Wikipedia:Teahouse

Welcome to the Teahouse...                        

A friendly place to learn about editing Wikipedia.

Click here to
ask a question

PrimeHunter, a Teahouse host

Question forum

Host profiles

Guest profiles

Experienced editor? Become a host!

Learn more about the Teahouse

Articles to improve

Question archive

Guest archive

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

Remaining newby problems of a not-so-new-editor

Dear teahouse host

First of all thank you very much for being here so that I have somebody to talk to. I started editing in September 2017, but I am still struggling with problems. Probably what I need is mostly is being redirected to the right places. — Johannes Schade 22:26, 14 March 2019 (UTC) — continues after insertion below

@Johannes Schade: We don't normally get a volley of questions like these. I'd not realised they were from the same person (hence your comment at the end!). I've split them up into subheadings, so maybe they can be answered seperately under each section. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:40, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Citation

I feel that Wikipedia provides too many ways of citing sources. Ideally I think that there should be a Wikipedia house style for citations. I know that has been discussed and rejected, see WP:CITEVAR. I feel that the "sfn" and the "citation" templates should be recommended for newbies. The variety still confuses me and I think it gives a chaotic impression. I started with <ref></ref> and then the "reflist" template but changed to "sfn", "reflist" and a list of sources below it that should perhaps appear between "refbegin" and "refend". Originally I used "cite book", "cite web" etc. to describe the sources but later changed to "citation" template for all types of sources. I feel the parameters should always be listed in the same fixed order, but the template documentation (e.g. cite book and citation) do not seem to prescribe a standard sequence of parameters. I simply think it does not look nice (or professional) in the code when editors add source descriptions which show different orders of parameters (e.g., url at the end or after the title). The "efn" template should be recommended for explanatory notes.

I had problems with the "sfn" template in the article "Jean-Antoine de Mesmes (1640-1709)" where I cite passages in three volumes of Saint-Simon's Memoirs: The link between the notes and the references in the list does not work. — Johannes Schade 22:26, 14 March 2019 (UTC) — continues after insertion below

I've run over the article for you. First I added standard headers to differentiate notes, references and citations. Next I've forced these aristos to just use surnames which fits the sfn/citation templates. Hope that helps, Martin of Sheffield (talk) 23:43, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Dear Martin of Sheffield, thank you for fixing my link problem on "Jean-Antoine de Mesmes (1460-1709)". It seems to me that the link is on the parameters "last=" and "date=". I also looked at Siege of Derry and got it going there by changing from "cite book" to "citation" template. It seems it must be either citation or cite book etc. with ref=harv. Johannes Schade (talk) 20:19, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

You are quite correct, the link is formed from the last name (or all of the last names for multiple authors) and the date, prefixed by CITEREF. For instance the link for your last comment would be CITEREFSchade2019. In general you should avoid mixing or changing cite XYZ and {{citation}} templates, some editors get very worked up about CS1/CS2 differences. If the article you are working on uses cite XYZ, just add |ref=harv. If the article uses {{citation}} |ref=harv is automatic. Personally, when given the choice, I use {{citation}} and let the system sort out the fine details. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 23:45, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Dear Martin of Sheffield, thank you for alerting me to the danger of changing an article from CS1 to CS2. I know from WP:CITEVAR that one should adhere to the cutation style established by the first reference added unless this style is changed by consensus. I must admit that I forgot about CS1 (comma separated) and CS2 (point separated) in the list of references. There are many thorny details in this rule where an editor might be accused of disrespect to the established style. - Besides I see that you double-space after points (periods) when you write is that recommended? - I am not so sure how to seek consensus: by writing a note on the article's talk page? or do you also need to write on the talk page of the user who added the first citation? With many thanks Johannes Schade (talk) 20:21, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

The WP manual of style covers this: "Software condenses two or more spaces to just one when rendering a page, so editors may use any spacing style they prefer (e.g., a single space or two spaces after a period/full stop ..." (MOS:PUNCTSPACE, subsection 10.13.1). For monospaced type I always use a double space, it makes it much easier to read. Not surprising really, this is the style developed during the manual typewriter era for typewriters that are inherently monospaced. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 20:31, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Dear Martin of Sheffield, I did not want to attack you on the double-spacing. It is good to know about this, it probable is another thing that one should not edit and should probably be then done consistently through an article. I learned a lot from you. Thank you so much. Bye. Johannes Schade (talk) 21:53, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Projects

I still wonder how you can join a project. Do you need to be invited? Do you simply barge in by adding yourself to the list of users of the project? There are a lot of local projects. In my case that is Project Northern Ireland as that is where I live. Such local projects could eventually take over some of your Teahouse workload. They might be ready to go beyond this and really mentor newbies because the local project will be able to profit from it. — Johannes Schade 22:26, 14 March 2019 (UTC) — continues after insertion below

There is no formal 'joining up' process. You can either add your name to their 'participants' list, or simply just align yourself with their activities and ambitions. Projects are very good places to give specialised advice on a topic, and the Hosts here often send people to specific Projects for that guidance. If you wish, you can even add a Project 'Userbox' to your main userpage to show which projects you support. (also forms a handy quick link to get there, too!) Nick Moyes (talk) 23:48, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Dear Nick, thanks for your advice. I added myself to the list of participants of Wikipedia project Northern ireland. I will see whether this leads to something. Thanks for encouraging me. Johannes Schade (talk) 20:21, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Article Promotion

Articles should be created as stubs and then be assessed and improved. After substantial improvement they should be promoted to Start-Class, C-Class, B-Class, GA, A-Class and finally Featured Article. This does not seem to happen. Who should do all these assessments and promotions? Probably not the editor who did the essential improvement. What is the procedure to be followed? There seem to be big backlogs of articles to be assessed and promoted. — Johannes Schade 22:26, 14 March 2019 (UTC) — continues after insertion below

So as not to be seen as congratulating oneself, editors who put in a lot of work improving an article tend to not also upgrade it. Any editor can upgrade from Stub to Start to C-Class to B-class, although if articles have glaring shortfalls, a subsequent editor is free to downgrade. Getting to GA and FA requires an article be nominated and another editor conduct a review process, identifying weaknesses of the article in question and requiring fixes. Before a GA or FA nomination, the editor intending the nomination is expected to do a lot to improve the article first. GAs and FAs can also be downgraded via a formal process. Lastly, many experienced editors work on a draft until it could be considered to be past Stub class. The person conducting the Article for Creation review might be willing to approve and rate it Start- or even C-class right away. David notMD (talk) 23:48, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Content assessment for more info on this. Assessment is very subjective, apart from WP:GA and WP:FA which involve a review and scrutiny process. I try to avoid creating stubs; I think any good editor using their sandbox to draft a new page ought really to be able to begin with a 'Start' class article at the very least. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:53, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Dear Nick, I surely agree. I thought there were automatic review bot.Johannes Schade (talk) 21:53, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Contents Template

The Contents template is automatically added to articles that have more than 3 sections. The Content box always lists all headings. The Content box therefore can become very long and this may discourage editors from adding deeper levels of subdivisions. Sometimes the citation apparatus with its headings Notes, References, Further reading etc. contributes more headings than the body of the article. — Johannes Schade 22:26, 14 March 2019 (UTC) — continues after insertion below

@Johannes Schade: Yes, true. Sensible section headings help users find the right information that they need. I've set my system up so that each heading and sub-heading is numbered, thus allowing me to navigate more easily within a long page. (For example, this subsection currently appears as 66.4 when I view it. I've had it this way for so long I've temporarily forgotten how I set it up. Let me know if you're interested in doing that, and I'll nip off and refresh my memory. (Or somebody else may remind us). Nick Moyes (talk) 00:27, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Spell Checker

There does not seem to be an English spellchecker. That would be a useful tool when editing. — Johannes Schade 22:26, 14 March 2019 (UTC) — continues after insertion below

I know what you're saying, but many browsers like Firefox and Chrome (to name but two) allow built-in spellcheckers which can assist you with that task. (A nifty trick, if you're aiming for the highest quality work when you're editing, is to save your edits and copy the displayed page into a wordprocessor (like MS Word) and do a spell and grammar check there.) Nick Moyes (talk) 00:08, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

But... Be aware that Wikipedia has several different spelling conventions (UK, US etc). If starting an article from scratch, that's not a problem - you can write using whichever national convention you normally use and set the spell checker accordingly. But, when editing or adding to an existing article, you must follow the convention already established on that page. Emeraude (talk) 15:12, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Johannes Schade, a note on the above. Whereas it's fine to copy info into Word to spell check it, it will not work to copy from Word to Wikimedia software. There are invisible formatting artifacts that will copy with it if you copy from Word to Wikimedia software, and it is a pain in the rear to remove them. If you compose offline, use a non formatted word processor like Notepad. Also, a further addition regarding ENGVAR. If you start a new article on a British topic it's best to use British English. If you start an article on a US topic, use US English. If the topic is international in nature, then you can use your choice. John from Idegon (talk) 16:57, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Dear Nick Moyes, Emeraude John of Idegon, I found that the spellchecker in my Chrome browser was not switched on. Now I get unknown words underlined in red which is very helpful.Johannes Schade (talk) 17:18, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Warning Templates

Templates like "More citations needed" display warnings indicating that the article has some shortcoming, e.g. does not have enough references. Having done something to fix a shortcoming should I remove this warning? I feel that somebody else should do it as I am now biased. Un unbiased person might find that the the fix does not go far enough (e.g. added too few references) or was of poor quality (e.g. the references were not not reliable). The article Siege of Derry has a warning "Needs additional citations" at its beginning, but there are 51 footnotes. — Johannes Schade 22:26, 14 March 2019 (UTC) — continues after insertion below

