Wikipedia:Teahouse

David Biddulph, 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

What are the rules surrounding subjects that have already been written about in other wikis?

Hello, this is a purely theoretical question I'm asking to satisfy my own curiosity as I read up more about Wikipedia rules. There are so many wikis around today, with more specialised areas--e.g. fandom wikis, computer game wikis, etc. What are the ground rules surrounding subjects that may be already covered in another wiki, which someone may think about transferring to Wikipedia? Are there content duplication rules that forbid acceptance of particular kinds of content if they have already been written about substantially in another source (and could an editor point me to the guidelines if a page exists on this topic? Can't seem to find it myself)? E.g. say for example, a new Star Wars character that's already been given a treatment on a Star Wars wiki, and which someone may want to write about in Wikipedia. On the assumption that the basic requirement to paraphrase instead of lifting is met, is that okay? Talamioros (talk) 08:43, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Wikis are not reliable sources, so it would be a non-starter. All articles must be based on reliable sources--Shantavira|^{feed me} 09:48, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

@Talamioros, See WP:COPYPASTE, WP:PLAGIARISM and WP:USERG. What may be useful on other wikis are the sources they use, if any. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:10, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

I would note that in certain (not all) situations, it may be legal to copy an entire article from another wiki, if that wiki's copyright license is compatible with Wikipedia's. See WP:Compatible license for details about that. However, in most cases, it would not be appropriate to copy an entire article from that other wiki, since the other wiki's standards for notability and verifiability may not match ours. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:33, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you so much for taking the time to explain! Talamioros (talk) 03:40, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Alan Singh

Help me to make this. -- Karsan Chanda (talk) 10:27, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello Karsan Chanda. Could you kindly specify your query? Do you want help to make an article on tribals or on a topic from the shared link? Please specify so that we can answer your query. Thank You. Kpddg ^(talk) 10:32, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

If the page in question is Alan_Singh, the reasons for its decline have been mentioned at the top of the page. Kpddg ^(talk) 10:35, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Karsan Chanda. If you want to create an article on Alan Singh, your absolutely first starting point (ideally before writing a single word) is to find three or four sources which talk at length about Singh himself - not just about his campaigns, or his tribe, or places associated with him. The sources do not need to be in English, or online (though it is helpful if they are); but they do need to have been published by publishers with a reputation for editorial control and fact-checking. The book you have just cited looks as if it might be a reliable source; but why are you citing it? If it is for an article about the Mina, see our existing article Meena - you may want to make additions to that. --ColinFine (talk) 14:35, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

References

From the start of this draft last September, Karsan Chanda has been composing more about Amber Fort and the massacre of the Chandra dynasty (Meena) by Kachhwaha than about Alan Singh. If this is to succeed, focus on referenced content about Alan Singh. David notMD (talk) 14:21, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

FYI

 – Combined sections. GoingBatty (talk) 04:28, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Can this page be resubmitted now? -- Karsan Chanda (talk) 03:58, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

@Karsan Chanda: I suggest you reword your first sentence so it starts "Raja Alan Singh Meena...", as that is the Wikipedia guideline per MOS:LEADSENTENCE. You mention that "Historian Colonel James Tod has written about Alan Singh in detail in his book Annals and Antiquities of Rajasthan" - what did Tod write about him? You only use that book as a reference for his deathplace. Did he write anything else? I also suggest expanding the references to include authors, publishers, years, etc. Hope this helps, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 04:26, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

@GoingBatty: Kachwahas are said to be the descendants of Kush, the second son of Lord Rama. One of the descendants of Kush was Raja Nal who settled in Nurwar. Raja Sora Singh was the descendant of Raja Nal who was killed and his son Dhola Rae was deprived of inheritance.

As Dhola Rae was an infant, his mother felt that the usurper may kill her and the child so she put the child in a basket and reached near Khogong which was ruled by Meenas. Being hungry she was plucking wild berries. Seeing a snake near the basket she screamed but a Brahmin saw and told that the baby has a very bright future.

He took her to Khogong where she asked the king to give her some employment for survival. The queen included her in her slaves. One day, as per the order, she cooked food which was liked by the king. When he listened her story, he adopted her as sister and Dhola Rae as his nephew. Dhola Rae was sent to Delhi at the age of 14 and he returned after five years.

The Kachwaha Rajputs returned with Dhola Rae and as per their conspiracy, they killed many of the royal people and the public during the celebration of Diwali festival. In this way, the Kachwahas overtook the town from the Meenas. -- Karsan Chanda (talk) 04:42, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

@Karsan Chanda: Remember the draft is about Alan Singh, so the focus should be on him. I'm not sure if anything you wrote above is about Alan Singh. Looking at your draft more closely, I see you called it "Alan Singh" but mention "Alan Singh Chanda" in the infobox and "Raja Alan Singh Meena" in the lead. I suggest you be consistent about his name. GoingBatty (talk) 05:03, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

@GoingBatty: The names of Ratan Singh and Ralusi are also mentioned for Alan Singh. -- Karsan Chanda (talk) 06:07, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

FYI

 – Combined sections again. GoingBatty (talk) 14:26, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Resubmit. -- Karsan Chanda (talk) 07:37, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

@Karsan Chanda Kya karna hay? Resubmit karna chahte hain aap? Itcouldbepossible^Talk 07:46, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Teahouse hosts are not draft reviewers. That said Draft:Alan Singh, declined three times already, is no closer to being approvable. The refs appear to be mostly about a massacre of Meena/Chandra that took place long after Singh was dead, or about the fort that Singh started in 967, but was since then greatly enlarged by subsequent rulers. Tour guide descriptions of the fort add nothing to Singh's notability. David notMD (talk) 09:46, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Also, you asked for help on 21 January. There are extensive replies at #2 on this list of Teahouse questions and answers. David notMD (talk) 09:50, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

@Karsan Chanda: I have combined sections again. Please do not start a new section while this topic is still open here. There is also lots of discussion at Draft talk:Alan Singh. When you have taken all the suggestions into consideration and believe you have improved the draft to the point where you have included multiple independent reliable sources that have significant coverage about Singh so that it demonstrates how Singh meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion ("notability"), you may click the "Resumbit" button on the draft to have it reviewed. Hope this helps, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 14:26, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Help me to make this. -- Karsan Chanda (talk) 15:34, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

References

Women's last name after marriage

If you are creating a Wikipedia page for a woman who is known by her maiden name although she is married, which last name should be used as the title for the wikipedia page? Weissepedia (talk) 23:26, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

The article title should be the name by which she is most commonly known, see WP:COMMONNAME, but if she is also known by another name then a redirect can be provided from that alternative. --David Biddulph (talk) 00:04, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Uh, that makes no sense at all. Why would you use a name she is not known by? Or is this some culture where women but not men are legally obliged to change their surname when they marry? --bonadea contributions talk 00:15, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Bonadea, I don't see above any advocacy of the use of names that people aren't known by. (Am I missing something?) -- Hoary (talk) 07:56, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

No, I did not mean to imply there was advocacy involved – I was genuinely confused by the question. The only way I could interpret it to make sense to me was if "she is married" meant "she is required by law to have the same last name as her husband". (Which has been true in many European and anglophone countries in the past, and possibly still is in some parts of the world.) --bonadea contributions talk 10:02, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

It's true in Japan, for one. (Successive governments -- all of the same one party -- have claimed that it's not sexist because the couple can plump for either one of the two surnames. Uh-huh.) If a Japanese person marries a foreigner, each can keep their surname; and there may be other minor exceptions. Anyway, if you are creating a Wikipedia article for a woman who is most commonly known by a certain name, then you title the article with that name. And ditto for an article about a man. -- Hoary (talk) 11:44, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

@Bonadea: I think you're over-stating the requirement a bit. It could simply be that she lives in a society where it is common for women to take their husband's name on marrying. Without knowing the specific example, we can't really comment on how common that is in the society where the subject lives.--Gronk Oz (talk) 05:44, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

@Bonadea, @Hoary: I read the question as either:

1. Do we use a subject's most well-known name or their official name (the former, covered by wp:COMMONNAME); or
2. Do we use a person's current name even though it is less well-known or TOOSOON for much to have been written about them under their new name? Would our answer be any different if, say the person was a writer, academic, or performer who is credited under their new name on recent works? What if they have stated in an interview or a blue-tick tweet that they want to be known by the new name?

The second one is interesting in comparison with how we handle photos – we prefer a recent photo for a living subject, but after they die we would prefer one from the height of their career, or a particularly well-known or good portrait. (This actually happened with Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh.)

@Weissepedia: I hope some of the considerations above help you to decide. But don't sweat it too much, you can always do a find-and-replace. ⁓ Pelagic ( messages ) 08:07, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Can the original French voice cast information be copied to the French and Quebec animated series from the French Wikipedia?

It's true that on the English Wikipedia many editors here often add the original English voice cast to French and Quebecois animated series to the articles I used to edit before, but there is a problem, it turns out that when I changed the original voice cast from english to french to infoboxes (these two revisions for example[1][2]) have taken care to revert my edits without leaving summaries as a reason indicating now that only my edits appear as vandalism or non-constructive to it, the same thing happened with Angel's Friends (which is an Italian animated series) I was about to remove the cast of voices to the infobox knowing that international voices do not fit here but even so[3], both the bot and two users who have had several incidents [here reverted it again and the question for me is can some information be copied from the original voice cast from French Wikipedia and paste it here? Well here are the web sources as proof:

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_Lyoko#Distribution

http://www.doublage.qc.ca/p.php?i=162&idmovie=3179

http://www.doublage.qc.ca/p.php?i=162&idmovie=3241

152.0.138.36 (talk) 07:00, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse! In general, information can be copied from another language Wikipedia to the English Wikipedia if you provide a reliable source and give proper attribution per WP:TRANSLATION. In these cases, per the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, you may post on the article's talk pages so you can discuss the benefits of adding this information, and you can work with other editors to develop a consensus. Hope this helps, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 17:50, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello there, the biggest reason why your edits might be called unconstructive and have been reverted is because this is the English Wikipedia and not the French. Also it seems the sources you have given are unreliable sources and information on Wikipedia must be backed by reliable sources. ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 17:52, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

@Kaleeb18: Thank you for telling me, about the reason you were talking a while ago about the sources that I have provided if they are reliable, that is why there are times when users must verify web references to French-Canadian animated series articles to the database before to revert my edits again and yet I still haven't started on article discussion pages on this topic. By the way, add the information table to the Voice cast section so that something like this and this for example look comfortable. 152.0.138.36 (talk) 03:50, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Well I would suggest starting a discussion on the talk page and saying there should be a table where it says the French name and the English name of the actors like how you provided those examples. ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 12:50, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

New Article

Hi! We've edited quite a bit, but I would like to ask if making character lists that do not already exist be premature without help? -Jae RemusSandersRegretsEverything (talk) 00:18, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

@RemusSandersRegretsEverything: Hi there! It might depend on the amount of information and reliable sources available. I suggest you start a new topic on the talk page of article that discusses the character. (e.g. Before creating Characters of Mean Girls, I suggest you discuss on Talk:Mean Girls). Hope this helps, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 00:27, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

@GoingBatty, we've made major edits to the linked article already, so I believe that that would be an important separate article. However, for other edits we've made, there is almost no actual information on characters. The list I have in mind is a List of Heathers Characters or List of Encanto Characters. I'm not sure if it would be frowned upon considering we don't have as much knowledge on the editing capabilities of Wikipedia. -Jae RemusSandersRegretsEverything (talk) 00:32, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

ping:GoingBatty RemusSandersRegretsEverything (talk) 00:46, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Creating an article

FYI

 – Combined sections. GoingBatty (talk) 02:59, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Already posted something like this; we want to make a few character lists that don't yet exist. Would it be premature to make this article without much prior experience to making an article? We aren't sure how to use all the perks Wikipedia has yet. -Jae RemusSandersRegretsEverything (talk) 02:37, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

@RemusSandersRegretsEverything: Hi again! You don't need to create a new section to continue the conversation. Another thing you can do is go to Help:Your first article and use the article wizard to create a draft. This will allow you to work on your list over a period of time without worrying if it's going to be deleted. You can also post at Talk:Heathers or Talk:Encanto (film) to have editors look at your draft and make suggestions. When you finish the draft, you can submit it for review to become an article. GoingBatty (talk) 03:03, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

@RemusSandersRegretsEverything Welcome to the Teahouse. I fear you are rather in danger of being blocked for breaching one of our policies that bans 'shared use' whereby only one person may operate one Wikipedia account, and not two or more. If your use of 'we' as a personal pronoun is purely a preference or affectation, and is one not relating to more than one person accessing this account, please would you be extremely explicit and clear about this fact on your userpage? Without such additional clarification, I fear someone like myself might come along and block you per WP:SHARED, and that this could happen repeatedly if you use the 'we' form. As it stands, I'm afraid I can make no sense of what you're saying on your account's userpage, so both clarity and brevity is essential.

To try to address your intitial quesiont: it is always best not to dive in straight away to do the most difficult thing here - creating new articles or list articles. Better to learn the why's and wherefore's of basic editing first. All 'List' articles must list only 'notable' topics - i.e. the page must already exist elsewhere before you collate names into one article. See WP:LIST and WP:Stand-alone lists. Cheers, Nick Moyes (talk) 03:07, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Nick Moyes, copying RemusSandersRegretsEverything. See dissociative identity disorder. The User name Remus... represents a human with multiple personalities who has chosen to use the pronoun "we." David notMD (talk) 03:24, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes: See also User:RemusSandersRegretsEverything/pronouns. GoingBatty (talk) 04:56, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes You clearly didn't check our userpage before posting this, seeing as we have an essay linked about our pronouns as well as a slideshow of our alters that explicitly states that we are the Skeleton System.

@GoingBatty I tried to ping you in the previous one, but it hadn't seemed to work. Thank you!

