pinging since the above user made a mistake and pings only work when using four tildes (~~~~) ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 18:05, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

User:BlazeWolf - about pings, I have seen that about pings. Can you please provide me with a link to where it tells about pings and signatures? In particular, I understand that if I try to ping someone, but misspell their username, and then go back in and change the spelling, the ping doesn't work unless I add a new signature. Is that correct? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:18, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: You can find a quick rundown at WP:MENTION, though it seems to mention that using ~~~ also works.

You'd have to start a new line with a new ping and signature if you want to try and correctly notify them again. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 18:25, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Ironically you misspelled my username here since you forgot the space in between Blaze and Wolf Yep! I've just been told that's how it works but have never read the page. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 18:27, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

User:Tyroneslothrop0000 - First, I understand that you had a good-faith misunderstanding of a complicated system. Second, I will point out to everyone that there are some misconceptions about sources in Wikipedia caused by understanding part but not all of what we require. You said that all of your sources were reliable, and I agreed in the analysis that they were reliable. However, having reliable sources is necessary but not sufficient. They must be reliable sources that provide significant coverage. In particular, in this case, the sources were reliable, and are marginally significant. The rules on sources are detailed, and some editors become confused because they understand part but not all of the rules. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:18, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Jürgen Theobaldy (entry being reviewed)

Dear Wikipedia friends, it seems that I need advice. When offering the entry on the poet Jurgen Theobaldy, I based it on the entry in the German language Wikipedia which is inadequately supported by referenced sources. (Perhaps because the poet is so well-known in Germany, it was not deemed essential.) I agree that my entry had to be rejected because there were few sources added in the form of references. Now, the entry is rejected because there are too many references and too many sources and I quoted at great length (in the original with added translation to English.) I have deleted some links to sources that are online. My experience is that sources that are available in few libraries are often rejected. Is it because some reviewers accept only resources that can be checked online with ease? I need help. Is it still too much I add to the initial, badly referenced text on Theobaldy? Or have I deleted details that I should not have deleted? I am certain that experienced Wikipedia editors can give good advice. Thank you so much for your help, dear friends. My best/ Barbara BarbaraLassen (talk) 15:28, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Draft:Jürgen_Theobaldy

Hi, @BarbaraLassen:, I don't think the problem is the actual sources. I think it's how you've used them. You've included lengthy commentary about what the sources say, as part of each reference, which means the reference section is more like a continuation of the article; it's become a small-print notes section. What you should do is say what you think needs saying in the actual bulk of the article, the main paragraphs, and reference these with simple references that merely state what the source is. A book would include the authors, title, ISBN, publisher, page-numbers, dates, but not quotes from the book or summaries of what it says. If those are necessary, they should be in the text of the article, not in the references. There is nothing wrong with using obscure sources, and print-only sources, or sources only available in certain libraries, provided they are reliable secondary sources. Obviously it's nice if you can find easily-accessible equivalents, but we do not reject difficult-to-obtain sources. Good luck! Elemimele (talk) 16:59, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

First Article

Hello! I am fairly experienced with editing however I have not made my own articles much so I am here to ask a question. My first article was World Tang Soo Do Association, but whenever I try to make an article, such as Rainbow Unicorns (song), it keeps telling me that it is the first article I am creating and is very quickly patrolled and cited for speedy deletion. I am not opposing such speedy deletion in that article here however, just wondering why Wikipedia does not register my first page as such and stops giving me the message in the visual editor of how to write my first article.

Thanks! AWESOMEDUDE0614 (talk) 16:55, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

@AWESOMEDUDE0614 Welcome to the Teahouse. I fear you misread the message on your talk page which begins: "If this is your first article..." You definitely created the other article, as your record shows.