Yes, if you address the issue flagged up by the notice, then feel free to remove it. Another editor can always add it back in if they feel you haven't addressed the key statements that still need citations. Complex or contentious pages contains many 'factual' statements; each needs to be supported with a reference. The Siege of Derry article still has many elements unsupported by references. One should read through and consider each statement in turn. Are there citations to support each one? If not, it's under-referenced. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:14, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Quotes

I feel that quotes in the footnote are not used often enough. References often cite a source like "A Smith, 2010, p345". The reference might be a recent book that is difficult to access unless you buy it and the reference is therefore difficult to verify. The editor who added the reference obviously must have had access. I feel he should have quoted the relevant passage. Another reason to quote is that in some works pages are huge and without quote it becomes difficult to decide which passage on the page might have been intended. On the other hand having a quote also makes it easier to identify which piece of information in the text is supported by the reference. — Johannes Schade 22:26, 14 March 2019 (UTC) — continues after insertion below

Once again, I tend to agree with you. I have mixed feelings about seeing quotations within a reference/footnote. There are obviously copyright issues over long quotes, and a bad-faith editor can potentially create a false quotation. But, in general, my own view is that these would be helpful...and I should probably start doing it myself on the rare occasions I use references to real books, rather than online sources. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:18, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Images

Images are not numbered in Wikipedia. I find it difficult to refer to an image in the text. The text is sometimes a better place than the caption to discuss information that can be gleaned from the image. WP:CAPTION does not seem to forbid Figure numbers, but I have not found an article yet that does use them.

Perhaps I talk too much. Just tell me to go somewhere else.

Johannes Schade (talk) 22:26, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Crikey, Johannes Schade if you think you talk too much, you should read some of my replies here. They can go on foreveeeeeer! Oh, and Wilkommen to the Teahouse. Erm, as scientists, we're used to reading journals that refer to Fig 1, Fig, 2 and so on, and that's really helpful on a static page. We know precisely what to look at and when. The problem with a user-edited encyclopaedia is that content changes all the time. An image that might have been used for some years could, one day, be replaced with a completely different one, or simply removed as unnecessary, or the whole article restructured or rewritten. So, it's really unwise to try to link text and images in the way you allude to. One of them is bound to be changed sooner or later, and would bound to cause confusion. What we do is use images and write captions for them that stand on their own merits, yet which nevertheless add to the encyclopaedic value of the text on the page. Does that make sense? Nick Moyes (talk) 23:19, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

@Johannes Schade: Not wanting to appear rude, I had not realised every one of the above question were yours. Wow. Prizes for the longest TH post, eh? Maybe in future you'd consider just asking specific questions about editing issues at the Teahouse. But I really welcome your comments, though it can be quite a drain to respond to general observations like these. WP:VP is the place to suggest changes; your own userpage is a good place to collate suggested improvements, until the time comes to unleash them upon an unsuspecting wikiworld. My own personal list is here. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 00:34, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

@Johannes Schade: @Nick Moyes: I have numbered images and referenced the numbers in the text before for clarity. See Hexacyclinol. shoy (reactions) 01:14, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

That works for me. Thanks for the example page. Nick Moyes (talk) 01:29, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't think it's a very good idea at all to add location/numerical identifiers either to image captions or to inline references to images, and a properly captioned and inserted image shouldn't require such a thing to be done. If there are concerns that an image's location or description is confusing to the reader, then perhaps the image should be moved, recaptioned, or even removed. People read Wikipedia in all kinds of ways so an image that you see to the right side of some text may appear below the same text to someone else; there might also MOS:ACCIM issues for people using machine readers. The same thing can be said for numbering because there's no way to ensure the numbering remains consistent, esepcially for articles that are frequently edited, and trying to do so might be seen as more of a personal preference than something in accordance with MOS:MOS. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:25, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Wikilinks to people with titles

Hi, I'm sure this has been answered before but I've searched and can't find anything that relates to it. When I've been editing pages and adding links I often include their full title. For example, Queen Elizabeth II but other editors have been modifying this to Queen Elizabeth II. I noticed this also happens for 'Dr' etc... Should I be including their title in the link or not? I can't seem to find any rules on this. Thanks! Loweredtone (talk) 15:39, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

@Loweredtone: I don't know of any specific rules, but my personal opinion here- if the title needs to be there, include it in the link, unless it's a weird case (example, soon-to-be-Queen Elizabeth II, or the current Queen of England, Elizabeth II). The title might not be necessary in all cases, though- in the case of "Doctor" that's probably only needed if it's relevant, and if, say, it's Paul McCartney, you probably don't need to spew off "Sir Paul McCartney" every time. Thanks for asking! -A lad insane (Channel 2) 17:41, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

@A lad insane: That's great, thanks for the information! I was just a bit confused as I had some of my links changed to exclude the title (by other wikipedians) so I wanted to check if there was an official method for doing that.Loweredtone (talk) 11:11, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Help!! - I am a new user trying to avoid getting into an edit war -- can an experienced editor please look at the talk page for Steven Strauss

Hi - I am completely new (as my name implies) so I might be missing something, messing everything up, etc (this might be entirely my fault). But, I seem to be drifting into what could become an edit war, and that is not what I want to do. So I was hoping to bring in some experienced editors to help.

The page in question is Steven Strauss https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Strauss, one user accused another user of having a conflict (it is not clear, to me, if the first user did have a conflict). It seemed like a place for me to get started, so I tried sorting out on the talk page:

• is Strauss notable - should we even have a page for him? (he might not be),
• was he an academic (I think he is without question),
• what were reliable sources we should definitely retain (e.g., NYTImes, Guardian, etc) vs what was likely to be less reliable
• and so on
• and since I am new around here, I tried doing this in great detail on the talk page (as much for my education)

I left it up for a couple of days, no one responded, so I started editing adding back what I thought were reliable sources, and noting that Strauss was an academic (Strauss has a Ph.D. from Yale, was on the faculty at Harvard, and is now at Princeton). All of my edits have been reversed out, without much of an explanation. The user who (IMO) has an animosity/potential conflict on Strauss seems to know things about him that (IMO) are not supported by the material he cites.

Material has been added to the page about Strauss's politics and Israel, which seems pretty irrelevant (Strauss, so far as I can tell is known for his work in technology and economic development, from what I can tell on the page out of 100ish things he has published only one was on Israel - it is not what he is known for or cited in media about).

Anyway, I would appreciate if someone with experience could look at the page, the Talk Page and the edits I made that were reversed out and provide me with some advice and guidance. (And, of course, if we conclude Strauss is not notable this becomes irrelevant, but would still be educational for me)

Thank you I.new.around.here (talk) 20:39, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

One glance at the reverting user's Talk page will tell you much.

You have done the right Wiki things so far. It's ideal to explain yourself as you go, and your observations and reasoning are spot-on. As to Srauss's notability, he definitely makes the cut for notability on WP.

My perception is that you stepped into a tussle between two oppositely-opinionated editors. According to the article's history, User:Avaya1 recently sort of "took control over" the article started by User:NYC.Geek (one can only guess as to motivation).

Nine days ago, the article looked like this. Anywhere facts which you or others have previously placed into the article have been reverted, you may feel free to replace them, citing sources. Depending on the views of other involved editors, the political material may appear to be unduly emphasizing a minor aspect of Strauss's persona, and may be subject to "toning down" in the future, following a discussion on Talk:Steven Strauss.

WP is assailed by various activists (acting on behalf of groups and as individuals) trying to make their case, on the sly and boldly, 24 hours a day. It's as bad as anywhere else on the Internet; fortunately, policies have been developed to deal with this. Sadly, some highly driven activists from all over the world believe they can alter reality by making En:WP conform to their view of "the world as it should be", even mistakenly inserting "facts they know" without citations. On WP, "facts won't fly, citations will". Most activists also believe that, by being rude, they will intimidate other editors into submission. Some even threaten lawsuits, (a really poor idea).

Your choice of a user name ("I.new.around.here")is somewhat unfortunate in this situation, and perhaps for some time to come. It is possible to change your user name through a "process", to something less provocative (if that's what you desire). The name you currently are using will encourage certain bad behaviors in others, and it has way too many little words and spaces.

Also note that people who think they "control" an article get really stressed when an editor with a short history of editing suddenly makes numerous changes to "their" article. I would plan to make one solid change per day to Steven Strauss in this situation; you should not feel cowed in editing your next article. With Strauss, you have inadvertently stumbled into a hornet's nest, I think.

Feel free to ask any further questions in this thread, if applicable, or ask me on my Talk page.--Quisqualis (talk) 00:38, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

The problem here is Conflict of Interest - the editors (or editor) has a conflict of interest in the article, as a result of seeming (without wishing to "dox") to be the subject of the article. I'm not reverting the editor's edits because he/she is new. I'm reverting them because of evident COI. According to the guidelines, the first thing to do is to discuss this on the talkpage, where the edits to the article can be discussed. Otherwise, it can be reported to the Conflict of Interest noticeboard, which would presumably be the next stage and they will do an investigation into the alleged COI. However, it would be easier to discuss it first and decide on the edits on the talkpage. Avaya1 (talk) 04:25, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Do you think a sock-puppet investigation is called for? You seem to be saying that "i am new" is "geek" (is Strauss). If you are familiar with WP:sock, please bring this to the attention of WP:SPI. Having been so thoroughly fooled, I give up!--Quisqualis (talk) 18:47, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Avaya1 As far as I can tell you have never been willing to engage in a substantive discussion of these issues on the talk page. I asked extensive questions, and by large your answers were non-repsonsive on a content basis

QuisqualisThank you for your advice and interest. Sorry, I am getting a little lost. As I understand this situation Avaya1 accused User:NYC.Geek of being Strauss or in someway related to Strauss (I am still not sure I know the evidence for this accusation).