@David notMD Thank you for helping! -Jae RemusSandersRegretsEverything (talk) 21:06, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

also @Nick Moyes, we have made clarity a large part of our activity on Wikipedia. We have expanded on, fixed major parts of, and generally edited many articles, so thank you. -Jae RemusSandersRegretsEverything (talk) 21:09, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

@RemusSandersRegretsEverything Please don’t take offence, as none was intended, I can assure you. No, I admit to not seeing your essay. It was 3am local time when I responded to you, so that may explain why I missed it, and perhaps my sharpness. The point I would like to get across to you is more one of suggesting how you can find a way to give quicker, easier understanding to admins like me who are intolerant of shared use accounts, and inevitably have to make quick decisions whether to block such accounts, or not. To distinguish you from those who ‘’are’’ editing against policy, might I suggest a better or at least more succinct form of wording to place right at the top of your user page that we can see? The actual wording is up to you, of course, but how does this sound?:

“Note to admins: This is not a shared account! - this user invites you to read [link] to understand how personal pronouns are deployed by this editor.”

I hope you do not feel disrespected by my, admittedly, terse initial response to you, and that this suggestion might be a helpful way of ensuring quick and clear understanding by other admins and users without the need to do a lot of additional reading. Kind regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 22:15, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes Okay, thank you. I am also sorry for the way I reacted, today's circumstances affected my moods when replying, and I admit that. I will work on doing better in the future. -Jae/Trix RemusSandersRegretsEverything (talk) 23:23, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Is the "cabal" on humorous essays real?

Some pages (such as this one) have this template at the top:

This is a decree by the Supreme Cabal Regime of the English Wikipedia (SCREW). It expresses opinions and ideas that are absolutely and irrefutably true whether you like them or not. Changes to it must reflect the wishes of the Supreme Cabal. When in doubt, please ignore the talk page and just keep reverting.

Is this cabal actually real? I.hate.spam.mail.here (This is YOUR page) (talk) 03:49, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

@I.hate.spam.mail.here: It may have been when the essay was created in 2007, but it's unlikely that it's still "active". GoingBatty (talk) 05:03, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

So it existed back then, but doesn't anymore? I.hate.spam.mail.here (This is YOUR page) (talk) 06:01, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

It may have existed back then, but it's unlikely that it exists any more. -- Hoary (talk) 09:09, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

It never actually existed. The circus got closed down due to poor reviews in any event, and so pages intentionally meant to just be humourous aren't a thing anymore. (That's not to say incidental comedy is a lost art on Wikipedia - just look at List of whale species.) —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 09:13, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

@Jéské Couriano: - okay, I give up. I looked through List of whale species pretty carefully, and I must have missed the incidental comedy. Can you at least give me a hint where it is?--Gronk Oz (talk) 09:39, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Picture column, everything that lacks an image. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 11:03, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Jéské Couriano that made my day. Thank you so much for drawing our attention to that! Elemimele (talk) 13:12, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Jéské Couriano LOL! I had to scroll down almost to the end of the article, but it was well worth it! It is so nice to see that a sense of humour has not been completely banished by the WP Fun Police! Thank you. --Gronk Oz (talk) 15:09, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

A bit of a pity, really, and plenty of humour still around. When I am really down about Wikipedia, this always cheers me up. Mind that we are a allowed to keep this and other pages as "it is considered to be humorous". Lectonar (talk) 13:51, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

How do I delete my account from this Trash Fire of a thing called Wikipedia

How do I delete my account from this Trash Fire of a thing called Wikipedia. The admin I've encountered are bossy grouches who just show up, jump to conclusions and criticize when I've been trying to do my best for a long time. When you calmly explain they made a mistake, they follow with another dig. Then when you say one thing on the page is important to you they ignore you like you don't matter and tell you to stop being negative or they'll make you! Ugh! In two days I've learned to hate Wikipedia. Some of your admin think they can treat people as rudely as they want, when this place wouldn't exist without amateur volunteers. It's not worth volunteering for something where the admin treat you like crap.  Daltonsatom (talk) 06:46, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

You can't. Just stop using your account. – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 07:12, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Stupid website — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daltonsatom (talk • contribs) 07:34, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Sure. Bye. – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 07:38, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, thanks for your help. :) Don't like limbo accounts.Daltonsatom (talk) 08:12, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

It appears that this is about the article Intellivision Amico. -- Hoary (talk) 09:19, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Retiring for a means of creating a RETIRED banner atop User page, and I suppose Talk page. David notMD (talk) 10:44, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

@Daltonsatom: Sorry you had a bad experience here. Per Wikipedia:Username policy#Deleting and merging accounts, "It is not possible to delete user accounts, as all contributions must be assigned to some identifier". GoingBatty (talk) 16:19, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

First or last names in plot summaries?

I've always assumed that in plot summaries in film articles, after the first listing of a character's full, subsequent references to that character should use their last name only, instead of their first name, but I just realized I can't find this convention in WP:FILMPLOT. Which is it? Pete Best Beatles (talk) 07:28, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Pete Best Beatles I think MOS:SURNAME applies here.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 09:06, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

The last sentence of MOS:SURNAME says "For fictional entities, use common names. For example, Jason, Luigi, and Wesker". I think this applies to plot summaries; use the name that is most commonly used in the film, or most commonly used in reviews of the film or sources about the film. It is quite possible in a film to have someone referred to only by their given name throughout the film, and yet whose surname is known, for example from a brief glimpse of an ID badge in some scene. It would be very unhelpful in such a case to use their surname. Where a character has a full name, given and surname, and both are used in a realistic manner, then it makes sense to use WP's normal rules for real life. For example, DI Humphrey Goodman in Death_in_Paradise_(TV_series) is called DI Goodman in professional situations, and Humphrey to his friends and family. In our article, he is initially referred to by his whole name, then "He" a couple of times, before "Goodman's replacement on St Marie is...", a very natural style for Wikipedia, and easily followed by our readers. Elemimele (talk) 13:06, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Why can page movers edit editnotices?

It seems like the least related permission there is in the group. – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 08:58, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Vandalism by a particular un-logged IP

There is an un-logged IP user who makes clear vandal edits after every few days with different IPs. I have got about 10 different IPs and all have the same kind of vandal edits in Indian constituency pages, making it pretty obvious that it's the same person. By the time these edits are discovered and reverted, the IP user starts making similar changes on other Indian constituency pages a few days later with a different IP.

The last couple of IPs from where vandalism has happened are - 1 2 3 4 5

Is there any way to permanently block this vandalism from this particular user?. Thanks. Dhruv edits (talk) 09:08, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

@Dhruv edits Yes, you can report the vandalism to an admin but I do not see enough evidence to say that all those ip addresses could all be one user. ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 09:39, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

John Pelham (died 1429)

Can someone please show me how to make a note (labelled "a") from the end of the first paragraph in this article, after footnote "2". I want to include a short quotation in the note. Ficaia (talk) 09:28, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

To make a note, you must use this template {{efn|put what you want here}}. Then you must make a section called notes right above the references section and put the template {{notes}} in there so it will list out all the notes. Hope this helps! ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 09:35, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Cheers :) Ficaia (talk) 09:36, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Biography of a scientist rejected

Dear Wikipedians, I am a first-time editor, and I am trying to create a page for Jannis Panagiotidis, a German historian who is a prominent migration scholar, world-famous in his field (history of Russia Germans). My submission has been declined because apparently it does not qualify for a Wikipedia article — does no not show significant coverage. Could someone please help me to understand what "significant coverage" means specifically in the case of a living person/a scientist? For example, there are interviews with him in large newspapers such as the German Die Zeit, which I have linked in the draft - doesn't this qualify as "significant coverage"? What specific type of content would qualify as "significant coverage" in this case? THANK YOU for your help! Iravienna (talk) 14:27, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

@Iravienna: Notability is determined when the article has significant coverage from reliable sources independent of the subject. Interviews are not independent of the subject. – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 14:37, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Reading is key. The notice says a lot more than what you mentioned. – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 14:39, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Don't give up. He looks a 1000 times more relevant than half of the existing enWiki articles, and you've done an excellent work in putting together the material. But you'll be stopped from posting it if you don't come up with more RS, reliable sources, which I am sure you can find: with his number of publications on such a topical issue, there's no way he's not quoted by at least half a dozen colleagues in books and peer-reviewed journals. Admins love those. Die Zeit is a perfect recommendation for me, but some are setting the formal threshold higher. Please ping me once you've managed, I'm interested in the article. Cheers, Arminden (talk) 15:07, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

@Arminden He sure is quoted in many publications by other scholars! But those are all strictly scientific books and articles. I did not think Wikipedia is the right place for such quotes, but now I will try. Thanks for advice! Iravienna (talk) 19:57, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

I edited the references to be more aligned with Wikipedia format. I also completely changed the description of his involvement with the Ambivalences ref, as all I saw in the ref was that he led a discussion at a conference. What I removed was "He is also the principle investigator in the project on post-Soviet immigrant communities in Germany." If that is true, it needs a better ref. In general, I agree that more references ABOUT him are needed. David notMD (talk) 17:24, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

@Iravienna: welcome to the club. That's exactly what's required. Taken at face value, Wiki has the same requirements as a PhD committee. Few articles are up to the requirements, but the rules do exist, and if a fellow editor or an admin decides to hold you to the set standards, then you have no choice. In a case like Panagiotidis', it's better this way. A scholar represents opinions, and those are seldom accepted by all, so a multi-faceted presentation makes perfect sense, rules aside. It's not an article on Pokemons. Those strictly scientific works are exactly what's needed. Good luck! Arminden (talk) 15:52, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Draft of redirect page

How to work on draft of a redirect page? Mukesh.kfc (talk) 15:19, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Mukesh.kfc, and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm afraid I don't understand what you are asking. If you mean you want to create a draft, but the name of your proposed article is already in use as a redirect, then go ahead and create the draft anyway: when a reviewer accepts your draft into the encyclopaedia, they will sort out what happens to the existing redirect. If you mean something else, then please explain more clearly. --ColinFine (talk) 16:25, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

@Mukesh.kfc — Per ColinFine, feel free to just create the draft. Simply enter your article name and insert the draft prefix (Draft:(insert title here)). You’ll notice that when using the template {{draft article}}, it’ll say: “The page (insert title here) in the mainspace currently is a redirect to (target page here)”. When you submit your draft, if it’s accepted, then your draft will either A: be copy-paste moved, or B: the redirect will be deleted under CSD G6, and the draft will be moved to take its place. Hopefully this helps. — 3PPYB6 — TALK — CONTRIBS — 21:11, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Create table of contents when less than 4 headings

A TOC can be useful for DAB and talk-pages, even when they don't have the required 4 headings. Talk-pages for instance can have discussions that go on forever, a TOC can help with jumping over the "mammoths". By using the "TOC right" tag one can always create a TOC, but on the right side, where I don't find it as user-friendly. Any solution for a regular TOC on the left? Thanks! Arminden (talk) 15:24, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello Arminden! You'll probably kick yourself. :) Use Template:TOC left. Hope this is of help! LooksGreatInATurtleNeck (talk) 15:44, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Dong... Can you hear it? That's me kicking myself. Thing is, I had tried once with <nowiki>{{tocleft}} and remembered that it didn't work. Now I see that does create a TOC, but it's not above the first paragraphs, it pushes into it and squeezes it to the side. But it's there. Thanks! :))

Done, sorted, can be archived (unless you know how to fix that too, but it's not really important). Arminden (talk) 16:04, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello Arminden! No worries, so many templates. :) I'm happy to have helped. You can fix the spacing issue with {{clear left}} placed right next to the TOC left. That will make it nice & tidy just like a normally placed TOC. There's an example on my User Talk page. Take care, LooksGreatInATurtleNeck (talk) 16:17, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

It looks great! I'll put on a turtle-neck in your honour. NOW. Thank you!! Arminden (talk) 16:22, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Essay-like Tone? How long before my article is ready?

Hi! I'm working on the article Draft:Envelope Encryption. It got rejected a few days ago in the AfC queue because the tone was too essay-like, and I got a few comments about citation style. I fixed what I thought/was told was essay-like tone and the citations, but I'm not sure I covered everything. It seems like I haven't fully absorbed what the Wikipedian definition of "essay-like" is yet, so I would really like help with this. I am auto-confirmed, but I submitted to the AfC queue because I wanted feedback. Here are some questions I'd like help with:

1: Could somebody look at my fixed article and say if they think there are still essay-like parts of the tone? Some specific pointers would be nice!

2: I theoretically have permission to move my article out of drafts, since I am auto-confirmed. How many rounds of feedback should my article go through before moving it out of drafts? Do you think it's ready?

Thanks!

 A40585 (talk) 15:51, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

@A40585: Welcome to the Teahouse! The topic of your draft isn't in my area of expertise, but I wonder if you're overcapitalizing. For example, should we use "Key Management Systems" or "key management systems". The key management article leads me to believe that lower case is correct. Good luck with your draft! GoingBatty (talk) 16:38, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

@GoingBatty: Thanks for the warm welcome! Great catch! That's a mistake I make pretty often in technical writing. I fixed it. A40585 (talk) 17:07, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

@A40585:, I've taken the liberty of decapitalizing the second word of your title, per WP:NCCAPS. You'll now find it at Draft:Envelope_encryption. I agree that it does read a bit like an essay. A more encyclopedic tone could perhaps be achieved by the use of more citations, and the assumption of a broader audience, with more general questions they'd like answered: Who invented it, or is it one of those ideas that are obvious to everybody in the field at about the same time? What notable successes or failures has the technique had? What alternatives are there, and what distinguishes this technique from the alternatives? Overall, though, it's better, as-is, than most articles on Wikipedia, so these are just little things. EVhotrodder (talk) 11:29, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi @A40585: - I took a quick look and think the draft still reads like an essay. The biggest issue is that none of the info about envelope encryption is sourced. You describe the technique in your own words, but link to commercial cloud computing company sites, a paywalled research paper, and an online glossary for a related term. You'll need sufficient sourcing to demonstrate that the term is significant enough for a standalone article. I googled envelope encryption to see if I could find some technical articles about the term, and was unsuccessful. You're probably better off merging the info to encryption, such as to Encryption#Uses. Then you need fewer sources to demonstrate notability. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:21, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Bumping a question

FYI

 – Combined sections. GoingBatty (talk) 20:31, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi, I got my question from a few hours ago partially answered (thanks to GoingBatty!), but I'd like a bit more feedback and opinions about when I can ship the article. For reference, it's this one: Wikipedia:Teahouse#Essay-like_Tone?_How_long_before_my_article_is_ready?. Thanks, and please tell me if bumping is bad etiquette! A40585 (talk) 19:10, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

@A40585 Welcome back, and thanks for asking. Don't take it the wrong way, but because all posts here get archived after just 2-3 days of inactivity, bumping isn't really needed or appropriate. If a discussion gets continued input from editors over a week or two, then the post will end up at the top of Teahouse list until that activity ceases. Only then will it be archived. You should then get an automated message on your talk page saying it's been archived. So, if you still don't feel you've had your question fully addressed, that would then be the time to come back and ask again, ideally linking in to the now-archived thread that has been closed (there'll be a link in that automated message).