The tagging for speedy deletion was not done automatically, but by another editor. The article you tried to create about the song's writer was itself deleted (I assume on lack of notability grounds). This one song they wrote also seems to fail our Notability criteria for music, and thus was tagged for deletion. If you read WP:NMUSIC and can find evidence from good sources that it is notable, then do add them in asap. If it's too late, and you still genuinely feel you can cite sources to show notability, then WP:REFUND might be the place to visit. Does that make sense? Nick Moyes (talk) 17:25, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @AWESOMEDUDE0614: Are you referring to the post at User_talk:AWESOMEDUDE0614#Speedy_deletion_nomination_of_Rainbow_Unicorns_(song)? If so, the template used to create the note does not check to see how many articles you have created. Instead, it simply includes a helpful suggestion stating "If this is the first article that you have created..." (emphasis added). If you would like to suggest a different wording or enhanced functionality in the deletion templates, you can start a discussion at Template talk:Db-notice. Hope this helps, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 17:27, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

@GoingBatty: @Nick Moyes: Thanks for the help. AWESOMEDUDE0614 (talk) 17:36, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Translating articles from a non English Laungue to English

I have tried to look at the Translate us page but couldnt find anything about translate to english only from english Splyfof (talk) 17:52, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

@Splyfof See Help:Translation. Basically, start with asking yourself "For this translation, do I have sources that meets the demands at WP:GNG?" If the answer is no, pick something else. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:04, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

In line references

In-line references for an article I'm trying to create ... #1 does not appear in the text but only in the references section. Consequently, I cannot delete it and begin again.  George-Amherst (talk) 20:25, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

@George-Amherst, do you see it between the 2 "submission declined" templates? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:36, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

A useful trick is to click on the caret character ( ^ ) after the reference number in the references section. That is a link which takes you up to where the reference is defined and used. --David Biddulph (talk) 21:05, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Infobox issues

Seems like there is a issue in this individual infobox where it shows him have two of the same office title. I could not figure out why it is doing it, but it’s showing up on both Computer and on Mobile devices if you could figure out the issue it would be much appreciated. The name of the page is Jeff Denham. BigRed606 (talk) 21:19, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

@BigRed606  Done Nick Moyes (talk) 21:29, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Why???

How come when I put the "citation needed" template, the edit is removed, but when others put it, the edit stays until someone finds a edit?!!? I am very confused. Sincerely, CertifiedAmazing2 (talk) 22:42, 18 January 2022 (UTC) 

@CertifiedAmazing2: I assume you're referring to this edit? [7] Sourcing standards for adding info to biographies of living people are a bit more stringent. Also, I'm not sure that info is notable enough to include in the lead. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:47, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@CertifiedAmazing2: Welcome to the Teahouse! Are you referring to this edit to the James Holzhauer? It's not common for someone to add a statement and a {{citation needed}} template. It's more common for one person to add an unsourced statement and then another editor to add {{citation needed}}. Per the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, if you have an issue with your edit to James Holzhauer, you can discuss it on Talk:James Holzhauer. Maybe you could even encourage someone else to find the reliable source you're struggling to find. Hope this helps, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 22:50, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hello, CertifiedAmazing2, and welcome to the Teahouse. When an edit of yours is reverted (whether it is adding information, removing information, adding a tag, removing a tag, or anything else) that has been done not by a machine, or by "Wikipedia", but by a real live volunteer editor just like you and me. You might be right, they might be right, you might both be right, or both be wrong: editors often disagree about what an article should contain. If you think they were wrong to revert it, look at the history of the article to see who they were (and if they left an edit summary which explains their action); and if you wish to pursue the matter your next step is to open a discussion on the matter, usually on the article's talk page: see WP:BRD for how this works. --ColinFine (talk) 22:54, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Hi CertifiedAmazing2. If what you're referring to are edits like this, then basically you seem to be misunderstanding the purpose of the {{citation needed}} template. The WP:BURDEN for providing citations in support of article content falls upon the person adding the content; so, when you add content to an article, you're expected to provide a citation to a reliable source in support. What you're doing is adding unsourced content to articles and then adding a "citation needed" template as if you're expecting others to go around and find the citations in support. That's not really a constructive editing approach to follow. Templates like "citation needed" are usually added to unsupported content added by other editors, not the content you yourself have added. Such templates are a way of letting others know that the unsourced content might be encyclopedically relevant in some way, but it needs to be verifiable. So, as an alternative to simply removing the unsourced content, a template is added to give someone else a chance to find a source that verifies it. However, if you're unable to verify the content you add yourself, then it's odd for you to expect others to do so and you probably shouldn't be adding the content to begin with. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:00, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Did I do the right thing here?