• • • • • Avaya1 without discussing it with any other editor (is that the way things work around here?), deleted almost all the content from the article. He claimed it was deleted because it was primary source material, peacoockery and not encyclopedia quality.
        • I looked at the page and noted that most of what was deleted would meet normal Wiki notability standards (as I understand them): e.g., interviews Strauss did with major media such as CNBC, Bloomberg, CNN, quotes citations in major newspapers, etc. BTW the general advice (I think) is in the event of concern about COI, we should not delete encyclopedia quality content, but rewrite it.
        • I did not immediately revert the changes made by Avaya1, instead I took the time to look at the material, and made the case for notability, made the case for Strauss being an academic, etc raised questions about information that Avaya1 added to the page that does not appear to be sourced (I still don't know how Avaya1 determined Strauss spent 5 years at McKinsey, nothing on the page seems to support that)and made the case for material that I thought should be restored. Avaya1 made no substantive response on the Talk page.
        • So I started making what I thought would be non-controversial changes, just restoring factual well documented material that related to Strauss notability
      • The next claim from Avaya1 was that because this material came from someone Avaya accused of COI it could not be used. And reverted deleted what I had done
        • Instead of responding to any of my concerns, or questions on the Talk page, Avaya1 has now (apparently) decided I am a sockpuppet (just as a side point, why would Geek do that? It seems very cumbersome.) Also, pardon my ignorance, why would a sockpuppet go out of his/her way to attract attention to themselves by trying to bring in additional editors? If the page is a vanity project that should not exist (which is what Avaya1 originally claimed) why go looking for attention?
        • I also expressed concern (based on Avaya1's determination to delete what appears to be normal encyclopedic material)if perhaps he has a COI in this matter (and having looked at his talk page several other people have had that concern about his work)
        • I am a little confused
          

I.new.around.here (talk) 20:32, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Copyright

Greetings TeaHouse,

I'm a bit disappointed that my draft was declined and deleted because of a copyright issue with the cover art. Any suggestions on how I can obtain permission to use the cover art? Thanks for your help!Nineminutesuntil (talk) 22:28, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

@Nineminutesuntil: Is the cover art for a piece for music? If so, if you use a low enough resolution photo, and use permissions correctly, you can upload the photo under fair use. Examples of this include File:Hannah Montana 3.png. Take a look at permissions there for an idea of how this is done. You can learn more about requesting permission here. Additional information about requesting copyright permission can be found at WP:Permissions. GeekInParadise (talk) 22:39, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Nineminutesuntil, and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm afraid that you are misinterpreting something: your draft would not have been deleted because of a copyright infringement in an image, because images are separate, and can be deleted separately. What StraussInTheHouse is saying is that the text in your draft comes from the source [1]. If they are right (I cannot see the deleted draft, so I can't tell) then the draft had to be deleted, because Wikipedia does not tolerate copyright infringements anywhere. You may also have had a copyright-infringing image deleted (though I haven't seen any evidence of that), but that would be a separate issue. --ColinFine (talk) 00:29, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

@TeaHouse: Thank you for explaining that to me. A link to the film's IG page was noted as where the copyright information was derived. I wholeheartedly disagree with that decision because I included my own wording and changed some of the wording for the character descriptions in my draft. I also added additional characters with their descriptions that aren't present on the film's IG page. I can cite the film's IG page as a reference. I'm hoping that would satisfy the issue. Yes? Your assistance would be very helpful. Thanks in advance!Nineminutesuntil (talk) 01:03, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Nineminutesuntil, I appreciate that the issue of copyright is one that many people have not come across outside of Wikipedia, and it isn't obvious, so bear with it. Like the folks above, I cannot see the draft that was deleted so I am commenting in the dark. But I notice that you only mention one source. An article needs to be based on a number of published reliable sources, which you then summarize in your own words. Not just "changed some of the wording". If you want to get the deleted draft back so you can fix it up, contact the deleting Admin (StraussInTheHouse) and request it. --Gronk Oz (talk) 02:53, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Nineminutesuntil. "Changed some of the wording" is nowhere near good enough. Everything you add to Wikipedia must be your own original writing in your own words, and changing a few words is not acceptable. You must summarize the reliable sources in your own words, with the only exception being brief quotations clearly identified as quotations and cited to the original source. As for copyrighted cover art, we allow low resolution images of such covers only in a main space enyclopedia article, usually the article about the specific album, film or book. Non-free images are never allowed in drafts, or on user pages or talk pages or anywhere else except main space encyclopedia articles. So, get your draft approved first, and then add the non-free cover art image. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:28, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Greetings Gronk Oz, Thank you for detailing the information. I feel confident that I have a good grasp on it now. I recently completed a new draft that is saved. However, I am unable to submit it for review. Please assist at your earliest convenience. Thanks in advance!Nineminutesuntil (talk) 01:21, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Greetings Cullen328, Thank you for even further detailed information. I have taken your instructions and redrafted my article. Thanks again!Nineminutesuntil (talk) 01:21, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

@Nineminutesuntil: I see that you have successfully got it into production now, with several references, at Out of Bounds (2019 film). However, you still need to put it all in your own words, not copied from the source. For example, the following was copied word-for-word: "Travis Elliott is a high school senior and star basketball player from Memphis, Tennessee. With graduation approaching, Travis has dreams of playing college ball and making it to the pros. Unfortunately, circumstances reroute his plans, and now he's no longer chasing a dream...he's running from a harsh reality." --Gronk Oz (talk) 05:34, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Now at: Draft:Out of Bounds (2019 film) David notMD (talk) 12:09, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

how do i

how do i add a picture and how do i make my own article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jason113113 (talk • contribs) 00:12, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Just read this article, first of all, then the relevant articles listed on your Talk page. PS: plus this one.--Quisqualis (talk) 00:29, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

I need a help please? Dashti.88 (talk) 01:47, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

When is it appropriate to cite Google Map?

As the title says. Paijo17 10:49, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Paijo17, welcome to Wikipedia and to the Teahouse. This is quite a difficult question for me to answer. Personally, I would only use Google maps to support the existence of some named feature which can be clearly seen on Google maps, or to support a statement that place X is located some set distance in a straight line from place B. Wherever possible, I would first seek out written sources, and then printed maps of a region and then I would look for the online version of printed maps that are available in some countries. And only then would I fall back on Google maps (or their equivalents at Bing maps). I do quite frequently put an External Link in to Google maps or to Bing maps to help users see some feature (despite the fact that they can - if they know how- click on the coordinates often included within an Infobox to reach various mapping portals). I would generally avoid using Google maps if it depended upon some original research to extract complicated information from a map. An example of this might be to support a statement, say, of how far a glacier has retreated in recent decades through global warming, or that its glacial outflow runs as a braided stream. Instead, I would aim to find such information in written sources. As well as the standard {{Cite map}} template, we do also have specific templates available to help you cite them. See {{Google maps}} and {{Bing maps}}, though I can't remember ever having to deploy either of them. If you have a specific example in mind, do pop back and get further views on whether it's appropriate or not. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 17:47, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

how many hours should be allowed before deleting draft article reviewed 1x

I submitted an article for the first time Friday afternoon. At 2PM Saturday it was declined politely for a fixable copyright problem with 1, possible 2 of more than a dozen references. HOW DO WE RESTORE THIS ARTICLE Deleted as G12 three hours after review board gave me their first assessment? I do not believe this warranted a G12 at all and in fact the reference cited was the one of the last minute additions to the article that has a 7 month history.My article is on a relatively new agency within the NIH. Why would you delete an article on a government agency so hastily? Mrphilip (talk) 04:35, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

17:14, 16 March 2019 RHaworth (talk | contribs) deleted page Draft:Sexual and Gender Minority Research Office (G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement of https://isgmh.northwestern.edu/2017/01/20/21st-century-cures-act-calls-for-expanded-nih-focus-on-sexual-and-gender-minority-health/, http://sites.nationalacademies.org/cs/groups/dbassesite/documents/webpage/DBASSE_191476.PDF) (thank)

There is also a thread about this here User talk:RHaworth#DELETION SAME DAY AS ARTICLE FIRST REVIEWED BY WIKI?. MarnetteD|Talk 04:44, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

There is no editorial board, and if there is so much as a hint that material you've added may be a copyright issue, it is going to be deleted. No one has done anything wrong in regards this. Very simply, PD or not, write in your own words. They will never be removed for violating copyright. John from Idegon (talk) 04:57, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

The answer to the question "how many hours?" in this context is "zero hours - instantly". Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:31, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Let's try this one more time, Mrphilip. First our policies on copyright are more restrictive than the law. As this is a privately owned website, we are allowed to do that. Second, the holder of the copyright on Northwestern University's website is Northwestern University. They are a private institution too. Everything that appears on their website, even material that originally was published on a public domain website, is copyrighted by them. If you had copied the material from an NIH publication, there would not have been an issue (although, copying anything is weak practice and should be avoided). Copyright is a highly nuanced subject and can be difficult to understand. If you would have simply asked for an explanation nicely, and then waited until you got it, there would have been no problems. But instead, you were insulting and belligerent and you opened multiple threads in multiple places on the subject. There is no user manual here, and collectively, all of us are "the boss". Beligerence serves no purpose here. Decisions on all subjects are made by consensus. Consensus is formed by reaching agreement with the parties involved. Query: Do you think being insulting, belligerent and demanding is more, or less, conducive to forming a consensus? John from Idegon (talk) 16:45, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