I'm not sure I can add much to what GoingBatty said, as it is very technical. I suggest your second sentence is used as the lead sentence. It makes more sense to a dolt like me. I would, however, strongly advise any new editor not to move an article they care about directly into mainspace. Once there, it stands a much greater risk of being deleted as inappropriate, whereas by going theough Articles for Creation drafts don't get rejected without good reason, and then you get a chance to take on board the feedback you're given. The downside is that it can take a long time to be processed - perhaps up to 2 or 3 months. Your own uncertainty tends to confirm that getting reviewer feedback would be helpful. Another route is to post at WP:WikiProject Computing and ask the technogeeks there to take a look. All that being said, it does look like it's potentially notable. I found this intro gave me a better understanding, and could also be used to confirm notability. If you're really unsure, you could always search related articles and see if what you want to add could actually be inserted into one of them. I hope this helps - and well done on getting this far. Cheers, Nick Moyes (talk) 20:23, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes Thanks so much for your feedback! :-) I'll try those things too, since it looks like going through a WikiProject will be the best way to get a reviewer with a domain knowledge. I didn't realize you could do that. I'll try to take some inspiration from that intro too, but sadly the source itself is user-editable wiki style documentation :(. Thanks again, and I'll keep working on my draft this week! A40585 (talk) 21:24, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Is there a way to follow specific Wikipedia projects

I want to somehow specifically follow the Wikiprojects theology and LGBT studies. Is there a way I can do this? MaitreyaVaruna (talk) 16:22, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

@MaitreyaVaruna: Welcome to the Teahouse! You can go to the WP:WikiProject Theology and WP:WikiProject LGBT studies pages and click the star icon to add them to your watchlist, so you can see when discussion is happening. Is that what you meant by "follow the Wikiprojects"? Hope this helps, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 16:40, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

@GoingBatty: Yes that is what I wanted to do. Thank you MaitreyaVaruna (talk) 16:42, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Once you have a Watchlist, you can add or remove article titles. You can also choose to watch individual editors. Which should not descend into stalking. David notMD (talk) 17:30, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Trying to fix references

Hi! My submission ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Jacqueline_Rhodes ) got declined and I'm trying to fix the references and reliable sources. Could someone take a look at help me with what I'm doing wrong? Thanks much. Profjrhodes (talk) 17:05, 23 January 2022 (UTC)profjrhodes

Remove all hyperlinks from the body of the article. I suspect that none of the awards are Wikipedia-significant, and thus the awards section should be deleted, but I defer to editors with knowledge of LGBTQ scholarship and Wikipedia's guidelines on awards. IMBd is not an accepted ref, as anyone can edit it. David notMD (talk) 17:37, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

@Profjrhodes: Welcome to the Teahouse! IMDb can be used in the "External links" section. I suggest you expand each reference to include a |work= or |publisher= parameter, and also a |year= or |date= parameter. Hope this helps, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 17:44, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

@Profjrhodes: Howdy. You're fighting an uphill battle already, in writing an autobiographical article. Doing so as an academic, while using an academic, rather than encyclopedic, tone, is perhaps unnecessarily compounding the problem. Intersections occur in roads, rather than fields; if something is evident, it's redundant to say so; the article is about you, not about Joan Negley Kelleher, and Wikipedia isn't the place to pay tribute. You're missing an infobox, and should probably line up a photo you like and are willing to publish under a creative commons license. You should place citations consistently outside punctuation, not sometimes inside, as you're currently doing. Since this isn't a résumé, rather than exhaustively listing everything in the books and awards sections, I'd trim it down to just those things that are particularly notable. Good luck. EVhotrodder (talk) 11:49, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you! Very helpful. Profjrhodes (talk) 16:11, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

What would be sufficient indication of Astolfo's notability

I recently made an article Draft:Astolfo (Fate/stay night) for a character who is definitely notable culturally relative to other characters such as Byleth (Fire Emblem) who have full articles. What kind of coverage should I include in the article to establish the notability? MaitreyaVaruna (talk) 18:09, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello, MaitreyaVaruna. I notice that your draft has only three references while the Byleth article has 22 references. Try to find coverage similar to those 22 for your draft. Cullen328 (talk) 18:42, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

One thing to note, though, is that notability isn't about the number of references so much as their quality. What you're looking for is works that come from a reliable source (one with a strong reputation for fact checking), that have detailed coverage focusing on that character in particular (not just incidental mentions of them as part of coverage of the wider series), and that are unaffiliated with Type-Moon. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:00, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Something to note about the draft as well is that the Journal of Geek Studies – perhaps unsurprisingly – is an online magazine, not a peer-reviewed journal. Articles are submitted via email, MS Word document, RTF, or LaTex. "This is done in order to check if they are within the scope of the journal and if the research seems reasonably sound." [emphasis mine] While it does have a small editorial board, this clearly isn't scientifically sound enough to be cited as "a study". TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 01:17, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm sure there are more sources you could find about him. He's a pretty popular character, and very notably androgynous, so there's probably been at least one article written about him in a more mainstream site. Erinius (talk) 02:19, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

What part of Wikipedia needs the most help?

I have been an occasional contributor to Wikipedia since 2016 who has so far stuck mostly to topics I was particularly passionate about at the time. My most notable contribution by far has been the creation of the List of mass shootings in the United States article.

But I would like to contribute to Wikipedia more regularly and graduate from being a WikiTeen. I'm not particularly confident in my ability to write new articles or completely transform existing ones because I'm not a subject-area expert, more a jack of all trades.

What area of Wikipedia needs the most help? Categorization? Spelling/grammar errors? A particular subject? OttoKaneko (talk) 18:27, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello, OttoKaneko. I suggest that you check out Wikipedia:Community portal, where you can find many lists of tasks that need to be worked on. Cullen328 (talk) 18:37, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Cool, thank you. Not sure how I missed that. OttoKaneko (talk) 18:41, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

@OttoKaneko, the Task Center has a bunch of options. One particular place that you can look is Articles for Improvement, which targets important but low-quality articles. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 18:56, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Awesome, this looks even better. Thanks! OttoKaneko (talk) 19:15, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

@OttoKaneko Here's another idea for you: I you have a particular subject area that interests you, try to find a relevant Wikiproject that covers it (usually shown in the talk page of an article. Most of these Projects have Quality Assessment tables - multicoloured things that I ignored as too complicated for years, but then discovered they are a great way of finding important topics that need improving. Every article that has been tagged as falling under that topic is likely to have been given an 'Importance' rating and a 'Quality' rating from Stub to Featured Article. See a live example below: This one comes my pet area: WP:WikiProject Mountains of the Alps:

The Rimpfischhorn - an important 4,000metre high mountain in the Swiss Alps, but still only a 'Stub' Class article.

Mountains of the Alps articles by quality and importance
Quality	Importance
	Top	High	Mid	Low	NA	???	Total
GA	1	1					2
B	7	3	3	1			14
C	12	24	26	41		2	105
Start	5	81	232	392		2	712
Stub		22	212	2,008		2	2,244
List		1	4			1	6
Category					46		46
File					6		6
Portal					2		2
Project					2		2
Template					5		5
NA	1			3	5		9
Assessed	26	132	477	2,445	66	7	3,153
Total	26	132	477	2,445	66	7	3,153
WikiWork factors (?)		ω = 17,490			Ω = 5.68

• The vertical columns show the assessed importance of the articles (Top, High, Mid, Low & Unassessed)
• The horizontal rows allow you to see how many articles of each Quality Assessment fall into each Importance grouping. By clicking on any number, you get a list of all those corresponding articles

So (assuming that you actually like snowy mountains!), either Stub or Start class articles that are of Top or High importance would be ideal targets for your attention. They are often the easiest to improve and, being assessed as highest priority, are likely to get the greatest traffic. Thus I see there are 5 articles currently deemed of Top importance that are 'Start' class, and 21 'Stub' articles of 'High' importance. I click the number and find these 5 articles that might interest me. Admittedly, the assessment is very subjective (see Wikipedia:Content assessment), but we have lots of WikiProjects who have these tables, and they can be a really great (but often overlooked) place to find ideas to work on.

The other side of the coin is that improving very heavily viewed articles means that any change you make will be seen by lots of people (see example for Covid-19 Pandemic), though probably the individual impact of your one single edit there might be a lot less. I hope you find something of interest that you can enjoy getting your teeth into. Nick Moyes (talk) 13:59, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Interesting, thank you for this. A lot of potential ideas to consider. OttoKaneko (talk) 14:43, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Overzealous deletion

I am having an issue with another Wikipedian. They seem set on deleting anything I add--and it appears from their talk page that they have done this to many others.

First they deleted notables that I added to city and high school pages, indicating that these people were not notable because they are not in Wikipedia. While I would have preferred it if this person had taken the time to review my citations, rather than assuming I was wrong, this is why there is a talk page. Next they deleted my addition of a notable who has a Wikipedia article, saying "they only went to school there." I maintain that going to elementary, junior high and high school in a town means a person is from a community and grew up there, matching the very definition of a related notable. At the same time, this Wikipedian did nothing to the other existing notables whose articles don't even mention a relationship to the city (something I plan on fixing, rather than deleting). To me, this shows malice toward me personally, rather than a sincere desire to follow the guidelines.

This has been going back and forth on two articles, and has escalated. Yesterday, I spent about 5 hours finding sources for data without citations, correcting incorrect facts, and adding content to the history section for the city. Ny change were +4,274‎. I used many sources, including a UNC press book, newspaper articles and the NCpedia (State Library/NC Dept of Cultural Resources), museums, and a credible e-newspaper. This person reverted all my work, saying that I used a blog as a source. Even if I did use a blog for one reference, why would any reasonable person delete other content that was unrelated to the blog? But I did not use a blog--I have a masters in library science and a masters in history, and know what an appropriate source is.

In the past, my activity as an editor has been adding sources and updating content. I rarely make bigger changes. I recently decided to try to be more active because I am currently not working (recovering from surgery) and the American Library Association has encouraged librarians (and women) to get involved. I want to do this, but I getting really frustrated and feeling bullied by this person. Today, I left them a message on their talk page making my case and asking them to revert my content and let me fix the source they are concerned with. However, based on the comments others have left, I am not expecting a response. If I don't hear back, what is my next step. How do I get someone to adjudicate this dispute? Is this normal? Rublamb (talk) 22:04, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Rublamb, thank you for your work for Wikipedia. You've made an objection in User talk:Magnolia677#Cary, North Carolina. Magnolia677 responded. You responded. (All of this was very polite, and entirely proper.) And then -- nothing. So it may seem that Magnolia677 is simply ignoring you. However, Magnolia677 hasn't edited anywhere since you posted your message, and may just be asleep in bed or busy with "real life". So I suggest waiting till Magnolia677 restarts editing (and preferably a couple of days after that). -- Hoary (talk) 03:03, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Hoary;Thanks. I am trying to keep the peace, but also resolve this issue so we can edit in peace--and maybe even have polite dialog about articles we want to edit in common. It was good that I got a response, but I am a bit concerned that once I had resolved their concerns about the non-existent blog, they switched tactics and challenged another source. Fingers crossed on thisRublamb (talk) 03:20, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

@Rublamb:It can be frustrating to have a dispute where only one person is objecting, which is why Wikipedia has avenues to involve independent parties to review the dispute and weigh in. The first step is often a Third Opinion request. If that does not resolve the dispute, you have the option of submitting a Request for Comment, which will bring in multiple independent editors to weigh in on a specific point of contention. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 03:35, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

You and Magnolia677 now appear to be in discussion on Talk pages about Cary, North Carolina, so please continue. David notMD (talk) 03:48, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Can someone please protect the hollow knight silksong page?

Its being vandalised several times. The vandalism says that its cancelled. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hollow_Knight:_Silksong&action=history It has been vandalised and unvandalized several times. Lionsleeps26 (talk) 00:35, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

@Lionsleeps26 If there has been a lot of vandalism you can ask for the page to be protected at request for page protection. ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 01:43, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

@Lionsleeps26: Hello! If you haven't already, you may request for a page protection on the article's talk page by inserting this template, or you may do so at the following page. Thank you! 〜 ‍ ‍ ‍ elias. 🧣 ‍ ‍ ^{💬reach out to me!・📝see my work!} 01:47, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

@Troubled.elias: That template is only for requesting an edit to an already protected page. It is not for requesting protection. RudolfRed (talk) 03:37, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

@RudolfRed: Ah, dang, I misread the instructions. Apologies! Should be redacted now. 〜 ‍ ‍ ‍ elias. 🧣 ‍ ‍ ^{💬reach out to me!・📝see my work!} 03:40, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Nanovna

I put information about the nanovna in the Network Analyzers article and it was reverted. It had 3 references. I cannot imagine why the information was erased except that the editor has not kept up with this advance. Rather than getting a $10,000 piece of lab equipment hobbyists like me can buy a $50-$150 device small enough to fit in our pocket that is fine for our purposes. It reminds me of my father, a computer pioneer, who scoffed that microcomputers could be good for anything, or a friend at NIST who thought of microcomputers as an amusing toy. He used supercomputer time at work, so it was hard for him to understand that anything less could be valuable. It's very frustrating to put valuable information into Wikipedia, properly referenced, and be undone by someone who is just ignorant of significant advances in the instrumentation. Sometimes the advance is not greater accuracy, but, like the microcomputer, putting an affordable tool in the hands of anybody who wants it.Conscientia (talk) 04:14, 24 January 2022 (UTC) Conscientia (talk) 04:14, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Network_analyzer_(electrical) RudolfRed (talk) 04:21, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

You already started a discussion on the article's talk page. I suggest you start a new discussion in a civil manner, and WP:AGF RudolfRed (talk) 04:21, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Wendy Choo wwe

making article 71.31.41.249 (talk) 04:18, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

please make an article about wwe superstar, wendy choo.