Look at this talk page. I put a COI template there because they said that they owned the article and their username is the article name. 🦁⋆JennilyW♡🦌 (talk) 22:49, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

@JennilyW: Welcome to the Teahouse, and thanks for reverting the incorrect edit to TNT Boys. It looks like the editor was trying to hijack the article by changing the subject from a Filipino boy band to "a Xbox (or mine craft) club", so adding {{subst:uw-hijacking}} to the user's talk page would have been better. The COI template would have appropriate if the editor was related to the Filipino boy band. Hope this helps, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 22:55, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

@GoingBatty: Okay, thank you! I've removed the COI template from their user page. 🦁⋆JennilyW♡🦌 (talk) 23:03, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

My first entry. Could someone please take a look?

Hello Wikipedians! I am a newbie and have drafted my first entry. I don't know if this is the proper way to get started, but could I ask if someone could take a look at my sandbox draft and tell me what I need to do to take it live? It is at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Wormpicker62/sandbox

Many thanks! Wormpicker62 (talk) 23:09, 18 January 2022 (UTC)Wormpicker62

Hi, Wormpicker62, and welcome to the Teahouse. I'd like to start with the positives but then address one thing that may keep this from being accepted at Articles for Creation (AfC) in its current state. The quality of the prose is quite fantastic. There are a couple trivial formatting issues insofar as the section 'L. Andrew Staehelin' should just be the lead section without any header and inline references should come after puncutation, but the formatting is otherwise excellent both in the main prose and in the references. Wikilinks are very well-utilized. In my opinion, it does not go into extraneous detail, and it is not written in a promotional tone – I would consider it to be of the perfect length. That said, the underlying issue with the article in its current state is that it relies almost exclusively on primary sources. Inclusion of a biography like this would be determined based on three standards: the general notability guideline, the biography notability criteria, and the academic notability criteria. I'll ping David notMD, who would have a better grasp on the last one, but the first two require substantial information published about the subject in reliable, independent sources, which this draft does not demonstrate exist. Were it to pass on academic criteria, it would still be highly preferable to have more reliable, independent citations, as per our policy on primary sources, we're not supposed to "base an entire article on primary sources", and we should "be cautious about basing large passages on them." Hope this helped! I'm sure DnMD will be able to give you a more comprehensive answer about academic notability. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 00:45, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your kind and encouraging words and thoughtful advice, ! TheTechnician27! I hope I'm formatting this reply correctly. I will work on getting more secondary independent sources for citations. I'd be grateful if you would continue to follow my progress. Thanks again. Wormpicker62 (talk) 01:04, 19 January 2022 (UTC)Wormpicker62

Simply put, referencing a few of his journal articles will give sense of his research focus, but contributes nothing toward establishing is notability. Essential to add references to content that is about him but has no connection to him, as in other than from the university he worked for. David notMD (talk) 02:24, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

If you can find someone else writing about the contributions his work made to the general field, it would definitely help. This can be hard, even for subjects who have changed the course of scientific history, because their colleagues tend to look forwards, rather than write about the past. That's why the notability criteria for academics are a bit flexible. Some of his awards, fellowships and memberships will help. Was he by any chance chief editor of a major journal at any time? If so, put this in; it's another thing that counts towards notability of academics. Elemimele (talk) 11:04, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Need feedback on creating a new page for an organization

I'm a novice Wikepedia contributor and need some help and feedback on creating a new page for a non-profit organization. The draft is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:The_Society_to_Improve_Diagnosis_in_Medicine

I had tried to create a page for this group last year but it was rejected (too much 'advertising', no references). The current version hopefully addresses the problems that were identified with the first version. I no longer have any official ties to this organization but I have a big COI as its founder, which I have clearly stated on my user page. Not sure how to indicate the COI on the draft? Also not sure if drafts like this automatically get reviewed or how one designates them for review. Thanks for any advice !

Mark Graber MLGraber (talk) 23:39, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello, MLGraber. Your draft is nowhere near ready to be submitted. Convert your references to the inline format, which you can learn by reading Referencing for beginners. You should also read Your first article. Then, submit the draft to Articles for creation. Cullen328 (talk) 23:45, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Asking questions

So, what came into your guys' mind on creating the Teahouse? I thought of this as a nice idea, but is there a backstory for this? Mod creator (talk) 00:44, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

@Mod creator: Check out this interview with the Teahouse creators: Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2012-05-14/WikiProject_report RudolfRed (talk) 01:21, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Missing article

Saw an article about Izin Hash few months back. It's not visible now. How can I find it? 27.63.192.154 (talk) 03:22, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello IP. The article in question was deleted due to it being created by a sockpuppet. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 03:26, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your response HickoryOughtShirt?4, How can I bring it back to mainspace? 27.63.192.154 (talk) 03:33, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Checking if a source is reliable or not.