I very much would like to try this again John from Idegon and do so without the copyright infringements or use of any non-attributed sources. If my draft article were to be undeleted, my efforts would move more swiftly as the corrections would take under five minutes. I appreciate the lengths all have taken to clarify how the train derailed. As I have tried to relay, a simple revert to an earlier version seen that same day could have eliminated all the elements which have no place on WP. There is an historical timeline going back to last August which likely did not warrant a g12. As far as I know, that was not given a thought. There was a moment in the last 24 hours of the draft when another editor stepped in and updated the section titles quite astutely. The offending references were not there at that time, why could't a revert use that outside event as the possible landing place? What I most want to know is if it possible to see the undelete happen or must I begin again? Mrphilip (talk) 15:10, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Likely the latter. It's doubtful any administrator would undelete a copyvio. My suggestion would be that you apologize to the deleting admin and ask him to email you a copy. You'll need to have email enabled in your preferences. Oh, wait. You said others had worked on the draft too? Then the answer is definitely no. Because every edit made is copyrighted by the editor making it and immediately licensed to Wikipedia on a license that requires attribution. The only way the history would be intact to provide the attribution is if it were restored, and that will not happen, because of the copyright violation. Sorry. It appears you are going to have to start over. Two things before you do. First, write everything in your own words. I'm guessing that should be pretty clear by now. Second, I have doubts the agency you were writing about meets our guidelines for inclusion. See WP:N for the concept, and WP:GNG and WP:ORG for the details. In short, you will need multiple sources that a) discuss the subject in detail, b) meet our standards for reliability, and c) are completely academically independent of the subject. Any sources from the government will not speak to the notability of another government agency. Before you waste a bunch more time, you should consider whether you've even got an article or whether you should be making an addition to the agency in question's parent agency. Come back if you want help with that, Mrphilip. John from Idegon (talk) 15:36, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Siegfried Vogel

Hi, I've translated this article from the de. Wikipedia, unfortunately I didn't linked to the correct original page which is Siegfried Vogel (Sänger). Therefore, the Authority control doesn't appear on this Wikipedia. Could someone please correct my mistake, I've tried several times: way too complex for me. Thanks in advance. LouisAlain (talk) 08:41, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello @LouisAlain:, and welcome to the Teahouse. I have fixed this minor issue for you - the article was linked to the disambiguation page on Wikidata, not to the specific article about the singer. You can fix such errors editing the Wikidata information itself (with "Edit links" in the "Languages" menu to the lower left). Unfortunately the Wikidata interface is not the most intuitive one for casual users, to put it politely. GermanJoe (talk) 09:24, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, LouisAlain. In addition to the above, can I also point you to the guidance about crediting the source of the translation given at Wikipedia:Translation#How_to_translate? I see that you've added the {{Translated page}} template to the article's talk page, but ideally you would also give credit and link to the German source article in an edit summary. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:32, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Michael Trapson

Hi, My page Michael Trapson was nominated for deletion around 3 weeks ago, but I don't see any discussion or activeness going on. There is only one comment and no others in the discussion, and I think that it is closed. So, should I remove the template or not? Catinthedogs (talk) 12:40, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Update: There are 3 comments. Catinthedogs (talk) 12:44, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Only Administrators close Articles for Deletion. David notMD (talk) 15:00, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Not only: WP:CLOSEAFD Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:58, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

OK, some exceptions, but clearly, the creator of the article is not empowered to end the AfD. David notMD (talk) 20:10, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Requesting urgent help

Hi,

Just a while ago I completed my second article on Wikipedia namely Aurat_March - a Women's Day related article. while I was amidst to make correction and review request on various Wikipedia women projects. Some one has placed speedy deletion notice on the article for perceived copyright issue.

While most of the places I have tried to write in my own language, some of the third person statements reported by news portals may still need little corrections. While personally I do not think that is a serious copyright issue which can not be dealt with little more paraphrasing. But frankly I do not know how to deal with situation. Please help me either in necessary update or help me in transferring it to my sandbox page. Thanks for the help Bookku (talk) 13:08, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

You can contest the Speedy Deletion. If you used content from news sources, then all of that must be deleted quickly. All copyright violations are 'serious.' The 'Mirror' question raised in the Speedy Deletion notice and Talk is whether you created content in Wikipedia that was used in the news feeds. That would absolve you of copyright violation. However, if reverse is true, delete all copied content and only then add to article, paraphrased. Copyright material cannot be temporarily parked in your Sandbox or a Draft. To preserve the entire article, I suggest you enter Edit mode and copy everything into a Word document on your computer. That would save your text and formatted referencing. David notMD (talk) 15:22, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

AND the article exists (not SD'd), but now a stub. You can elaborate as long as not using other peoples' wording. David notMD (talk) 20:12, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Blocking

A friend of mine edits Wikipedia and claims he was blocked to the extant that he can't access Wikipedia at all, not even just to view articles. I was under the impression that this type of block does not exist, and said as much to him, but he is convinced that has happened. Is this type of block possible, and if so, what can be done to undo it? — Puzzledvegetable (talk) 19:24, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

You can be globally locked so you cannot log in to any Wikimedia wiki. See meta:Global locks. This does not prevent you from reading the site when you are not logged in. If an IP address puts too much strain on the servers with a huge number of automated requests then it's possible that all access may be blocked but I don't know how it's handled. It's more likely to be a limitation at his end or Internet service provider. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:31, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Help on how to properly copy image.

I stumbled on an english page that missed a translation. I really tried to do it correctly but I think I sould have started with a "less touchy first page" :-/ I would like some help on "how to properly copy the image from the original page in due legality", and more globally if anyone want's to comment on my translation, please be my guest. Original : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coexist_(image) My translation : https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coexist_(image) (missing the image !!) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicolas.Bouthors (talk • contribs) 2019-03-17T19:37:28 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Nicolas.Bouthors. The "Coexist" image is hosted here on English Wikipedia (not Wikimedia Commons), as you can see by clicking on the image and reading the details. There is a warning about transferring it to Commons although I am unsure if that would be a problem. Images hosted on English Wikipedia cannot be used directly in other language Wikipedias. Read WP:NFCI for the policy regarding non-free images on English Wikipedia. I assume that French Wikipedia has a similar policy, so I suggest that you ask for help at their help desk or Teahouse equivalent. You may be able to upload the image to French Wikipedia if they handle logos in a similar way. Good luck. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:24, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Nicolas.Bouthors, and welcome to the Teahouse. Many images used on Wikipedia are freely licensed, and hosted on Wikimedia Commons, and can be included directly in any page of any Wikimedia project. Unfortunately, File:Coexist by Piotr Mlodozeniec.jpg is not in Commons, because its copyright status does not allow this: according to its description page there, it would be regarded as Public Domain in the US, but not in Poland, (its country of Origin), so Commons will not accept it; so it has been uploaded to en-wiki.

If you want to use it in fr-wiki, you will need to copy it there, by downloading it to your device, and then uploaded it into fr-wiki. But first , you must study the copyright policy of fr-wiki, and make sure that it is acceptable there. Each language Wikipedia has its own policies, and this is one area where they do differ. I know that de-wiki does not accept non-free images at all: I don't know about fr-wiki. --ColinFine (talk) 20:24, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Newbie questions

Hi everyone,

I'm a newbie who is almost finished editing a longish entry that I found on the All Articles Needing Copy Edit list. I'm not new to copyediting in general (I have completed a program and have copyediting experience), just to copyediting on Wikipedia. My questions are:

1) My article cites socioeconomic statistics. Do I need to check all the "factoids" that the author cites to see if they were cited correctly? I find that I have to keep checking the cited sources because the piece appears to be written by an ESL author and I want to ensure that the information is cited correctly. As a copyeditor, do I need to bother with verifying cited statistics or should I flag the questionable facts for someone else to check once I've edited the article for grammar, usage, punctuation, consistency, etc.?

2) Where can I post the edited article for fairly immediate feedback from more experienced Guild editors?

Thank you!

LizKDVA

PS. In retrospect, I should have started with a shorter and easier piece, but I've done a lot of work on it and don't want to abandon the project.

Um, if this was an existing article, you edit in the article and your edits are incorporated when you click on Publish changes at the bottom. Your #2 suggested you moved the article elsewhere to work on it. Would help if you identify the article by name, and also to sign your comments by typing four of ~ at end of the comment. David notMD (talk) 20:16, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi LizDKVA, and welcome to the Teahouse. Checking your history you only have 2 edits... on back in November to add your name to the list of folks over at GOCE, and then this question today. Are you editing under a different name? Or forgotten to log on while editing? If you were editing an existing article, which is what it appears you are saying you did off of the page, it would have logged those edits so we could tell what article you were working on. According to the GOCE page guidelines, checking the veracity of the assertions in the article is not part of what GOCE is about. But as per their project page, "you can ask questions on any of the project's coordinators' talk pages". You can find those coordinators at Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors#Who coordinates Guild activities?. Regarding the second question, if you're editing an existing article, once you hit "publish changes", they become live on WP. If you establish a rapport with one of the coordinators, you can ask them to review your work. Hope this helps. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:45, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Fixing sort order within a Category

I just discovered a new (to me) category, Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in New South Wales. And I noticed something peculiar - all the entries are in alphabetical order except for one: "Wikipedia requested photographs in Millers Point, New South Wales‎ (empty)" is listed under W instead of M. I looked at the code but I can'l see where to fix this problem. Where is the search order controlled? (By the way, I notice that sub-category is nominated for deletion, so it may not be there for long, but I would be interested to know the answer for next time I encounter this situation.) --Gronk Oz (talk) 23:51, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi Gronk Oz. See Wikipedia:Categorization#Sort keys. The other subcategories have sort keys in their category page code. Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in Millers Point, New South Wales is sorted under its first character "W" because it has no sort key. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:03, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

@PrimeHunter: Got it. Fixed it. Thanks! --Gronk Oz (talk) 00:27, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Recent Changes Patrol

Sometimes, I see users in the category, Recent Changes Patrol. I go there, but click the link that says, “IP’s contribs”. How do I have the Recent Changes Patrol group appear here? LPS and MLP Fan (LittlestPetShop) (MyLittlePony) 01:31, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello, LPS and MLP Fan, welcome to the Teahouse. I found your question very hard to understand and answer, especially as your screenshot was so low res, and also because I always use desktop view on my mobile, even when patrolling Recent Changes. The mobile view you linked to was this one. Your arrow points purely to the name of the editor who made those changes.