71.31.41.249 (talk) 04:18, 24 January 2022 (UTC)livvy

Welcome to the Teahouse! The formal place for requesting someone else writes an article is Wikipedia:Requested articles, but there is no guarantee anyone will ever choose to write one. You could also try posting at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling. In either case, you might improve your chances of someone writing the article if you provide multiple independent reliable sources that provide significant coverage about her career. Hope this helps! GoingBatty (talk) 04:33, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps you didn't read the answer you received at Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1138#Wendy Choo WWE when you asked the same question from a slightly different IP address. --David Biddulph (talk) 08:51, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Group Project

Hello there, Can I write an article with a group of people and on one account, or do we need to have separate accounts and work individually? LOWTeam2022 (talk) 05:43, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi LOWTeam2022. You may work collaboratively with other editors, but WP:SHAREDACCOUNTs among multiple editors are not allowed. In addition, based on what you posted below, you (and your colleagues) might want to carefully read through Wikipedia:The answer to life, the universe, and everything, Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, Wikipedia:Expert editors and Wikipedia:No original research because it sounds like you might be misunderstanding some impportant things about Wikipedia. You might also want to take a look at Wikipedia:Username policy#Promotional usernames because your username might be considered unacceptable if you and others start editing as a "team" even if you all create individual accounts. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:59, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your quick response and feedback. I will make these changes. Super helpful! — Preceding unsigned comment added by LOWTeam2022 (talk • contribs) 07:52, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Research assistant

Hello, I am a research assistant at a university. Part of my employment is to write and post an article on wikipedia about research models in my field. However, I have found that paid writers are not allowed to post on wikipedia or they need to disclose payment? Did I understand that correctly? Or what am I missing? :) Thank you - LOWTeam2022 (talk) 05:47, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi again LOWTeam2022. It sounds like your employer might be misunderstanding some very important things about Wikipedia. I've mentioned some of these above in my answer to your other question, but you might want to explain to your employer that Wikipedia articles aren't really intended to be places for publishing academic or other types of research. Articles can contain information (when encyclopedically relevant) about already published and peer reveiwed reseach when it's considered to be a reliable source as explained here, but articles aren't intended to be a way of publishing or promoting one's research (i.e. means of first publication). As for paid-editing, it's not expressly prohibitted as long is it's properly declared as explained in Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure, but be advised that many in the Wikipedia community are highly suspicious of even properly declared paid editing which may create issues between you and other Wikipedia editors. Paid-editing is a form of Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and such editing is highly discouraged and considered inappropriate by many. Anyway both paid and COI editing can be done when done properly in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines, but you will have no real editorial control over such an article once it's created as explained in Wikipedia:Ownership of content and no special consideration will be granted to you just because you've been compensated for your work by a third-party. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:06, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

This is actually quite a messy area, and I suspect you are the tip of the iceberg. I am quite certain that many universities and research organisations have held wikithons and encouraged their employees to update Wikipedia's articles/write new articles about their areas of research. In general, it goes unnoticed because all concerned are blissfully unaware that they've strayed into paid and COI territory. Usually, the people who do the work are motivated by very similar aims to WP itself, and they're often good writers who respect the importance of sources, so the product is good, and no one notices. @Marchjuly has given good advice. You will face an up-hill struggle because editors here are deeply suspicious of COI. But the absolutely, totally, fundamentally most important thing is that your task is impossible unless the research models about which you wish to write are accepted models that have been used/written-about independently by other researchers. WP isn't the place to promote new, cutting-edge ideas (that's straying into original research), or generally to promote one institution. Thank you for raising the question. You were right to do so. Elemimele (talk) 07:06, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

I hope I am doing this right to respond here...I sincerely appreciate your help in thinking through these details. I have been trying to process the information when I read it and glad to have this place to do so.

The research is not new; has been around for many years and proven with many case studies/examples. Also the research has already been published in peer reviewed journals and textbooks.

Does this help clarify? Thanks again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LOWTeam2022 (talk • contribs) 07:50, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Creating new articles in accordance with Wikipedia's various policies and guidelines is quite a difficult thing to get used to for even experienced (i.e. professional) writers because the Wikipedia:Manual of Style might not be what they're accustomed to and in many cases might seem "wrong" or "counterintuitive". Even the wikicode used in creating and formatting articles can be tricky if you're used to something different. However, it's going to make no difference how beautifully written and formatted an article is if it's not able to WP:OVERCOME the hurdle of Wikipedia:Notability. Wikipedia notability (or the lack thereof) is pretty much the main reason why article's end up WP:DELETEd. If you're unable to establish whether the subject you want to write about is clearly "Wikipedia notable", then its chances of surviving a deletion challenge go way down. I've got no idea what you're going to try and create an article about, but perhaps a good thing to do would be to check whether there's a Wikipedia:WikiProject which might cover the subject matter. Perhaps the editors of such a project would be better able to assess whether what you want to write about should be written about or maybe whether it's already been written about. Many WikiProjects have members with backgrounds in research and academia and they might be able to help provide advice more specific to your particular situation. If it turns out that Wikipedia is not suited for what you're trying to do, there are many WP:ALTERNATIVEs that might better suit your needs that will give you more control and are less restrictive when it comes to things like shared accounts, paid editing, conflict of interest editing, etc. -- Marchjuly (talk) 09:05, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

You have been coy so far as to the nature of the research area. Biomedical? Electronic? Energy? Economics? What does "research models" mean? Are there no existing articles for which the research at your university could be added to? Keep in mind that encyclopedias are trailing indicators of information. General advice here is to gain experience improving existing articles before attempting to create an article. David notMD (talk) 10:56, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

And you can kill two birds with one stone in following David notMD's advice: if you can find some articles related to what you want to write about, improving them is a worthy action in itself, but will also help you find out about WP's style and formatting, and you might find an article whose structure you can use as a pattern for writing a new article. Although good sources are the vital starting-point, your article will have best chances of acceptance if it reads similarly to other, good articles in the same field (try to find good examples to follow; look on the talk-pages of the articles, where you will find a box at the top. In some articles, this box will say that the article is on an important subject, or has been rated. The best articles to use as patterns are those that are important enough to have been seen by a lot of editors - they're less likely to be misguided products that have slipped under the radar - and that are good enough to have been rated as good!). Elemimele (talk) 16:27, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

You've piqued my curiosity, LOWTeam2022. Could you point us to a couple of articles that cover the topic? ⁓ Pelagic ( messages ) 07:44, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Listing Our Oraganization

Dear Team,

Kindly advise, how could i list my organization details in Wikipedia. and if our organization has featured in any other news articles how do i attach the resource/referal . and what is the content format to publish here Radeemshu (talk) 08:16, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Radeemshu, Wikipedia is not a place for the mere listing of the details of any organization. Please read and digest Help:YFA and WP:COIE. -- Hoary (talk) 08:35, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Also WP:NCORP. David notMD (talk) 10:57, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Moving page to draftspace

Hi, I came here, because of something that I have done, and cannot revert it. I moved Benipal to Draft:Benipal. It was actually an accidental move, and I cannot revert. Please do something about it. Itcouldbepossible^Talk 08:20, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Itcouldbepossible, that draft doesn't qualify to be an article. It can't decide if it's about a surname or a clan, it's only three sentences long, and it doesn't have a single reference. And therefore nobody should move it. Perhaps you would like to augment and improve it. -- Hoary (talk) 08:38, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

@Hoary No need. I wrote 'accidentally move', but it was honestly not accidental. I actually meant to draftify it, but then I found that it was a long standing article, and someone told me not to draftify long standing articles, so I came here if the draftification could be reversed. Just as a matter of question, how is a draftification reversed, or is it not possible? Itcouldbepossible^Talk 08:44, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

@Itcouldbepossible: You may reverse it now. – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 10:12, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

@AssumeGoodWraith No need, I was just asking if reversing draftification is possible, or not. Itcouldbepossible^Talk 10:14, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

@Itcouldbepossible: Move it back. – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 10:15, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

@AssumeGoodWraith Where? Itcouldbepossible^Talk 10:16, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

@Itcouldbepossible: Article space. – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 10:18, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

@AssumeGoodWraith I don't think that should be done, as Hoary days that it doesn't qualify to become an article. Itcouldbepossible^Talk 10:20, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

The point is, you technically can move it back. – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 10:33, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

@AssumeGoodWraith How? Itcouldbepossible^Talk 10:37, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

I found that it was a long standing article, and someone told me not to draftify long standing articles It's a little more complicated: it was created as an article about five years ago, but was almost immediately changed to a redirect, and the redirect was there until a month ago. Some content was added, but the title was reverted back to the redirect. Yesterday, the same editor returned and added the current content. So the article you draftified is actually quite new, even though the title has existed for several years. --bonadea contributions talk 10:54, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

@Bonadea Thanks for the explanation. Itcouldbepossible^Talk 11:19, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

When an article is "draftified", it should simply move: no redirect from the article should be created. If there is indeed no redirect, then the draft can simply be moved back to become an article (once it's good enough). -- Hoary (talk) 10:59, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Older history: Talk page of the draft shows that a version of an article by this name was deleted in 2011. David notMD (talk) 11:07, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

@David notMDYes, it is here. Itcouldbepossible^Talk 11:21, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

@Hoary Yes, but to move a draft without keeping a redirect, we need mover rights isn't it? Itcouldbepossible^Talk 11:18, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Itcouldbepossible, I don't know if you're now (A) asking about moving a draft to an article (without a redirect), or (B) asking about moving an article to a draft (without a redirect). Are you in a position to improve Draft:Benipal? If you are, please improve it. If you are not, just forget it. Let it rot. Months from now, it will then disappear. The time you save can be spent on other articles. -- Hoary (talk) 11:43, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

@Hoary No, I don't have knowledge about Benipal. I am not thinking about developing it. My question is, for example I just moved page A to Draft:A, and page A, has now a R2 CSD notice. Now, if I think, that it was an accidental move, and I want to move Draft:A back to page A, then what is the procedure? Itcouldbepossible^Talk 13:00, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Images of peoples signatures?

What do people thing of signatures in biography articles? I really don't see how they add anything to an article and it was off the back of a conversation we had at Talk:Emma Watson#Watson's signature?, I feel they breach a few type of laws myself. Was looking for more input on the subject. Regards Govvy (talk) 10:15, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

This is a question worth asking, but you're asking it in the wrong place. I suggest that you work on a proposal. (One area that obviously needs work is: What is/are "a few type of laws", and in which legal system, and can't you improve on whether or not you "feel" something to be true?) When your proposal is better thought out and better phrased, ask about the improved version at Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab). (However, since you ask: I too don't think that they add anything; and I worry that their inclusion may suggest that signatures are important, and thus that "graphology" isn't piffle.) -- Hoary (talk) 11:11, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Whether including the signature is appropriate or not varies widely depending on the person, and the inclusion or exclusion of signatures from infoboxes has been hotly debated. For pre-photography era people, I always support inclusion of signatures, as they are one of the few things we have reliably identifying the individual. Sometimes the signatures are iconic, as with Picasso or John Hancock. —Kusma (talk) 11:16, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Having said that, I think for living people the signature should only be included if it is commonly depicted in RS. For example, those of presidents often get photographed signing laws or international treaties. Can't see a strong reason why we should care about Emma Watson's signature. —Kusma (talk) 11:49, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

I can understand for a deceased artist, that makes sense to me, but for people that are living. Doesn't make sense so much to me. Govvy (talk) 14:23, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Ref error

I have no idea how to fix this, but can someone fix the ref error on citation 11 at Algerian nuthatch, thanks. 2001:4455:364:A800:C13C:8A64:1CEF:F186 (talk) 11:09, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Done. Thank you for asking. -- Hoary (talk) 11:14, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Re-instating a deleted page

Hi,

My son is an actor and he had a page on Wikipedia which was removed in 2019. He has numerous film and TV credits (as a lead actor) and has another big project coming out this year. I don't know anything about wikipedia, but I would like to get his page re-instated and find out what I need to do to keep it active. I note many other actors with less experience than him have active wikipedia pages.

His name is Toby Woolf

Can anyone help me?

Thanks so much.