Question: How do I verify if a source is reliable or not? ValeAliz 04:39, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

@ValeAliz: Welcome to the Teahouse! Ask yourself if it is an independent, published source with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. There's more information at Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. Hope this helps, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 04:55, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the info! ValeAliz

Mathematica

 105.112.208.158 (talk) 04:53, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Mathematics

 105.112.208.158 (talk) 04:53, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi there! Do you have a question about Mathematica or Mathematics? GoingBatty (talk) 04:57, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Ken Penders

How do I change the name I'm listed on in my Wikipedia page, which has me listed as Kenneth Penders Jr, a name which is not on my birth certificate, Honorable Discharge from the US Air Force (January 6, 1976 - December 14, 1979) or any other official document I need to present. For the record, my full legal name is Kenneth Walter Penders II, but I've signed my name professionally as Ken Penders since September 1986 when I turned in my first professional comic book illustration assignment to then-DC Comics editor Robert Greenberger when he assigned me 6 pages of work that was published in WHO'S WHO IN Star Trek issue 1. There are other changes / additions that could be made, but let's start with that first as you verify my identity. I also have a Twitter page under Ken Penders and in the process of relaunching my kenpenders.com website.

KenPenders (talk) 07:35, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Courtesy: The article is Ken Penders. The references use "Ken Penders," so not clear where the unreferenced "Kenneth Penders Jr." came from. David notMD (talk) 08:51, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

KenPenders I changed bolded first use of his name back to "Ken Penders", as the change to "Kenneth Penders Jr." was done in August 2021 with no reference to confirm. David notMD (talk) 09:01, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Rejection question

Please let me know the exact reason of my article getting rejected.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Waman_Balaji_Desai 103.199.176.64 (talk) 10:24, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Your draft Draft:Waman Balaji Desai has no sources, independent sources are what we base articles on. A Wikipedia article about a person must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about them, showing how they meet Wikipedia's special definition of a notable person. Theroadislong (talk) 11:09, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Please understand that Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost entirely interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources. Also, the draft is not written in an encyclopaedic tone: sentences like When one hears the word prisoner, his forehead is covered with tears, people look at him with contempt, look at him, spit on him, despise him, no one stands near him, despise him near one another, beat him and do not give him good food. They get a lot of work done from them, they give him a lot of trouble would be appropriate in a personal memoir, but are completely out of place in an encyclopaedia article. Please see WP:NPOV. --ColinFine (talk) 11:49, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

One more point: the draft was not rejected, but declined, meaning that the reviewer thought that it was possible it could be made into an acceptable article. However, it needs a vast amount of work, and in my opinion it would be better to start from the beginning again, by finding the independent reliable sources that are required, and writing based only on what those sources say. See your first article. --ColinFine (talk) 11:51, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Userboxes

Hi, I need some userboxes for my user page. Can anyone give me some? Thanks. Troyol (talk) 12:13, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

For information about userboxes, see WP:Userboxes. --David Biddulph (talk) 12:18, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

How do I include Wikidata in a Draft Wikipedia article?

Hi, I've just created a draft Wikipedia page and a Wikidata entry (for a prize-winning Nigerian 'visual artist'). I've read the [page on linking Wikipedia pages with Wikidata] but the advice (underneath) doesn't seem to work:

From a Wikipedia page, you can go to the link "Wikidata item", using "Tools" in the side panel (in the left), to see and edit it. Also in Tools, there is another link to "page information", where is "Wikidata item ID", that contains the QID (for example: Q171 or "None").

1. I see no link "Wikidata item", and 2. I see no Wikidata item ID in the Wikipedia page information.

Could this be because the page is still Draft and not yet submitted for review? Or my editing permissions?

Thanks in advance for any help,

Mike Mikemorrell49 (talk) 12:18, 19 January 2022 (UTC)