Are you wanting to have a visible shortcut to the Recent Changes page? I don't think you'll ever get it there. I use a special script to give me a selection of a regularly used pages, like WP:NPP, WP:TH, WP:AFC etc, but this only works in desktop view. If you don't want to switch to desktop view, then the best way to make 'bookmarked' pages easily accessible, is to put one or more links to them at the top of your user page, which you can easily see and access in mobile view.

I do apologise if (as I suspect) I've completely misunderstood what you're asking. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 09:31, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Nick Moyes, I believe LPS and MLP Fan is asking how to get the Recent changes patrollers category in that section of the mobile view. I don't think this is possible, as it appears to be reserved to any of the user groups available on Wikipedia. This mobile view diff from Oshwah seems to support this theory.

Back to OP, if you do want to see more about Recent Changes patrol, check WP:RCP. StaringAtTheStars (talk) 15:40, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Newbie pest-on-the-loose

User:2405:205:128A:E6FD:0:0:1C19:50A4 (formerly User: 2405:205:1282:6986::11db:c8a4 and User: 2405:205:1284:9735:0:0:1B5C:A0A4) has caused some offense, to me and other editors, by their insistence on editing WP, armed with only their arrogance, self-confidence, TV news knowledge, no sources and no willingness to read or listen. They have just switched IP addresses again today, after seeing their first Talk page littered with warnings. I've wasted hours today, and others have for several days, undoing their mess. It's impracticable to protect all West African articles from this person. Would someone kindly put them on a list of pests or otherwise keep an eye on them, please? I'm tired of trying to corral them and of repair-editing outside of my interests. Thank you--Quisqualis (talk) 02:33, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Article replacing a disambiguation page?

A few months back, I created an article about a Canadian singer, bülow. Since then, the artist has gained popularity, and the hits to the page have increased to ~300 per day (per the wmflabs pageviews tool). This number is much larger than the other pages on the disambiguation page, including the disambiguation page itself (pageviews tool with some random samples). I was wondering, would it be appropriate at some point to change the article's title from "Bülow (singer)" to simply "Bülow" and change the disambiguation page from "Bülow" to "Bülow (disambiguation)"? Thanks, Hickland (talk) 03:15, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi Hickland, it's imperative to understand that articles are not named based on popularity/pageview but based on a well-developed standard called Article title policy, or the specifically relevant WP:ATDAB section and WP:PTOPIC guideline. You should read that. If you're still confident that Bülow (singer) should be at the base title, then open a move request at the talkpage of the article. Read documentation of Template:Requested move for how to do that.– Ammarpad (talk) 15:38, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

start a page

how to start a page about a living person — Preceding unsigned comment added by Name122134 (talk • contribs) 05:36, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Name122134. The person must notable as Wikipedia defines that term. Writing an acceptable Wikipedia article is difficult but not impossible. Familiarize yourself with our most important policies and guidelines. Read and study Your first article and follow all of the excellent advice that you will find there. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:04, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

What kinds of articles are appropriate?

I wonder which kinds of articles are appropriate. Please reply me. Harold Hutchins (talk) 07:31, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

@Harold Hutchins: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. A subject merits a article on Wikipedia if it receives significant coverage in independent reliable sources that shows how the subject meets Wikipedia's special definition of notability. Some subject areas have more specific notability guidelines as well, such as musicians and businesses. 331dot (talk) 07:36, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Paramnesia vs False memory

Hi! I'm not sure if this is the correct place to ask this, but I assume it could attract more of experienced users to solve the issue than the article talk page itself. There is an article called False memory with an item on Wikidata that mixes up articles on False memory and Paramnesia across different Wikipedias. Aren't they different topics? And if so, how can we split these up so that the Wikidata admins or users don't get angry ? I'm just not sure about this, and don't wanna mess anything up. Can anyone give me any advice on this or take care of it right away?--Piramidion 09:14, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

How to create a artist article!

Hi i am lakshya. I am from indian. It is tought to understand wikipedia and how do we make a wiki page for someone! Hope if you can help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aimix 808 (talk • contribs) 12:40, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia and to the Teahouse, Aimix 808. For a complete newcomer, trying to create a new article immediately is a bad idea, and is the hardest thing you could attempt to do here. We always advise new editors to take their time, learn to make smaller improvements across this encyclopaedia, before moving on to making new pages. Any subject covered here MUST meet our Notability criteria. You might find this page especially useful for an artist. If they don't meet these criteria, any attempt to make a page about someone is doomed to be rejected or deleted. To learn the basics of how Wikipedia works, try The Wikipedia Adventure, and should you be determined to attempt to create a page about a person not yet covered here, you should read and follow the instructions at Articles for Creation (AFC), where you can create a 'draft' article first and work on it until it is in good enough state to be submitted for review. This can be a far less demoralising route than trying to put a new and incomplete page straight onto Wikipedia, where very poor efforts are often immediately deleted. We do advise those whose command of the English language is perhaps a little limited to consider whether creating a page on their own language Wikipedia is a better place to start. But starting off by creating a draft article at WP:AFC is very definitely the best advice we can give you. Nick Moyes (talk) 14:00, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Does RS conflict with NPOV

It appears to me, that much of the reliable sources editors constantly bring up on talk pages are propaganda pieces meant to push an agenda. "Fake News" if you will. Now I personally believe most, if not all, news sources to spurious in nature. So if we rely so much on these "News" sources, does this not conflict with providing an neutral point of view ? After all, I don't think anyone would dispute that CNN or Fox has an agenda to push. Cheers Baldr The Brave (talk) 13:17, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

@Baldr The Brave: Welcome to the Teahouse. To a limited extend I can agree with the suggestion that many very reliable and trustworthy newsmedia outlet can sometime tend to have an intentional or unintentional slant in one political direction in their reporting (eg The Guardian newspaper (leftwards-leaning) versus The Times or Daily Telegraph(rightwards-leaning) newspapers here in the UK. I would certainly dispute your suggestion that this is synonymous with Fake News of the type that Fox News comes up with. To suggest that CNN and Fox News are equivalent and that they take the same approach to their reporting is risible. All the stories I've ever heard on Fox News about the UK are utterly laughable. I would never say that about CNN, who's reporting would be regarded as WP:RS and WP:NPOV. Sometimes Wikipedia editors may selectively choose to use only one news source that fit their personal agendas, whilst intentionally ignoring multiple other sources that do not. I am concerned you state "I personally believe most, if not all, news sources to [be] spurious in nature". I hope, therefore, you never attempt to edit articles on Wikipedia that are based on reliable reported stories on well-regarded news outlets. Where else would you propose to get your 'facts' from to use as citations? Personal opinion? Reddit? Fox News? Instagram? YouTube videos? Nick Moyes (talk) 13:49, 18 March 2019 (UTC)  

With the widespread use of Cameras and the prevalent use of the Internet I tend to rely on the rationality of my mind to analyze clips on events. Of, course I will watch fox or CNN in order to get bits of the Story. My reason consists of the fact that if the one outlet represents the left and one outlet represents the right I get most of the story. The man I trust most (well 2nd from my own mind of course) is a journalist by the name of Tim Pool. I'm not entirely whether or not he could be listed as an reliable source. Overall I approach all media sources with the same level of distrust a wild beast has to a cage. Cheers. Baldr The Brave (talk) 14:16, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

For print (New York Times, for example) newspapers have a policy of separating news content from editorials. There can still be a subtle-to-obvious bias to what stories are being covered and what not. I agree the distinction is not as clear for e-media. But even for Fox, there appears to be a divide between the newscasters (recently attacked by He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named) and the network's opinionators. Facts are a better foundation than opinion. The hot debate on what is NPOV appears to be about facts versus opinions, especially when some of the facts are in dispute. David notMD (talk) 14:22, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

For the avoidance of doubt, WP:NPOV doesn't meant that we can't report what biased sources say about a topic, so long as due weight is given and the POV is attributed per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:33, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Consider the possibility that reality may have other angles then left and right. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:41, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

NPOV imposes a requirement for neutrality on the content of the WP article, the sources used are not required to be neutral. For many topics there simply is no such thing as a truly neutral source. Thus we are required to evaluate a variety of sources, and use them according to considerations such as reliability and due weight. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:18, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Baldr The Brave has been blocked in any case. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:31, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Is there a dark mode (aka 'night mode' / 'light-on-dark mode') for Wikipedia on the web?

I can't find native support for dark mode on Wikipedia (Chrome browser, Windows 10).