Marnie Woolf Mw1357 (talk) 11:22, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

@Mw1357: What is the name of the article? – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 11:29, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Never mind, found it, deleted for lack of notability. [4] – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 11:30, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

@Mw1357, hello. Read WP:BASIC. What are the 3-5 best sources you can link that are at the same time reliably published (WP:RS), independent of the subject and about the subject in some detail? This excludes blogs, wikis, imdb, own webpages etc etc. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:23, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

At the deletion discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Toby Woolf there was a sense that in 2019, it was WP:TOOSOON for an article about Toby Woolf, at that time 10 years old, right now 13 years old. If you believe his acting career has advanced significantly, you can attempt a new draft, to be submitted to Articles for Creation (AfC) for review. See WP:YFA for process. As noted by GGS, quality references are mandatory. Given your connection (parent of) you will also need to post on your User page the nature of the connection. Required by WP:COI. Analternative to all this is to hope that Toby's career continues to blossom, to the point that a person with no connection will create and submit a draft. David notMD (talk) 12:35, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

• <https://www.radiotimes.com/tv/drama/summer-of-rockets-cast-toby-stephens-keeley-hawes-bbc2/>
• <https://www.express.co.uk/showbiz/tv-radio/861104/The-Last-Post-season-1-swearing-child-secret-Jessica-Raine-sex-scene-BBC>
• <https://www.standard.co.uk/culture/tvfilm/summer-of-rockets-mysterious-threads-russian-spies-and-lashings-of-lipstick-in-this-cold-war-thriller-a4148876.html>
• <https://www.empireonline.com/movies/reviews/rare-beasts/>
• <https://www.theguardian.com/film/2021/may/20/rare-beasts-review-billie-piper-david-thewlis-kerry-fox>

Mw1357 (talk) 12:31, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

No, no, no, no, no. All those five do is mention him by name as having a role in TV shows and movies. Those are not ABOUT him, as in content at length about Toby. If that is the best you can find, then still WP:TOOSOON. David notMD (talk) 12:44, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

The radiotimes is closest to one of the "multiple" sources demanded at WP:BASIC, but not close enough. The others (one noted "very sweet") just mentions his name. WP:TOOSOON seems to still apply. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:49, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi Mw1357. In addition to what's been posted above, you might want to consider whether it's really a good idea for a Wikipedia article to be written about your son. Wikipedia is in the WP:REALWORLD after all which can often be quite nasty. There can be quite a less than obvious downside to being written about on Wikipedia as explained here and here, and there's no final editorial control granted to subjects of articles or their representatives as explained here. Bascically, if you were successfully able to create an article about your son, you would be discouraged from directly editing it yourself and it couldn't be used to promote your son or his career in any way. If you had concerns about what was being added or removed, you would be expected to seek assistance from other editors as explained here and here and any changes you propose would need to be in accordance with relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines. I know it might seem like a really great thing for your son to be written about on Wikipedia, but you might find out that you have so little control over things that it turns out to be not such a good thing after all. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:55, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

That. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:02, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks all - that's really really helpful. Marchjuly what you say makes so much sense. With that in mind, I will drop this. The only reason I edited his page in the first place was that he had a page written for him when Rare Beasts went up on Wikipedia, but his page just linked and looped back to the Rare Beasts wikipedia page, which I found frustrating as he had done more than just Rare Beasts. I presume that if, in years to come, he justifies having a Wikipedia page, then it won't be problematic that there was a page in the past? Thank you all for your help and advice! Mw1357 (talk) 13:03, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Mw1357. No, that shouldn't be a problem. A reviewer may look and see that there had been an article deleted before, but it should be reviewed on its own merits. I would recommend that you banish the concept "his page" from your mind, and substitute "the encyclopaedia article about him". Nobody owns a Wikipedia article, and specifically not its subject. Nor is a Wikipedia article in any way for the benefit of its subject, except incidentally. --ColinFine (talk) 13:17, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Dutch architecture

FYI

 – Heading created by Tenryuu.

Hi, i have started to explore Dutch architects projects . I figured out that the first topic already existed as a rejected draft. i would like to know that if i should start editing that draft or should i request to remove the previous draft page in order to start a new draft page. the page is UArchitects. Bahram2010 (talk) 11:44, 24 January 2022 (UTC) Bahram2010 (talk) 11:44, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

@Bahram2010, WP has an article about Dutch architecture. Nothing prevents you from improving that article, or related articles like Dutch Baroque architecture. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:12, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Bahram2010, Draft:UArchitects was rejected. But that was in 2020. Imaginably, the company is more notable now than it was then. We can get an idea of whether it is indeed more notable if you would, here, provide links to three good sources that discuss UArchitects in depth and that are independent of UArchitects. -- Hoary (talk) 12:32, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Bahram2010, you have already attempted to recreate an article on UArchitects. This attempt suggests to me that you think that Wikipedia will allow UArchitects to advertise itself. But it will not. -- Hoary (talk) 13:11, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

"In its approach to visualizing education, the School De Brug fosters an ambivalence. First of all there is the centric way of education and the concentric arrangement of the school around its pupil." That is meaningless promotional tosh, which could never have a place in a Wikipedia article. Maproom (talk) 15:15, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

citation needed

I want to add [citation needed] to the end of the following paragraph in When Lilacs Last in the Dooryard Bloom'd, but I don't know how:

The poem is one of several that Whitman wrote on Lincoln's death. Although Whitman did not consider the poem to be among his best works, it has been compared in both effect and quality to several acclaimed works of English literature, including elegies such as John Milton's Lycidas (1637) and Percy Bysshe Shelley's Adonais (1821).

I can't find the answer to my question at Wikipedia:Citation needed Maurice Magnus (talk) 13:26, 24 January 2022 (UTC) Maurice Magnus (talk) 13:26, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

You need to use the {{cn}} tag, Maurice Magnus. You can add a date (see the linked template documentation) but if you don't then a bot will come along later and add one for you. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:36, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, Mike Turnbull (talk) but, when I clicked on the {{cn}} tag, I didn't see how to use it. Maurice Magnus (talk) 14:14, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Maurice Magnus Just put {{cn}} in the text where required.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 14:19, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

You simply add it after the punctuation at the end of the unsourced statement. You'll see an example at Template:Citation needed#Example 2. --David Biddulph (talk) 14:21, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you Shantavira and David Biddulph. I did it. That wasn't difficult. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maurice Magnus (talk • contribs) 14:24, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

@Maurice Magnus: Oddly, the sentence you marked as requiring a citation in the lead is not mentioned in the body of the article. MOS:LEAD makes it clear that the lead is supposed to summarize what's in the main article but doesn't need to cite anything because those citations will be below where the information is given in detail. I'm no expert on the topic but it was brought to good article status a few years ago by Gerda Arendt, who still makes contributions to it and can probably fix the problem. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:20, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

The biased sources and informations about context.

How do i change the biased and wrong info about the context.

Hello. A lot of the sources under this categorty:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Kurdish_settlements_in_Ankara_Province are biased or dead links. I'm trying to remove them but instead my changes are getting removed. What am i suppose to do? Baybars1 (talk) 14:22, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

First of all, you can start by ending your disruptive editing. --Semsûrî (talk) 14:41, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

@Baybars1: Welcome to the Teahouse! Per the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, you can start a discussion on the article talk page to express you concern about particular sources and provide suggestions for new independent reliable sources. Instead of deleting dead links, you can search the Internet Archive and other repositories for archived versions of the web pages. Hope this helps, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 14:49, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

playing around to get familiar with Wiki

How can I change my User Name? Elkedopp (talk) 14:26, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

@Elkedopp: Hello Elkedopp! You can request your username to be changed by following the instructions at WP:CHU. Also, if you want to "play around to get familiar with Wiki", I recommend doing so in your sandbox, otherwise your edits could be seen as disruptive. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 14:29, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

@Elkedopp Welcome to the Teahouse. I just wanted to add that playing around with various aspects of Wikipedia is a great way to learn. However, changing your username just to learn the process is going to cost another volunteer administrator's time and effort to deal with. If you don't have a really good reason to change it, please don't. Nick Moyes (talk) 14:51, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Oh - and a follow-up for you, Elkedopp: I notice you've been editing Draft:Elke Dopp. If you are not that person, then changing your username would be immensely sensible, and I'd urge you to do it immediately. On the other hand: if you are Elke Dopp, then you have a Conflict of Interest which you should declare on your userpage. Instructions for this are at WP:COI. We strongly discourage users from writing about themselves. See WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY and WP:NPROF for the criteria we use to determine notability of academics. Nick Moyes (talk) 15:04, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Getting this accepted and published

Hey all, Do you mind looking over my article, and making any tweaks or helping me with some mistakes that I did not catch? Please and thank you Reggie Wilcock (talk) 14:55, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Courtesy: Draft:Desmond Cook. Cannot become an article, because he is not a professional level American football athlete. The declining reviewer made this clear by posting [[Fails WP:NGRIDIRON. Give up. David notMD (talk) 14:58, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

@David notMD: Actually, that's not the correct rationale. Many college players qualify for articles, but this one clearly does not. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Desmond cook. Cbl62 (talk) 16:47, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

ADMIN HELP NEEDED: This is a block evasion by User:D cook 12 who created an article about Desmond Cook, since deleted. See the User's Talk page, bottom, and Desmond cook and Draft:Desmond Cook 12 W&M. David notMD (talk) 15:05, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Blocked by 78.26 --ARoseWolf 15:27, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

User:Станислав Савченко/sandbox

 Станислав Савченко (talk|C|TB|) 15:23, 24 January 2022 (UTC) Hello all! Check my sandbox, please.--Станислав Савченко (talk|C|TB|) 15:23, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. The sources and notes in your article are done wrong so I would suggest reading referencing for beginners. Also categories should only be added to articles in main space. I would also suggest reading your first article for help on how to make one. Hope this helps! ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 16:11, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

@Станислав Савченко: I tweaked the references for you. The list of presidents and directors isn't necessary, especially being mostly unreferenced and many redlinks. Is there other content you could write based on the references and links you have? You should use some parameters with the infobox - see the documentation at Template:Infobox organization. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 18:05, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

• • OK, I alredy deleted everyone, I also will add infobox. Thank you all! And you! D:--Станислав Савченко (talk) 18:30, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Searching for my own edits by specific dates

Is there a tool that allows me to review my own edits (or someone else's) by specific dates (e.g. Sept. 2010 or 23 Sep 2010) without having to scroll through dozens of pages of contributions? Cbl62 (talk) 16:41, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

@Cbl62 Welcome to the Teahouse. Yes, there's an easy way, and one that's easily missed. Just below your username Special:Contributions/Cbl62 you'll see a dropdown arrow for 'Search for Contributions'. Click that and you have access to filters, including date ranges, which should give you what you need. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 16:58, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Oh- and if you need to view more than the maximum of 500 edits at a time, just tweak the url in your browser and change it to limit = 5000. (I'm not sure if it will actually display more than that, but it was turned down to 500 a few years ago and there was much outcry and it was reinstated. But as you've made nearly 200,000 edits since 2007, I'd advise not trying to show them all at once, or you might break Wikipedia entirely! Nick Moyes (talk) 17:02, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Oh, and another tip: If you want to discover when you last interacted with specific editors on any page, try this tool. Nick Moyes (talk) 17:05, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the quick answer, Nick. Despite 200,000 edits, I think this is my first visit to the Teahouse. Five stars to the Teahouse from me! Cbl62 (talk) 17:07, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

You're most welcome. Hope to see you here again sometime. Nick Moyes (talk) 17:32, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

@Cbl62: One more tip - if you go to Special:Contributions/Cbl62 and click "500" and then "older 500", note the URL of the new page will contain something like &offset=20220113131333, which is 2022-01-23 17:52:25 (UTC), and &limit=500. You can change these two values to see different sets of contributions. For example:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Cbl62&offset=20100924000000&limit=26&target=Cbl62 shows your edits from 23 Sep 2010
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Cbl62&offset=20101001000000&limit=1602&target=Cbl62 shows your edits from all of Sept. 2010.

Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 18:18, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, Batty. Cbl62 (talk) 19:09, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

How to correct an article

I have come across an article that is not only factually incorrect (conflating two events) but also logically ludicrous. How do I go about correcting it? 124.168.253.129 (talk) 18:35, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

It depends. You can click "edit" on any article in order to make the edit yourself, but some articles might be locked so only registered users can edit it. In which case you can go onto the talk page of any article and make the request there. — Czello 18:37, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Well you can’t just change information. All the information on Wikipedia has to be backed with reliable sources. So if you have reliable source to back up the information that you think is factually incorrect than go right ahead and replace the information and provide the reliable source with a reference. If you do not have a reliable source to back up your information than that would be considered original research and your edits will probably be undone. Hope this helps! ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 18:47, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

I am guessing you are asking about Australia Day, also that you started editing as IP 124.168.253.129, then registered an account and continued as User:Autist4lyfe. You are verging on what Wikipedia calls 'edit warring' (two or more editors reverting each other's edits). The proper next step is to start a discussion on the artic;e's Talk page. Now that you have an account, 'sign' your name by typing four of ~ at the end of each comment. David notMD (talk) 21:56, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

can I delete my account or is removing the email address it? This place is not good for me. Autist4lyfe (talk) 23:19, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

@Autist4lyfe: Unfortunately, accounts can't be deleted, as edits must be attributed to an account or IP address. You are free to simply stop using your account. If you do, please refrain from continuing to edit war. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 23:31, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

@Autist4lyfe: The body of the article explains that the celebration of the European landing on Jan 26 dates back to 1808. Changing the infobox to disagree with the article content is unhelpful. Also the source you cited doesn't mention Jan 26 as the date of the first citizenship ceremony in 1949. I'm curious where you came across this alternate theory, is it circulating on social media? ⁓ Pelagic ( messages ) 00:02, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

this is the closest I've ever come to social media. Thought I would get out of my comfort zone. Apparently the fact that there were no Australians prior to 1949 is considered irrelevant. I will leave you all to whatever this is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Autist4lyfe (talk • contribs) 00:08, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Autist4lyfe If your government chooses the wrong reason to celebrate the holiday, you will need to speak to your government, not us. 331dot (talk) 00:20, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Bit rich having an American tell an Australian what happens in Australia but that seems to be the Wikipedia way. BTW - have to remove the email address or I keep getting spam from this hole. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Autist4lyfe (talk • contribs) 16:46, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Murdoch newspapers

New here. Most of the articles referenced on the wiki page are from Murdoch newspapers which cannot possibly be considered reliable sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Autist4lyfe (talk • contribs) 19:06, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

@Autist4lyfe: Hello Autist! You can check out WP:RS for help in determining what is and isn't a reliable source. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 19:10, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, if you have any questions about the reliability of a source you can ask about it at the reliable source noticeboard unless if it is obviously an unreliable source like a fan page, blog, self published things etc... ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 19:31, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

@Autist4lyfe At WP:RSP you can find a list of sources that have been discussed several times and the current WP-view on them. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:57, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Autist4lyfe says he's questioning the reliability of the sources, but I think what's really in question is their independence. Maproom (talk) 23:16, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Autist4lyfe (ec) I'm sorry you feel that way. Accounts cannot be deleted, but you may abandon your account. No one has access to your email address so it's not necessary to remove it, but you can. If you do, you will be unable to recover your password should you change your mind. 331dot (talk) 23:34, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

How to remove Hebrew and Hungarian sitelinks from the Chia Pet article?