Dark reader extension for Chrome gets the job done, but if I browse typography articles I get 'black on dark' font specimens, so this gimmick is not viable for all the situations. How comes that the Android app of Wikipedia is so rich, advanced and customizable in comparison to the web version? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kid Hey GBE (talk • contribs) 14:55, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Welcome back to Wikipedia, Kid Hey GBE. As you say, there are various Wikipedia apps for Android and iOs available (see WP:MOBILE, and some seem able to offer a nightmode. The only thing I'm aware of on the website version is to experiment by changing your 'skin' in Special:Preferences from the default (Vector), but none of these offer anything remotely approaching your needs, but you might find one you like more. Sorry I can't offer more help with this. Nick Moyes (talk) 15:10, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

@Kid Hey GBE: Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets has the option "Use a black background with green text". PrimeHunter (talk) 19:14, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

@PrimeHunter: Thanks for that helpful answer. Whilst it looks horrendous to me (reminding me of my first computer, an Amstrad PCW, from c.1990), I wasn't aware of this colour setting as an option in 'Preferences'. Good call. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:41, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

@PrimeHunter: Thank you very much for your help, and bravo for finding at least a hidden feature that emulates a dark mode! Unfortunately the 'green on black' setting performs even worse than the Dark Reader extension, as specimen from pages about typefaces becomes even more harder to tell from the background (ex. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_Modern). Of course such contents are displayed without any issues on the Android app of Wikipedia... For now I managed to switch Dark Reader from Dark to Light, which at least shows Wikipedia on a sand/cream background (still better than full white, and allows me to view font specimens). Kid Hey GBE (talk) 10:36, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Frustrated by dichotomy between what Wikipedia says it wants regarding entries about women and reference requirements

Dear Wikipedia Editors:

This is a call to action for you and a query. I would like to include more pages about women leaders on Wikipedia but am stymied by undefined reference requirements.

Unfortunately, the majority of history books and references have been written by men about men, ergo there are not a lot of references for many women writers, artists, scientists, et al.

Without multiple references, draft entries are removed by Wikipedia editors. Frustratingly, when legitimate women leaders are not referenced, this is how we end up with 8 pages about Russell Wilson and 2.5 pages about Gertrude Elion. This is how Emma Edelstein, who co-wrote and researched most of the works her husband Ludwig published and got credit for, gets left with only a few hard-to-find references online - and because of it, Wikipedia editors reject a draft page for her.

I would like to know: does Wikipedia truly want more content about women as they've said publicly in the past? If so, please be specific about how many references will pass the test for an acceptable entry. Please know that if it's more than about 2 references, many historical women figures will not be included in Wikipedia.

And here's the call to action for Wikipedia: it's ridiculous that there's still such a gap between what's real (woman scientist becoming a Nobel prize winner for the drug that helps cure HIV vs. an American football player that no one will remember in 100 years) and what's published in Wikipedia. Please figure out a way to balance the scales on this. You could consider using part of the $75 million that the Wikimedia Foundation receives every year, to pay a few folks to work on this.

Thanks,

Victoria — Preceding unsigned comment added by SalishArchipelago (talk • contribs) 16:05, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

It seems to me that you, or anyone really, could write to news sources in repute asking them to do stories on overlooked historical females in order to meet the requirement for reliable sources. CheersBaldr The Brave (talk) 16:16, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

• Hey SalishArchipelago. Unfortunately there is no hard fast rule or specific number that can be referenced about how many sources are enough sources to demonstrate that a subject meets Wikipedia's standards for notability. The short answer is more along the lines of "enough sources to write an article with", but that will still vary from person to person, according to subject, and depending on what types of sources are available. One or two books can go a long way toward being able to write a well-sourced encyclopedia article, and conversely, an infinite number of passing mentions in the phone book and routine directories may never give you enough information to write with.

I see you've already gotten an invitation to the Women in Red Wikiproject, and if you hang out there you'll see this type of topic come up fairly often. But I'm afraid despite everyone's best efforts, no one really knows what a quick and easy solution would look like. GMG^talk 18:06, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Will people read my articles

Will people read my articles — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tokollo Tk (talk • contribs) 16:31, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Gave this its own section title, as no related to the collapsed entry. David notMD (talk) 17:55, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

@Tokollo Tk: Draft:Tokollo is gibberish. Is there another article you are working on? RudolfRed (talk) 18:25, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Creating a Wikipedia page for a BBC children's wellbeing brand

Hello,

I signed up as I thought it would be useful to create a Wikipedia entry for www.bbc.co.uk/ownit. BBC Own It is a UK website and brand that my team run, offering internet safety and wellbeing advice to children in the UK. Our target audience is 8-12 year olds who need support to be healthy and happy in all that they do online. We sit within a network of partner charities and organisations, including the UK Safer Internet Centre, Internet Matters, and the Duke of Cambridge's CyberBullying Taskforce. We are a sister brand to www.bbc.co.uk/cbbc and www.bbc.co.uk/cbeebies.

However, I note in the Wikipedia 'welcome' information that it is broadly frowned upon to create Wiki pages about your own site or projects you're involved in.

Therefore, please could someone advise whether - on the face of it - this brand and our work would be considered to merit a Wiki entry. I would be perfectly happy for someone else to create this page - and to provide any info required, if this was felt to be the most proper way to move forward.

Here is some background info:

About the website: https://www.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/latestnews/2017/bbc-launches-own-it-site-for-kids About the (forthcoming) Own It app: https://www.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/latestnews/2018/childrens-app-own-it

Hope that's all ok.

All best wishes,

Dave — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davhow (talk • contribs) 16:53, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Davhow. The first thing that you must do is to comply with our mandatory paid contributor disclosure. Whether or not BBC Own It is notable as Wikipedia defines that term depends on the amount of significant coverage that the website has received from reliable sources independent of the BBC. Please read Your first article and Articles for Creation. Wikipedia:Notability (web) is also relevant. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:27, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

By the way, I wanted to take a look at the website to evaluate it but it seems I cannot visit the website because I am in the United States. That seems strange. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:32, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

I noticed that also - interesting. Maybe because it's targeting to young kids, they want to limit the problems they might have complying with other countries' laws relating to selling to and collecting data from minors. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 23:57, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Event listings as Reliable Sources???

I've been studying a lot of artists and photographers' articles on WP to learn the best approach before I embark on attempting to create some - In noticing the edit history of some of the articles, I've noticed some editors (interestingly enough, usually the same few) seem to delete citations and references that are published in newspapers listing an artist exhibition.

My questions thus:

1. Does every single exhibition for an artist of photographer require a citation in order to document each single exhibition properly? This is nearly impossible for pre-Internet exhibitions and those in the 90s.

2. In many cases I am discovering that often the only only online reference to an art show is a "listing" of the exhibition in a newspaper or art magazine - are these references acceptable?

Again: The reason that I am asking is that, for example: an editor recently removed several exhibition citations from a Chicago photographer's WP article with the explanation that "event listings are not RS" - for the record, these exhibitions were listed in the Chicago Sun-Times and the Chicago Tribune. I guess that I'm confused why an art show listing in a major newspaper is not a reliable source, as it documents the show and often other online references from the early days of the Internet are hard to find. Thank you in advance, --64.26.99.248 (talk) 21:08, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

@64.26.99.248: I'd have to see the exact edit to get the full context, but there's a difference between an article about an exhibit in a notable publication and a listing of upcoming exhibits which is usually there because a publicist sent it in. It makes sense if you think about it - the latter is unverified - anyone can say any exhibit is coming up, but only after the fact using the resultant media coverage can we say it actually happened. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 23:51, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hello, IP editor. Welcome to the Teahouse. My own view is that every statement indicating an exhibition has taken place should be supported by a reference. (I don't mind if a few citations are missed off, but I expect at least every other one to be supported with evidence) Far too many artist-related articles try to show how 'notable' an artist is, simply by listing exhibitions of their work. To me, if an editor fails to support such a statement with a citation, then the whole entry is dubious. We do not require citations to link to online evidence. A citation to a printed exhibition catalogue is quite acceptable. But be aware that a commercial gallery (as opposed to a public museum or art gallery) producing a catalogue of an exhibition is rather akin to Walmart/Sainsbury's/Asda producing a flyer for what's in stock on their shelves this week. Hardly evidence of notability.

Yes, if you want to provide supporting evidence of an exhibition, then a newspaper/art magazine is perfectly acceptable. But bear in mind that simply having an exhibition in a commercial gallery doesn't contribute towards meeting our notability criteria for artists. (See WP:NARTIST).Nick Moyes (talk) 23:58, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

If you think about it, the only information which a listing could possibly support was that the event was scheduled to take place: not even always that it did take place. I guess that for an exhibition which continued over a period, a repeated listing would be a prima facie source for the fact that the exhibition did take place. But if that is the only source for an exhibition, I'm not convinced that the exhibition should appear in an article: generally an article should list only the major works (or exhibitions, productions etc) not everything the subject has done.

Note that sources do not have to be online: the important part of a citation is the information which would let a reader find the source, eg in a library. For most citations, a URL is an optional extra provided as a convenience. See WP:REFB. --ColinFine (talk) 00:00, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Nail clipping

I mistakenly linked to an external blog (didn't fully understand the rules - my bad), when editing the above topic. My changes were subsequently reverted, as expected. However when I attempted to add the same useful information, minus the link this time, my edit was once again reverted. Can you please advise the reason for this?

Many Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dogfrolics (talk • contribs) 22:56, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

@Dogfrolics: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. You just added the same information but without a link- that's a distinction without a difference, and violates policy as all information needs to be source to an independent reliable source- which blogs are not always. Blogs must have editorial control and a reputation for fact-checking. Furthermore, given your username, it seems to be your blog; linking to your own blog is a severe conflict of interest. Please review and comply with that policy. You will also need to request a change of username per the username policy; please visit Special:GlobalRenameRequest or WP:CHUS to do so. 331dot (talk) 23:03, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Question about infobox-holiday, which lists beginning with 2018 observation date

Hi Teahouse team,

My question is about the dates/formatting of the "Infobox holiday". This is used on the Wear it Purple Day page. It notes the "2018 date", but because we are in 2019, is it meant to tick over automatically to the current calendar year? I read the Infobox holiday template page, and this event, is definitely complex as the date can vary. Is that why this is happening? My apologies for the strange question. Thank you for your time! With tea wishes, SunnyBoi (talk) 12:54, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi SunnyBoi. Good question. If you look at the source code for the infobox, and also the documentation for that infobox template, you'll see that the template automatically adds last year's 'holiday', this year's holiday, and the next two years' as well. I can't help thinking someone has used the wrong type of infobox for this non-holiday. There's no guarantee that the event will be held in future years, unlike for true holidays such as Christmas, Bank Holidays, Saint's Days etc etc.  You might like to raise this on the article's talk page so that it can be fixed. At a quick guess, I'd have thought that Template:Infobox recurring event would be more appropriate. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 15:01, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia page for Films

Hello,

I am trying to create a page for my upcoming movie. Kindly suggest the right way to create the page.