I want to remove the previously mentioned sitelinks, as they are about a different topic.

The English Chia Pet article is about a specific product from a specific brand. The Hebrew and Hungarian pages are about that type of product in general. QuickQuokka (talk) 18:41, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

@QuickQuokka: I see you removed the Hungarian link from the corresponding Wikidata item a few minutes after you posted here, and an IP editor removed the Hebrew link from the Wikidata item a few minutes before you posted here. GoingBatty (talk) 18:58, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Citing locked ProQuest document

I am hoping to add a citation to my schools Wikipedia page, and I managed to find an archived newspaper article about the schools founding. However I'm only able to access this article through an access link provided by my school library, and trying to access the link through other means results in the document being unavailable. Should I cite this source despite its limited availability? EmptyHardDrive (talk) 19:12, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Cite the physical newspaper instead, using {{cite news}}. (For an offline newspaper cite, we need, at minimum: Publication name, publication edition (i.e. 1 Jan 1923), article title, article byline, and page(s) the article is on.) —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 19:29, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

ZTERS

Mcmatter, I need help to better understand what it is that you are requiring for the ZTERS page. I appreciate any assistance.

Thank you,

Jesse Jessedstallone (talk) 20:24, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

@Jessedstallone Welcome to the Teahouse. I think Mcmatter was fairly clear in their decline of Draft:ZTERS when they said "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 organizations and companies). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added . If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia." So, your topic must meet our Notability requirements. That means you need to provide at least three in-depth and independent articles from Reliable Sources that have written about that company in some detail. Insider news statements, blogs, press releases are excluded from this, as are mere passing mentions. Read this page to understand what that means. It is likely that ZTERS is one of hundreds of millions of companies around the world that do not meet those critieria. It would be waste of time pursuing this if you cannot find three really good sources. If you can, feel free to pop back here and show them to us, and we can advise if they're good enough to justify an article on Wikipedia. Does that help? Nick Moyes (talk) 20:53, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you! I will research for additional reference articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jessedstallone (talk • contribs) 21:14, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Jessedstallone - I just noticed one thing I might add to Nick's comments. Some of the wording is very close to the wording in the SI article. See WP:CLOP; while Wikipedia articles are based on information in reliable sources, we should not be using an almost word-for-word copy of their actual wording. Examples: "flush with cash" and "veteran wideout and special teams ace". "Flush with cash" really isn't encyclopedic language anyway, and before mentioning Shepard's positions, we should probably just mention that he is a professional football player. I hope this helps! Larry Hockett (Talk) 22:59, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

DAB for term with lots of spelling variants

I mean this: Talk:Bayt#Change of concept needed; also templates needed to help reduce the number of items. The main technical question there is: Is there a way to add {{srt}}-type catch-all templates for the spelling variants which are NOT in the title of the DAB page? Thanks, Arminden (talk) 20:55, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

I would like to expand a page that has been written about me

A page was written for me: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laura_Donaldson I would like to add more information to my personal information:- I would like to add a recent photo, my 'Alma mater' and occupation. I wonder what 'Years active' means...? I'd like to add information to the main body of text. I am working on a laptop - VisualEditor (?) - not mobile view 86.177.135.104 (talk) 22:54, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Please first review the Autobiography policy. If you have suggestions for changes, please make them at Talk:Laura Donaldson in the form of an edit request(click for instructions). For uploading a photo(ideally one you took yourself/a relative took) see Files for upload. 331dot (talk) 22:58, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hello. You have a conflict of interest and should edit carefully. You should read WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY and follow the advice there. I suggest that you open an account to facilitate communication with other editors and use the formal edit request process at Talk: Laura Donaldson. As for a photo, if you are the copyright holder, you can upload it to Wikimedia Commons under an acceptable free license. It can then be added to the article. Cullen328 (talk) 23:02, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

As the subject of the article, perhaps you also have access to clippings that document your career accomplishments? It would be especially helpful if you identify at Talk: Laura Donaldson any articles or other sources that covered your career in some depth. Such sources will help greatly in overcoming a contention that the article in its current state does not demonstrate that you qualify for a stand-alone article under Wikipdia's general notability guideline. Please don't take my suggestion as a "dig". Your accomplishment in qualifying for the Olympics is, of course, amazing, but Wikipedia's guidelines require us to show that you have received in-depth coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources. Cbl62 (talk) 00:25, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Miss. Laura Donaldson If articles about you written available on world wide web from news website, provide links to your article's WP:talk page someone will add about you in article.Success think (talk) 06:41, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Ref error

Resolved

Can someone again fix ref 34 error at Algerian nuthatch that are unfixable for us. Thanks. 2001:4455:364:A800:C13C:8A64:1CEF:F186 (talk) 00:27, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

It was another mark up text somehow. Thanks Kaleeb18 for fixing. 2001:4455:364:A800:C13C:8A64:1CEF:F186 (talk) 01:24, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

No problemt. It said there was a error the with the citations parameter values. The title parameter contained an invisible or non-printable characters known as control characters. There was a zero-width space in there somewhere so I just retyped the title instead of copying and pasting it. ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 01:26, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Follow-up to follow up to Templeton draft article

Does Wikipedia count for notoriety? Article declined for references but subject shows up at least 6 times in separate wikipedia articles. Appreciate the help to finish this article. Flagship1 (talk) 00:48, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

@Flagship1: I would assume you mean "Notability" and not "notoriety". To my knowledge, subject notability is based solely on the amount of reliable sources with information on the source that are available. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 01:09, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Notoriety is a form of notability but not the case here. The issue is that you are using WP:Primary sources and wikipedia needs WP:Secondary sources. Routine press announcements, WH press releases and Navy biography are not independent of the subject. You should try and find WP:THREE independent reliable sources.Slywriter (talk) 01:18, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

@Slywriter: Mind explaining what you mean by, "Notoriety is a form of notability but not the case here"? My brain is a bit fried at the moment. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 01:23, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Flagship1, if you still haven't managed to find substantive material about Charles Arthur Williams, perhaps none can be found. Just put Draft:Charles Arthur Williams on hold until such material turns up (if it ever will), and work on other articles. (Do you have no interests outside Charles Arthur Williams?) -- Hoary (talk) 02:59, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

To answer your specific question, Wikipedia itself is not considered a reliable source, because it contains user-generated content. See WP:USERG. CodeTalker (talk) 06:02, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Greek Anthology

I'm thinking of moving most of the information in the "Translations and imitations" section of this article to a new article called List of translations and imitations from the Greek Anthology, as the section is becoming unwieldy. I would add a

Main article: ...

tag in the original article linking to the new page.

I'm fairly new here, so I thought I'd ask if someone more experienced thinks I would be justified to go ahead and do this. Ficaia (talk) 02:24, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

The place to ask, Ficaia, is Talk:Greek Anthology. (If there's no response after a week or so, then try Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome.) -- Hoary (talk) 02:52, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

After that, if they don't reply at WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, (which maybe won't be possible) maybe try asking again here. Severestorm28 04:29, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

@Ficaia: I'll build on the ideas above by suggesting that if there's no response at Talk:Greek Anthology after a week or so, then post at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome and ask them to reply to your post at Talk:Greek Anthology. After that, you could try asking here for people to reply to your post at Talk:Greek Anthology. The central conversation about the article should stay at the article's talk page. Hope this helps, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 14:35, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

general knowledge

 175.157.122.50 (talk) 04:45, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

General knowledge questions should be asked at WP:RD RudolfRed (talk) 04:51, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello! Would you like to expound on what the problem is? 〜 ‍ ‍ ‍ elias. 🧣 ‍ ‍ ^{💬reach out to me!・📝see my work!} 04:57, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

General Knowledge deployed his forces against those of Major Disinformation in the info-wars of the early 21st century. The victor of the campaign is still disputed. ⁓ Pelagic ( messages ) 11:34, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

what is tea house ???

 117.194.28.118 (talk) 05:51, 25 January 2022 (UTC) I think it's a forum where users can ask and answer questions mostly about Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Enolajy (talk • contribs) 06:59, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

It is a place where users can ask more experienced editors questions about Wikipedia. Philosophy2 (talk) 07:13, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Asking something about Pandaily

Is Pandaily notable enough to write an article on Wikipedia? Enolajy (talk) 06:54, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Enolajy From Pandaily's own website: "Pandaily is a Beijing-based media company. Equipped with a deep understanding of China’s technology landscape and the unicorns that drive its innovation, our mission is to deliver premium content with contextual insights on Chinese technology, business, sports and culture to the worldwide community."

Looks to be a newsfeed accumulator. Wikipedia's guideline for corporations is at WP:NCORP. Essential to have several reliable-source references about Pandaily, or else don't bother to try, as would just be wasting your and Reviewer's time. David notMD (talk) 09:33, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Enolajy (talk • contribs) 01:50, 26 January 2022 (UTC) "From Pandaily's own....to the worldwide community" in the first paragraph is what I typed in my sandbox as practice. Is it be added by Wikipedia? Once, I tried to search "Pandaily" in the search bar and those content was presented to me.However, when I open a new page of Wikipedia, there was no search result. Does anyone know what happened? Need I delete the content and how can I delete it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Enolajy (talk • contribs) 02:11, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Proposed new section for an artice.

I've created a proposed new section for the film Born to Kill. I did it in my sandbox (first use of this tool) but I didn't submit it yet because it looks like that's really for full articles. What's the best way to get my proposal to the folks at WikiProjectFilm? I'm assuming a major addition like this from a new editor needs some kind of approval or consunsus. Pete Best Beatles (talk) 07:09, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Pete Best Beatles. Your sandbox can be used to develop new content for existing articles, as well as new articles. So, there is nothing wrong with what you are trying to do in the abstract. The problem is that the new content that you have written is unreferenced to reliable sources, and that is not acceptable. So, your next step should be to add references before you move the content from your sandbox to the article. Cullen328 (talk) 07:20, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

It may not be formatted as in an actual article, but there is a reference on that page, at the bottom. So I guess the question is, do I hit the "Submit your draft for review" button an just sit back and wait? -- Pete Best Beatles (talk) 15:57, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Waman Balaji Desai

This question is regarding the article posted by me https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Waman_Balaji_Desai Actually this is the writing of my grandfather. He has written a diary after his return from the world war 2 which I want to publish on wikipedia. Please guide me on how to do that. Sayalidesai087 (talk) 07:59, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Sayalidesai087. Unfortunately, what you're trying to do is not possible on Wikipedia. Wikipedia articles summarise what reliable, published and largely independent sources say about a topic. If books or newspaper articles have been written about your grandfather, then it might be possible for there to be an article based on those, but Wikipedia is not the place to publish his diary. You might want to consider setting up a blog or seek out a publisher instead. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:06, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Confirming that there is no way for Draft:Waman Balaji Desai to become a Wikipedia article. Please stop submitting it to AfC. As CL suggested, you can consider creating a blog at Google or elsewhere and putting all this content there. Or else creating a PDF document and printing copies to share with family and friends. David notMD (talk) 10:00, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

If the goal is to reliably preserve it for posterity, Wikipedia is certainly not the place to do that, for the reasons described above, and because it's subject to continuous editing. Why not upload it to the Internet archive? That seems like a much more appropriate option. Unlike a blog, it costs you nothing, and it exists precisely for the purpose of preserving the digital patrimony. EVhotrodder (talk) 12:30, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Need to Install wikilove ! I see it while using mobile browser. In PC nothing

Anybody help me to setup wikilove. I cannot access it while using google chrome PC. Because I need to appreciate people efforts  Onmyway22 talk 10:24, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

@Onmyway22 It should be there, a red heart under the alert-bell, on another user's talkpage. Were you logged in when you looked in Chrome? I think that's a must. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:31, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: cleared cache and got it Onmyway22 talk 10:35, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Best way to communicate with an editor who's unaware of talk pages (including their own)?