Regards Arunava — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arunavachowdhuryfilms (talk • contribs) 13:24, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi! Welcome to Wikipedia, you shouldn't be contributing to Wikipedia about yourself, family, friends, clients, employers, or your financial and other relationships. For more information see WP:COI Kind regards, TruthToBeSpoken (talk) 13:29, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse.I would suggest that you not attempt to write about your film. Please click on and read WP:COI and WP:PAID. If your film meets the notability guidelines for films written at WP:NFILM, someone independent of you will eventually write about it; Wikipedia is not for promoting films. 331dot (talk) 13:32, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

In addition to the above, if it is an upcoming movie, it is almost certainly WP:TOOSOON for it to have a Wikipedia article – that alone disqualifies it until after it is released and written about in independent Reliable sources that can be cited. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.200.138.194 (talk) 17:25, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Cannot Publish My Page

Hi, I have a problem publishing a page I just tried to create. I spent hours, adding all the references, but when I try to click on Publish Page, I see "Unknown Error, HTTP status O". I cannot even save that page as a draft. I am very very worried. Could anyone please help? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Twickenham Prep School (talk • contribs) 13:47, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Twickenham Prep School welcome to the Teahouse. I'm afraid there are no other edits visible from your account (see Special:Contributions/Twickenham_Prep_School), so anything that you drafted without successfully saving it appears to have been completely lost. (Just occasionally, pressing your browser's back button will restore a copy of what's saved in your computer's cache). For future reference, you really are best off preparing work in your sandbox, or as a 'draft' article via the Articles for Creation process. That way you have plenty of time to prepare it before submitting for review.

I should also advise you that you have, unfortunately, chosen an unacceptable username which breaches our guidelines for two reasons. A) it is somewhat promotional, and b) it suggests that more than one person/staff member has access to this account. Neither are permitted (see this for further details.) So, your best course of action is simply to abandon this account, never ever use it again, but create a completely new single user account name. (SueatTPS would, for example, be quite OK). Of course, were you to be trying to write about the Twickenham Preparatory School, you would need to declare your Conflict of Interest, and especially so if you are a staff member receiving any sort of salary as an employee (See this policy requirement). Sorry I can't be the bearer of better news for you. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 14:42, 19 March 2019 (UTC)  

How do I add an article on a CEO of a company who is also an activist?

I created my first article yesterday on Joe Hollendoner, the CEO of San Francisco AIDS Foundation, who is also an LGBT activist. I used Lorri Jean's article as a subject to learn from. Lorri Jean is the CEO of the Los Angeles LGBT center, who is also an LGBT activist. I used an article about Mr. Hollendoner and his experience from an online article and referenced that material. I spent a lot of time on it, so I am frustrated that it was taken down. He should be on Wikipedia, as his predecessor has an article as well.

Can you tell me what I did wrong? What can I do to improve it and get it published again? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Otismorganrn (talk • contribs) 15:11, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Otismorganrn, The delete reason was a Copyright violation, in addition to being overly promotional. Rewrite it. WelpThatWorked (talk) 15:23, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

@Otismorganrn: Also as I noted on your talk page, you cited a press release, which is almost never acceptable. Press releases are authored by someone with a vested interest in the subject being discussed, so it cannot be trusted to be objective. Articles are supposed to be based on reliable sources that are written independent of the topic being discussed.

Wikipedia articles are about notable topics - those that have gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time, and are not outside the scope of Wikipedia. We consider evidence from reliable and independent sources to gauge this attention. There are specific guidelines for people, and in particular biographies of living persons. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 15:42, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Help Creating a Page for a County Supervisor

Hello. I have tried multiple times to submit a page for a county Supervisor and I have been denied for many reasons. One editor said my page read more like an advertisement. Another said that the notability isn't created enough (even though her career as Mayor for a city with a population of 85,000 wasn't enough). This is frustrating and I need some guidelines that don't further frustrate me. Thank you!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Sue_Frost — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suefrost2019 (talk • contribs) 17:41, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi @Suefrost2019: - there are several issues. The first is that your user name appears to make the article about you, which is a violation of WP:COI, a policy against editing articles about yourself. The second issue is that the article is poorly sourced - all the sources I see seem to be government sources - either by the city, county or board - with the exception of one blog post. You need independent third party sources, ideally independent media, to demonstrate notability. The title of mayor isn't in itself sufficient unless the city is much larger, or there's coverage suggesting notability for something else. The info given during the article rejection is accurate but somewhat more succinct. Hope this helps. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:09, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Your use of "even though her career" suggests you are not Sue Frost even though your User name is Suefrost2019. So, lets set that aside. Most important issue behind the decline is that as already written above, being mayor of modest-sized city does not meet criteria for notable. David notMD (talk) 18:13, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Suefrost2019. I disagree with my esteemed colleagues timtempleton and David notMD. I believe that the main claim of notability is that she is an elected member of the Sacramento County Board of Supervisors. Sacramento County has 1.5 million residents and that is an important elected office. Consider that we have 83 biographies in Category:San Francisco Board of Supervisors members and San Francisco's population is about 900,000. Similarly, we have 67 biographies in Category:Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors. I do agree that the current refererences are inadequate and that you should search for more significant coverage of her political career in newspapers like the Sacramento Bee or local magazines or Citrus Heights newspapers. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:55, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Error generated by Template:Designation within the Cemetery infobox?

Hello! Trying to understand why the infobox for Mount Royal Cemetery indicates 1999 as a national historic site designation date when its wikidata entry states 1998. The wikidata is correct - it's fed by a Canadian historical sites database that indeed indicates 1998 (on Dec 15). The page uses the Cemetery Infobox, which appears to use Template:Designation to produce the (faulty) date (am I understading this right?). I'm really not familiar with the way wikidata interacts with wikipedia pages, but is it possible that Template:Designation somehow misinterprets the data?Robincantin (talk) 17:45, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

 Done fixed by @Deor:. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:14, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

(ec) @Robincantin: I've emended the date in the infobox. I don't understand all the details of Wikidata usage myself; but, as I understand it, Wikidata should never "override" data that is explicitly entered in a Wikipedia article, and in this case the date 1999 was explicitly entered in Template:Designation in the article. Deor (talk) 18:15, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

@Deor:So I was in error - it was manual input, I completely missed it, the template is fine. Much obliged.Robincantin (talk) 19:37, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

My title won't come out as a title but comes out as a heading.

Hello,

I am working on my school project and my title comes out as a section instead of the title. Is there a way to change it to make it a title. In the sandbox, it is already set as the title font but counts as a section in the table of contents. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yangbr (talk • contribs) 17:50, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

@Yangbr: You had the article title at the top as a section title. The name appears automatically when the article is put into namespace. I corrected it, and formatted the first mention of the title in the lede correctly as well, with three apostrophes on each side instead of two. Here are the revisions side by side. [[2]] TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:56, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Leaving page

Hello, sorry for silly question, but I can never find my page again once I have left it. I have drafted a page in the sandbox, but it needs additions (pictures etc.) and obviously I will need to visit it again. Obviously, there will need to be updates etc., and hopefully refinements from others. How do I get the page back in order to edit further? Thanks

@Proklam: Your article is here User:Proklam/sandbox. Please sign your posts with four tildes ~~~~ so we know who you are. Cheers. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:11, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

@Proklam: A quick shortcut to anything you've been working on is Contributions in the upper right of your page (next to "Log out"). Click that to see all of your contributions and click any of those to go directly to that page. Schazjmd (talk) 18:16, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, Schazjmd and Tim Proklam (talk) 18:55, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Publishing an article

Hello, Once I have finished the draft, how do I submit the article for publishing?

7light77light7 (talk) 18:16, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

7light7 I have placed a template at the top of the page that has a submit button. You can use that to submit it for review. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 19:30, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Doubt

can i create a Wikipedia about a Youtuber his life story and behind the scenes. Prakash Killer (talk) 18:42, 19 March 2019 (UTC)Prakash Killer

Hello Prakash Killer. Welcome to the Teahouse. Creating a new article about someone is the hardest thing to achieve here, especially for an inexperienced editor. We judge whether or not to accept an article based upon Notability. We only care what other independent, reliable sources have said (in some depth) about that person. We don't care what they or their followers say about themselves. Your soon-to-be-deleted user page suggests you are trying to promote yourself or your YouTube friends here. That is a bad idea as you will have a clear Conflict of Interest and are likely to be unable to write in a neutral, even-handed manner about the topic. You would need to declare your involvement according to our policy written down at WP:COI. You subject would have to meet our criteria laid out at WP:NBIO. If you can't find sources to support the claim of notability, you will have no chance, I'm afraid. So that's the thing to look for first... ... have they been covered in the news media, in books or magazine? Having now got those references to hand, you should only use their content to create an article, leaving out all your own personal knowledge or opinions. Do read Wikipedia: Your First Article and try out The Wikipedia Experience interactive tour, before ever considering drafting a new article at Articles for Creation and then submitting it for review. Hope this helps a bit. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 19:38, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Am I allowed to use 'Dr.' on a page for others who are not the subject of the page?