Any thoughts on the best way of communicating with an SPA who's persistently editing an article to add unsourced (though quite likely true) claims about himself? He doesn't seem to be aware of the existence of Talk pages, either the one associated with the article, or his own. Although this is clearly CoI editing, I don't believe it to be in bad faith, I think he's just clueless, and we've all been there at some point. I'm not asking how to get him blocked. How does one get a message in front of such a person? EVhotrodder (talk) 12:27, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

The only other option would be to go to their user page and click the link that says "email this user". (This will not expose your email address.)--Shantavira|^{feed me} 12:40, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

@Shantavira: Are you sure? I thought that emailing users did disclose the sender's email address. --David Biddulph (talk) 13:03, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, it does. There's a bold warning in red text that reads "Your own email address will be shared" when you click on the email user link. MrOllie (talk) 13:15, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, you're right; thanks for pointing that out.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 13:42, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello EVhotrodder! A method I've seen used to communicate quickly to an Editor is to leave a message in an Edit summary on the page they are working on. While single minded editors may not be aware of their Talk page or the article's talk page, they are often aware of the View History page. Make a minor Edit & comment to them there to please read their Talk page or the article Talk page. Might get their attention so you can help explain what's being done wrong. Take care, LooksGreatInATurtleNeck (talk) 15:25, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, that makes sense. Put in a clickable link to their talk page to get them over there. Good idea. EVhotrodder (talk) 15:37, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia’s discord

So I joined the Wikipedia discord but I got kicked off for some reason. I read all the rules/instructions for the server and I didn’t break any of them all I said was hello. Now I can’t rejoin and it says that link is dead. Was it cause I had the thin blue line flags as my profile picture? Cause it’s been like that for a while I guess I can get rid of it if that’s why. ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 13:22, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

@Kaleeb18: Hi there! Wikipedia:Discord has a "Join Server" button. The sentence above it states "The link is periodically changed and may at times be disabled". For more assistance, I suggest posting at Wikipedia talk:Discord. You could also try Wikipedia:IRC as an alternative - see Wikipedia:IRC help disclaimer. GoingBatty (talk) 14:47, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

@Kaleeb18 You have my sympathies. I can't comment on what happens off-wiki, but if it's of any consolation to you, I found my indefinitely blocked from IRC chat when I was an administrator, purely because I had logged on anonymously in order to visit for the very first time and to lurk a bit in order to find out how things operated there. Apparently lurking gets you banned, so how new users get to understand how a channel operates I have no idea. I gather some of the people who help run these chats are rather hypersensitive to issues around abuse from troublesome anonymous visitors. If you can identify who blocked you there, approach them on-wiki and explain your concerns. That's how I approached it, and was unblocked shortly afterwards. I have not been back since, and have little intention of working off wiki on these platforms, where accountability and control over what happens seems very much one-sided. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 14:48, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes: How did you figure out who kicked you? ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 15:07, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

He asked at the talk pages on-wiki for IRC, and was told by one of the chanops why he was kicked as a result. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 23:32, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

how to format something on the left side of a page?

hello, how do you put something on the left? for example, on the right there is a userbox box. i want to know how to put this (and other things that default on the right) on the left.

i want this on the left, not the right

{{{info}}}

 Cologne Blue^(talk) 13:24, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Have you looked at the parameter | align at Template:Userboxtop#Parameters? --David Biddulph (talk) 13:29, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

i don't think you read my question correctly. i gave the userboxtop as a example, not the only thing i want on the left. Cologne Blue^(talk) 15:34, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Cologne Blue. Each template varies, but most usually involve specifying "left" in some sort of parameter. See these examples below:

• {{Userboxtop|i want this on the left, not the right|align=left}} (userboxtop template)
• [[File:Paper Mario The Thousand Year Door Combat.png|left|caption]] (image)
• {{Wikibreak|align=left}} (Wikibreak or other notice templates)

Panini!^🥪 15:43, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Dengeki no Shin Bungei's merger to other Article and Declining Draft Articles

Hi. This is the first time I talked in Teahouse. I need to ask how to merge one of my draft article, Draft:Dengeki no Shin Bungei to the other articles, like ASCII Media Works in Light Novel's Publishing Imprints (same with my first deleted article, Kadokawa Books, which merged to Fujimi Shobo), due to lack of notability for references. It such run around the circle for finding the reliable sources, and still didn't meet my criteria to include for reference.

Also why the other two of my drafts declined? And how it works for notability references for make a company as an encyclopedia rather than advertising? Anyway, the two drafts are Draft:GC Novels and Draft:Kadokawa Beans Bunko (The last one is still curious why it declined, although I used reliable sources (for this case Anime News Network (ANN)) for add the reference). Kurogaga (talk) 13:42, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

@CricketXP: Welcome to the Teahouse! Before adding the information in Draft:Dengeki no Shin Bungei to ASCII Media Works, I suggest posting at Talk:ASCII Media Works to discuss how much detail would be appropriate to add. Draft:GC Novels and Draft:Kadokawa Beans Bunko were declined because they do not contain multiple independent reliable sources that provide significant coverage about the company. See the pink "Submission declined" box at the top of each draft (and the yellow boxes on your user talk page) for multiple links to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Your three drafts are lists of what the company has published, not encyclopedia articles about the companies. GoingBatty (talk) 14:55, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

@CricketXP. Welcome to the Teahouse - thanks for visiting for the first time. As far as I can tell, Draft:Dengeki no Shin Bungei is just a listing of books produced by an imprint (alternative name) for another publishing company, ASCII Media Works. All you need to do is mention the name in that article in a single sentence. This encyclopaedia is not a site to list everything a company produces - see WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Your draft, and that of the others you mention seem to be purely that. Just a list of publications is insufficient for an article about the trading name of another company, even if earlier pages were created for some of them. The referencing for all these myriad of entries seems non-existent, too. To meet company notability, your need to find at least three, reliable and independent sources which talk in detail and in depth about the business - not just listing what they sell. I wouldn't expect an article about a major global supermarket chain to list all the own-brands they stock, or to have separate articles about branches they have in each country. Wikipedia would become far too bloated with trivia, when ll one needs is one external link to a published stocklist to serve the same purpose. I'm sorry, but I feel exactly the same about these book listings, which really only serve as an advertisement for their products and not as an encyclopaedia of information about the business itself. Does that make any sense? Nick Moyes (talk) 15:07, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Where is Special K!?

 2601:882:101:570:0:0:0:1D33 (talk) 16:21, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Right here: Special K. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 16:24, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

@Blaze Wolf: Perhaps they were referring to Special:K, a page which does not exist. Maybe some pioneering soul will make it a reality someday. It'd be a pretty rad April Fools' joke. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 00:20, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Che Holloway

Why isn't the article for Che Holloway (actor) showing up on Google? Seems this article was approved. Chariotzz (talk) 16:58, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

New articles are NOINDEXed until they have either been reviewed through new page patrol or 90 days have expired. --David Biddulph (talk) 17:05, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

@David Biddulph: Is there a way to tell whether an article has been reviewed? --Gronk Oz (talk) 17:17, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

@Gronk Oz: The log for the article (accessible via the history) would show if it had been reviewed. Also, Special:NewPagesFeed can be filtered by username to show which articles created by Chariotzz are still unreviewed. --David Biddulph (talk) 18:17, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. --Gronk Oz (talk) 01:15, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Error in Google Search Entry

The Google result that list the entry for the Wikipedia article on Louise Brown says she was born in 1869. She was born in 1978--she is famous because she was the first child born using IVF. I hope someone can fix this. Thanks. ```` 73.247.148.54 (talk) 17:14, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

It does not say Louise Brown was born in 1869. If you click on the link it says 1978. ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 17:31, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

It does say 1869 on the google search, but that is because google search engines don’t pick up on the latest edits right away, but it will eventually show the latest version of the article. ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 17:36, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Potentially related to issues with the Google Knowledge Graph, which pulls information from many sources in an unclear way RudolfRed (talk) 18:13, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

What kind of sites acts as a relevant subject to reference in wikipedia?

Hello there,

Draft:Mercans - HRM and Payroll I've been doing research on this organization finding news posts from google news/ publishers and writing the content in my language. But the article gets declined all the time. I understand that writing Wikipedia articles are not a simple task, but I could not figure out why my articles get declined. References I used are from trustable resources. If you have any criteria for reference sites please let me know. Priyajith2022 (talk) 17:55, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Courtesy link: Draft:Mercans - HRM and Payroll Karenthewriter (talk) 17:59, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

You need independent reliable WP:SECONDARY sources. Reviewers have left clear comments that press releases are not acceptable sources. If you can not find WP:THREE independent sources, there is little chance the article will be accepted. Also see WP:PROMO, WP:COI and WP:PAID as your sole focus has been creating this article and gives the appearance you have a vested interest in its publication.Slywriter (talk) 18:09, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Vigilante

Why isn't Bernhard Goetz on the page explaining Vigilantism? 76.97.122.19 (talk) 18:37, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Please direct any comments about the vigilantism article to its talk page, Talk:Vigilantism. 331dot (talk) 18:43, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

How can I improve this article?

The article is Nawab Mir Khudrath Nawaz Jung Bahadur. I noticed this article in the Recent changes when someone added a lot of subjective prose. I reverted this and added some cleanup templates. But I don't think that this will realistically lead to improvement. How would an experienced editor with an interest in this area work on this article to make it significantly better? tw^sabin 18:48, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

@Twsabin: That article seems like it needs copyediting and more sources to verify information. You can do it yourself whenever you want, be WP:BOLD --The Tips of Apmh 18:53, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Well, @Twsabin: you have done the right thing with adding those templates, but if you want to take it a step further you can do things like replace citation needed templates with reliable sources. Also you can start expanding the article by adding to new sections and maybe even creating a new section. You can also fix any grammar problems you see. ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 18:54, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, I guess I will try to perform a basic face-lift on what's already in the article. tw^sabin 19:05, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

@The Tips of Apmh: An update: I made some changes to the article and the editor that I had reverted returned, added substantial unsourced content and removed the cleanup templates. Please advise me on what I should do now (if anything)? Thanks. tw^sabin 20:01, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

I have reverted their changes and left a message on their talk page. Stop back here if problem continues, though I suspect several sets of eyes are on the article now.Slywriter (talk) 20:18, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

I've reverted their edit and reported them to AIV. They are now blocked from editing that page. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 20:48, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

I've removed some Non-NPOV terms and made various grammatical corrections. There is more to be done and then the issue of not having more than one source. --ARoseWolf 21:21, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

how do i sign arcticles with a AfD

Im Gonna sign this arcticle as afd because it would be better if it was just a section in the nWo arctile. TzarN64 (talk) 18:50, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

@TzarN64: Hello TzarN64! Before you send that article off to AFD, there are some things you have to do first or else the AFD won't go all that well. Take a look at WP:BEFORE for what you should do before nominating an article for deletion. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 18:59, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Blue World Order has been an article for many years, edited by scores of people. First, propose on the talk page why you believe it better incorporated into NW0.

Translation suggestions

I get translation suggestions like these ones on English language Wikipedia pages, but I would like the same kind of suggestions to appear to help me translate pages into English on non-English Wikipedias. How can I make this appear? MaitreyaVaruna (talk) 18:59, 25 January 2022 (UTC):

Hello, MaitreyaVaruna, and welcome to the Teahouse. The answer to your question is that you will need to ask at each separate edition of Wikipedia you want to work in. Each Wikipedia is a separate project with its own policies and procedures, and sometimes differences in how they present the software. But the list you presented in the screenshot is not a list of translation suggestions (or, at least, not intended that way) but a list of links to existing articles in other Wikipedias on the same subject as the current article. They may or may not be translations (they could be anything from a direct translation to a completely independent article), but I don't see how they are "translation suggestions". See Translation for information about translating articles in general. --ColinFine (talk) 21:25, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

ColinFine you gave useful information, but for that article the Dutch French and Japanese articles are a different color because they do not exist, that article only exists in Chinese and English. Do you know where I could talk to people involved with software development on this? MaitreyaVaruna (talk) 22:15, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

ColinFine Following up with saying that I figured out what let me do it. Each Wikipedia only registers you as bilingual when you translate into the Wikipedia, and not when you translate from it. So by translating something into Japanese Wikipedia (as a draft article because I don't know Japanese enough to do a high quality translation into Japanese), I managed to get Japanese Wikipedia to suggest me to translate articles from it to English. I will try to let the software developers know that they should make it go both ways when someone translates an article MaitreyaVaruna (talk) 22:23, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, MaitreyaVaruna. I wasn't aware of the possibility of red links in the language list, and I'm wondering how they are specified: indeed, where is this documented? I would like to investigate it, but you do not say what article that screenshot is from? (I thought that you might have put it in the image dscription when you uploaded it, as most of Wikipedia's content is released under CC-BY-SA, and you may freely reuse it as long as you attribute the source. But you have uploaded that screenshot as "own work" and without attribution, which I'm pretty sure is a violation of copyright. I don't know how Wikipedia's interface is licensed, but I doubt that it is more permissive than the content).

I'm also unaware of the concept of Wikipedia registering users as bilingual, and again I cannot find anywhere that explains or even mentions this possibility - or is it only in some Wikipedias and not in en-wiki? --ColinFine (talk) 23:18, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Changing names of categories

I wish to change a number of categories to different names because they were mistranslated. Specifically https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Gion_faith https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Hachiman_faith https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Inari_faith https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Kumano_faith and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Suwa_faith should all have the word "faith" replaced with cult, because they relate to cults of specific deities. Faith is the suggested term by google translate and deepl but it does not accurately describe them, and other European languages translate these titles as "cult" MaitreyaVaruna (talk) 19:05, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello MaitreyaVaruna. The best place to discuss this would be Categories for discussion; but I suggest you also put a note on WT:WikiProject Japan linking to the discussion at CFD. --ColinFine (talk) 21:29, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

What are the best practices to write an article

What are the best practices to write an article Adeelkhanwwc (talk) 21:16, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

@Adeelkhanwwc: Check out WP:YFA for some tips on how to get started. RudolfRed (talk) 21:24, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

New editors who attempt as their very first efforts a new article, as you have at Draft:Huma Batool, often fail because they have no idea of th requirements to establish notability. Your resubmitted draft will be Declined again because most of the content is not referenced. All references must be embedded in the text rather than put under References (the software automatically shows the refs under References). David notMD (talk) 21:52, 25 January 2022 (U

Adeelkhanwwc, your draft includes the extraordinary claim that Ms. Batool has earned the unprecedented honour for Pakistan of being the first ever woman owner of an airline not only in Pakistan but in 100 years of world aviation history but you have not added any references to reliable independent published sources that verify that claim. There is no way that such a poorly referenced draft will be accepted. Cullen328 (talk) 06:35, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Correcting a mistake in a cited source.

In an article on a prominent media personality, details about her parentage are included, and referenced by a frivolous reference in a weekend magazine. This reference has been used in more than one location, and has distorted more than one Wikipedia entry. There is no printed reference that I know of that contradicts this weekend magazine reference, but the personalities concerned, three of them, are all alive and well.

How can this be corrected? Bonobashi (talk) 21:36, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi Bonobashi. There's nothing anyone here can do to correct how something is being reported in a third-party source other than perhaps to contact the source directly and explain to them what's incorrect and why. Sometimes a source will "admit" its mistake and post a retraction or correction, but that might depend upon the type of source it is source and how much it has to lose. Usually, it's the subject or someone directly connected to the subject who needs to make the effort to get this information corrected since the subject is most directly affected by the mistake.

In a Wikipedia sense, you can discuss the source in question on the talk page of the article where it's being cited and explain what the problem is. If there are conflicting sources, then there might be a way to better clarify the information in question as explained in WP:CONFLICTINGSOURCES. If the source is considered to be non-reliable for Wikipedia's purposes, then the content can possibly be removed if a better more reliable source cannot be found to support it or revised accordingly to reflect what reliable sources have actually said on the matter. Even in cases where the source might be considered reliable, the content in question might be of questionable encyclopedic relevance to Wikipedia's readers and could also be removed. However, reaching such a conclusion often requires quite a bit of discussion and WP:CONSENSUS building (unless the content is so problematic that it needs to removed asap). There are a couple of noticeboards like Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard where you can seek input from others, but generally the best place to start is on the relevant article's talk page. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:57, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

If understand the situation correctly, the article on Radhika Roy states, with a reference, that her father's name was Sooraj Lal Das, a Bengali engineer, whereas you hold true that her father's name was Suraj Lal Dass, not a Bengali engineer. Given that there is no claim that her father was himself notable, consider removing all mention of him. David notMD (talk) 22:23, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Strange things at Kingdom_of_Bonny

I was just looking at recent changes, and noticed something weird going on at Kingdom_of_Bonny. An IP editor has added an enormous amount of information written in a very wordy and unencyclopaedic fashion. It's hugely complicated and probably too much detail, but the unusual feature is that they've actually referenced sources. But the referencing is written long-hand in the text, and they've quoted extensively from it, but not in a way that makes it clear what's a direct quotation and what isn't. I don't quite know whether this sort of edit is normally just reverted - but that seems unfair as they seem to be adding genuine information. But it can't stand as it is, and I can't understand it well enough to rewrite it - nor can I sort out the quotes as the sources are books that I do not have. I think the article could do with attention from someone more experienced than me! Or should it just be reverted? Elemimele (talk) 21:45, 25 January 2022 (UTC) Elemimele (talk) 21:45, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

No worries, someone's reverted the lot. Elemimele (talk) 22:11, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

I did the "R" stage of WP:BRD Feline Hymnic (talk) 22:22, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Urgent Help with my account

How are you? I set up my account on wikipedia, but not sure on how to have my profile come up on google search. I am a film producer (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_of_Boys:_The_Return_of_the_King). I urgently need help with making my profile visible on google search. I cannpt sadly even set up my account to be linked to the movie I worked on. Not sure how to do this either. Can i also upload a photo? I just really need help building up my career. Joy Nnamdi-Yusuf (talk) 23:25, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not for promotion. See WP:NOT. There is no urgent need for anything to show up in Google. If you are notable, someone may write an article about you someday. RudolfRed (talk) 23:26, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

@Joy Nnamdi-Yusuf Welcome to the Teahouse. I'm afraid that until someone meets out Notability Criteria that there is no place for an article about them on Wikipedia. You are free to write about yourself on IMdB or LinkedIn if you wish. Both are sources we would never use here, but you may find this more suitable for your needs. Kind regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 23:45, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Joy Nnamdi-Yusuf. In most cases, experienced Wikipedia editors studiously ignore "urgent" requests for new articles or improved Google search results here. Our job is to build a neutral encyclopedia and it is most definitely not to aid your yearnings for better Google search results. That is pretty much the opposite of how we operate here. In summary, we do not care even a tiny little bit about your Google search results. That is your business, not ours. Cullen328 (talk) 06:51, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Fixing Sources

Hi! We're currently working on Encanto Character List and we aren't sure how to cite the sources of the movie and soundtrack? Any help will be appreciated! (: -Isabela Skeleton RemusSandersRegretsEverything (talk) (pronouns) 23:39, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

@RemusSandersRegretsEverything: Welcome to the teahouse. Yes, I have watched Encanto (film), it is amazing. Anyway, you can type in

{{cite web|url=|title=|work=|date=|access-date=}}

Just fill in the blanks right next to the "equal signs". Happy editing! Severestorm28 00:47, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Editing

How do I link to a non-disambiguation page? TGKingBooTheGreat (talk) 00:09, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

@TGKingBooTheGreat: Welcome to the teahouse. Yes, you can link to a non-disambiguation page, it is just when you link to a specific article, for example, big is a disambiguation page. However, to link to a non-disambiguation page, the article needs to be specific, not just big, but it can be this specific article, Big (film). To replace with other text, type the non-disambiguation page, and place a '|' in the middle. Then type the words after the '|'. Severestorm28 00:43, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Creation of possibly un-notable article

Creating a possibly removable article

I was searching through the list of wanted wikipedia articles that have not yet been created, when I discovered one missing on Heinrich II of Reuss-Lobenstein. It is linked as a non-existent article almost 50 times, yet little information exists on him. I am considering creating a stub article, but I was wondering if this would be allowed as it does not fit the criteria of 3 independent sources. Moostcho (talk) 00:20, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

@Moostcho: Welcome to the teahouse. I don't know if this is the right article, but it is possibly. Heinrich LXXII, Prince Reuss of Lobenstein and Ebersdorf If it is wrong, please ping me, and I will try to help you. Severestorm28 00:52, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

User talk page

How to clear my own talk page? Old discussions? Mukesh.kfc (talk) 00:30, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi Mukesh.kfc, welcome to the Teahouse! If you want to clear your talk page, it is recommended that you archive the page, conversely, you can simply blank the page if you don't want to archive old discussions. Justiyaya 00:43, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Welcome to the teahouse. The two options are: Delete everything in your talk page, or set up archive like this:

{{User:MiszaBot/config
| algo=old(90d)
| archive=User talk:Severestorm28/Archive %(counter)d
| counter=1
| maxarchivesize=75K
| archiveheader={{Automatic archive navigator}}
| minthreadsleft=4
| minthreadstoarchive=1
}}

Just copy-paste, then add to your talk page. Severestorm28 00:38, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

How to clear active discussion which now closed/completed? No use of them now.Mukesh.kfc (talk) 00:52, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Mukesh.kfc, I don't know what you mean by an "active" but also "closed/completed" discussion. If you consider a discussion to be active, I don't know why you'd want to clear it. If on the other hand it's closed/completed, Severestorm28 has described two methods above. -- Hoary (talk) 02:36, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

@Mukesh.kfc: The Archive solution above will automatically archive discussions that have been inactive for 90 days. It is a great "set and forget" option to keep your User Talk page from growing so big it's unwieldy, while not involving any more effort to maintain it. Or if you prefer, you can just delete stuff you don't want any more.--Gronk Oz (talk) 02:53, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Orphan article tag

Please explain this? How to remove this tag? Mukesh.kfc (talk) 02:41, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

The word orphan in that tag is in blue, indicating that it is a wikilink, in this case to WP:Orphan. --David Biddulph (talk) 03:15, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Courtesy: Mukesh.kfc likely asking about Jasnath Temple. David notMD (talk) 03:19, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Mukesh.kfc. Please read Wikipedia:Orphan. An orphan article is one that has no incoming wikilinks. One of the great things about Wikipedia is that readers can navigate from an article about one topic to another relevant topic by clicking on various links within the article. Ideally, every article should have one or more links to it from other related articles. Cullen328 (talk) 03:22, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Means it is mandatory for any new article to have link from another wikipedia article. Right?

--Mukesh.kfc (talk) 03:40, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

No, not mandatory, but "... it is preferable that they can also be reachable by links from related pages". --David Biddulph (talk) 03:45, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Bait and Switch

So why doesn't Wikipedia put a big header at the top of each Wikipedia article warning readers that they may be reading erroneous information from the sources people are citing, such as modern magazine articles, where the writer made numerous errors even though the magazine itself is considered reliable? I have seem such cases and the editor I questioned robotically replied that we must use the secondary source even if it is incorrect rather than the primary source which is an official document? They say reporting truth even if the secondary source is wrong is the antithesis of Wikipedia since Wikipedia values verifiability over truth. They don't have to use it if it seems to have wrong information but they do anyway, apparently because they want to, which kind of seems like administrator approved trolling.

Wikipedia claims to be an encyclopedia, yet it admits it is not a reliable source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_a_reliable_source . When people think of normal encyclopedias like Britannica or World Book, they assume it is an authoritative source that has been vetted for errors, not something with an 80/20 or 50/50 chance of being right. I have been in situations where I quoted the Oxford Dictionary of the English Language to someone to support an argument and they quoted Wikipedia having a different answer and thought it was better. Again, why isn't there a big warning on the Wikipedia article pages? I was an editor on Wikipedia for a year and a half before I figure out how much misinformation an article written by experienced editors and vetted by an experienced administrator because someone complained to an administrator and they sent a gang of "experienced editors" over to demonstrate the proper way to present misinformation as an encyclopedia. It seems very intellectually dishonest to keep that page I linked above burrowed away and something of a bait and switch to most people.Daltonsatom (talk) 03:43, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

We don't do that because we include a link to our disclaimers, including WP:General disclaimer, in the footer of each page. And we go for verifiability over truth because "truth" is subject to our own cognitive and cultural biases. Rather than just blindly lambaste me for that sentence, I suggest you read every single blue link in it. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 05:09, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

5 point font at the very bottom. Just saw this for the first time using Wikipedia for 20 years. Thanks. It's kind of like those waiver's you accept when you accept the required EULA for your smart phone. 20% to 50% chance the information you get from an administrator vetted article may be incorrect.

Rather than grouse endlessly and take potshots at editors who are doing their damnedest to improve the article, why not actually try talking to them instead? Ranting and raging as you're doing here has a 0% chance of being effective. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 05:33, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Well, we're talking about things that affect real people reading it and associated with the article. Considering what I should do. You've helped me decide. Not pot shots, but a life changing decision. Thanks again. No more questions. Pencils down.Daltonsatom (talk) 05:49, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

 Grizzlyetleslemmingsfan30 (talk) 05:50, 26 January 2022 (UTC) be come admin

@Daltonsatom: Being "the encyclopaedia that anybody can edit" has proven to be something of a mixed blessing - Wikipedia has grown to be an incredible resource, but people do make bad edits, either maliciously or with good intentions. I have a couple of points to offer: firstly, Admins don't review articles. Secondly, if you find that an article has used an erroneous source, the best thing to do is to either provide a better one, or to put your case on the article's Talk page. Discuss the relative merits of the two sources with other editors until there is agreement. You don't provide any details, so we can't comment on the particular situation you came across. Finally, people from an academic background often struggle with Wikipedia's preference for secondary sources - I know I did. But a primary source is not "the official source" and in time it often proves unreliable, or at least biased. A good secondary source adds that author's analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources. Any analytic, evaluative, interpretive, or synthetic claim must have been published by a reliable secondary source. There is a good article explaining the rationale in medical contexts at Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine)#Respect_secondary_sources; even though this talks about a biomedical context, the logic still holds.--Gronk Oz (talk) 05:59, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Gronk Oz, the context is at Talk:Intellivision Amico. Daltonsatom's in the middle of a content dispute there. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 06:01, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

I can't really call it a dispute and it makes question everything.Daltonsatom (talk) 06:22, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

You're contesting what content should be on the page and how it should be presented, ergo it is a content dispute. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 06:38, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

You really want to do this here? I get my head bit off and threatened with COI and POV by the administrator when I try to talk to the editor and I thought my questions were going pretty easy on him, thought I was doing what was right. No one here probably thinks I am and that is a problem. It is not a dispute in that it is being cowed into something I don't believe in based on silly premises like having the ambition to get a high quality image and thought to be COI for it or being a minor editor so not spreading myself around a lot. You HAVE to spread yourself around or admins will think your a COI I guess.

Steven Salowsky

Salutations all! I am very new here and working on my first several articles.. how can I inquire and go about getting help to achieve publish success? Here's what I have thus far...

Steven Salowsky is an American YouTuber and environmental activist that co-hosts on the Rich Rebuild YouTube Channel .

Biography[edit]

Steven Salowsky is an American YouTuber that co-hosts the vlog known as Rich Rebuilds YouTube Channel ) [1] He is a former Tesla employee that went on to building and designing electric vehicles along side his friend and colleague, Rich Benoit. Their first build together is the first electric Motorcycle to Rat rod conversion with a 1930's Ford Model A that was covered in Motor Trend [2]. After their first conversion success and getting over 2 million views, Steven and Rich designed and built a version of the Tesla Cyberquad, and Steven drove it over 100 MPH in a tank top and flip-flops. [3] Popular Mechanics took notice of their ambitions and complimented the feat. [4] Pushing the boundaries with a Tesla Model S that was in a flood, Steven and Rich designed and built the World's first V8 engine powered Tesla, which was ironically featured in a Car and Driver issue devoted to Electric vehicle's. [5]

Steven is a prolific environmentalist whom advocates for renewable energy and sustainable technologies, and he holds office in his local town as a Board of Director member for the Sustainability department [6] He is known for designing and building a version of the Tesla Cyberquad, and piloting it over 100 MPH in a tank top and flip-flops. [3] Steven and Rich Benoit also built the World's first V8 engine powered Tesla. [4]

As of January 2022, his YouTube channel has 1.29 Million subscribers.

References[edit][edit]

https://www.youtube.com/richrebuilds [1]

https://www.motortrend.com/news/budget-built-prewar-hot-rod-powered-by-an-electric-motor-and-control-system/ [2]

https://www.inverse.com/innovation/tesla-cyberquad-impressive-diy-project [3]

https://www.popularmechanics.com/cars/hybrid-electric/a33805875/homemade-tesla-cyberquad-atv/ [4]

https://www.caranddriver.com/features/a36877615/v-8-camaro-ss-engine-in-tesla-model-s/ [5]

https://sustainablewestford.org/about-us/ [6] Thecarguru2 (talk) 05:57, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Thecarguru2. The Teahouse is a place to ask questions and get answers about how to edit Wikipedia. It is not a place to ask for feedback on a bunch of poorly formatted UTLs. I happen to be interested in custom cars and motorcycles, but there is almost nothing here that motivates me to want to look deeper. You need to write more clearly and learn how to format your references properly. Cullen328 (talk) 06:16, 26 January 2022 (UTC)