I understand that the title 'Dr.' should not be used unless the person is known best by that name (i.e Dr. Phil). However, I am currently editing an article about a researcher. The researcher has received a lot of training from other researchers in the field, and they are mentioned in the article (to give credibility on her training and her prominence in her field). I would like to use Dr. for the other researchers she has worked with in the past (there are a few) and they do not have their own wikipedia pages (so I cannot add a wiki link to their full name). Would it be more appropriate to use Dr. or use PhD following the researcher's name? (as mentioned in MOS:DOCTOR that you can use it if there needs to be clarification on their qualifications for the article). Thank you Kgywu (talk) 19:58, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

I volunteered at the Art + Feminism Wikipedia and want to write an accurate article and need statistics about Wiki I can't seem to find.

"91% of Wikipedia editors identify as White and 77% identify as men" http://blacklunchtable.com/wikipedia/ I'm trying to discover the following a) approximately how many Wiki biographical entries are about women? b) How many Wiki biographical entries are about people of color? Is there a way to get that information? The gender and color identification of editors should not relate to the number of entries about women or people of color or white men.

The cultural myth that white men do "it" (everything, anything) better relies on the plethora of biographies we have about white men.

I humbly submit this - I don't know if we can get an answer or an approximation, or a "you should look..." NOTE: I can't see where to 'thank' Nick Moyes for getting back to me immediately - there appears to be a place to thank editors for their citations contributions, but not for their input. Do we not thank one another for input, or is this considered extraneous? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cityfolk (talk • contribs) 12:21, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

I think we're all trying to round out the global encyclopedia Wiki has become.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Cityfolk (talk • contribs) I think we're all trying to round out the global encyclopedia Wiki has become.

Hello, Cityfolk and welcome to the Teahouse. I presume there's just one of you, not a whole town-load? I hope you enjoyed your Editathon; they're fun, aren't they? I got rather confused by the second half of your post, but to attempt to help you source data, you could try: WP:STATS and especially WP:EDITORS and Wikipedia:Who writes Wikipedia?. These pages are full of links to other useful pages, but check the sources and especially the dates as some stats are now quite old. You could seek up-to-date stats on numbers of articles about men versus women at The Women in Red Project, and they may have ideas on determining other types of article ratios. Offhand, I can't think how one would get an article ratio of "white:people of colour" as this would require some sort of categorisation that separates the two. I'm not really into biographies that much, but don't think I've seen such blatant categorisation used in that way. There are of course numerous categories which do help you get an understanding of some ethnicity of article subjects, but I'm not confident you will be able to find what you seek. If someone's done it, I'm sure a good Google would reveal some useful links for you. Hope this helps a bit. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 21:15, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Why a ban on NoDerivs?

I wanted to upload a flickr image, but the Flickr guided uploader says you cannot use photos with the "NoDerivs" attribute. I'm curious as to the reasoning behind it. I understand wikipedians sometimes want to crop things, but other than that, I don't see what else they'd want to do to an image. Seems to me that Wikipedia could just have a NoDerivs-images category where images cannot be altered, similar to how there's the "non-free" images category. GeekInParadise (talk) 21:42, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

@GeekInParadise, the aim of Wikipedia is to produce a free (i.e. free from restrictions and fully reusable) source of information. Anything we publish needs to be reusable for any purpose, including commercial use and modification in any way. Because we need to be fully re-usable, except in a few very limited circumstances where fair use applies, we can't publish anything that has any kind of restriction on re-use. ‑ Iridescent 22:15, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

making wiki page for artist

need someone to inform me on how to make a wiki page for my music — Preceding unsigned comment added by THEGENARAL (talk • contribs) 22:37, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

@THEGENARAL: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. In short, you should not attempt to write about yourself or your music. You seem to misunderstand the purpose of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not social media for people to tell the world about themselves, or for musicians to tell the world about their music. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, which is only interested in what independent reliable sources state about article subjects that meet Wikipedia's special definition of notability. For musicians, that is written at WP:BAND. You would need to meet one of the listed criteria there to merit an article here; and if you do, you shouldn't be the one to write it. Please read the autobiography policy; autobiographies are highly discouraged. If you truly merit an article, someone independent will eventually take note of you and write about you. Also keep in mind that a Wikipedia article is not necessarily desirable; anything good or bad can be in an article about you as long as it appears in an independent reliable source. 331dot (talk) 22:46, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

First time publishing an article.

Hello,

It is my first time publishing an article. It probably has a lot of mistakes. What happens after I publish? How long will it take for contributors to review and give feedback?

My current draft for the article is in sandbox mode. How do I know when it is ready?

Thanks for the advice! — Preceding unsigned comment added by BiP Messenger (talk • contribs) 22:51, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

@BiP Messenger: Please could you supply a title or a link to the page you are referring to? I can see no article in your sandbox. Many thanks, Nick Moyes (talk) 01:47, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Nick Moyes I haven't published anything yet, so I'm not sure if my page is public-facing. Is there an easy and direct way to contact you? I would really appreciate the help. Thanks!

@BiP Messenger: Note that the blue button marked "publish changes" simply is eqivalent to "save changes"; clicking it only saves what you did and does not "publish" anything to Wikipedia(if creating a draft). 331dot (talk) 14:23, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

@BiP Messenger: Your username seems to be that of an app; if that's the case, you will need to change your username at either Special:GlobalRenameRequest or WP:CHUS. 331dot (talk) 14:25, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

331dot Thanks for the advice. I see "Publish Page" on Sandbox mode, but no "Publish Changes". If I change my username, the page I'd like to publish won't be affected, right? Is there a way to DM you? Maybe would be easier to chat?

Changing your username will transfer your edit history to your new username and will not affect anything you have edited. You can communicate directly with me on my user talk page, but as a matter of policy I prefer to conduct almost all Wikipedia related business on site, for transparency. I don't know what "sandbox mode" is referring to but again, "publish" only means "save". It's difficult to help you with your draft(even before you submit it for a formal review) if we cannot see it, so you will need to save what you have done for us to help. If you somehow accidentally "publish" the page as a non-draft article, I can move it back to draft space for you. 331dot (talk) 14:35, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Feedback - Tissue Engineering of Heart Valves

Hello! This is my first wikipedia article, and I am just about ready to move my article (Tissue Engineering of Heart Valves) from my sandbox to the main space and was wondering if anyone could help give me any useful feedback on content, structure, organization, etc?

Here is my sandbox link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Carokim

Thank you so much!— Preceding unsigned comment added by Carokim (talk • contribs)

Hello, Carokim, welcome to the Teahouse. My first impression is "Wow!" - you appear to have done a good job (albeit in a topic I know zilch about). So, forgetting the content (which, to be frank is really the key thing!), my pedantic minds says:

• The draft is missing the absolutely essential WP:LEAD
• Fix all the faulty dates in your citations (- they're all showing red)
• Only use capital letters in sub-headings for the first word and for proper nouns

I apologise for it now being so late I've not actually read the draft or checked the references, but I hope this starts you off. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:21, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Article Tissue engineering of heart valves now in MainSpace. Congratulations on a remarkable effort at a first article. I hope your teacher acknowledges the extraordinary accomplishment. I added last sentence to lead, clarifying not yet in human trials, and reworded Research to reflect same. If I am wrong, fix that. At the article's Talk I gave it a C-class ranking. Not a high priority, but references are a mix of styles that therefore go to either the PubMed abstract or to the journals' webpages. (I prefer PubMed.) P.S. When you comment here or on Talk pages, sign your comments by typing four of ~ at the end. David notMD (talk) 11:17, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Creating Articles

So let's say I want to create an article called "Hytale". When I search Hytale in the search bar, it redirects me to the "Hytale" section on another page, which stops me from being able to create the article. How do I create the article about Hytale then? This issue has happened other times, too. When I wanted to create an article called "Mineplex", it redirected me to Minecraft, so I wasn't able to create it. UnsignificantEditor (talk) 23:32, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello, UnsignificantEditor. Thanks for your question, and welcome to the Teahouse. If you can demonstrate that a name is definitely notable (according to Wikipedia's use of the word), you may 'unredirect' that page and use it for your new article, probably adding a WP:HATNOTE to both new and existing article to help users understands the differences and go quickly to the right article.

So, let's take "Mineplex" as our example. Currently, Mineplex redirects to Minecraft, yet there is not one single mention of the word 'Mineplex' within that article. I find that odd. Yet, on further investigation, I found this deletion discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mineplex which tells me that the Wikipedia community doesn't think the topic of 'Mineplx', as then described, was notable. They voted to redirect this page to the Minecraft page. If your use of the word "Mineplex" is completely different from the one discussed there, then you may have a case for using that page for your new article (on the basis that it meets our 'Notability' criteria. But, if all you want to do is resurrect that separate article, you would need to provide and insert into that article new references to independent, reliable sources to show that the original deletion/merge decision was wrongly concluded. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 00:02, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello, UnsignificantEditor. In principle it is possible for you to get to the redirection page and edit it to make it an article. But I would advise nearly anybody contemplating creating a new article not to create the article directly in main space (which you would be doing) but to create a draft using the articles for creation process. If you do that, then when you submit it for review and it is accepted, the accepting reviewer will move it to the most appropriate name, and sort out things like existing redirects. --ColinFine (talk) 00:14, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

help

what do i do?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dreamlover8 (talk • contribs) 23:46, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

@Dreamlover8: None of us are mindreaders here. Give us a clue what you need help with, please? Nick Moyes (talk) 00:09, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

don't know what to doDreamlover8 (talk) 00:10, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

@Dreamlover8: You seem to have gotten the hang of reverting vandalism. Are you looking for helping improving articles in other ways?--Breawycker (talk to me!) 00:12, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Need to learn all the features of wikipedia Dreamlover8 (talk) 00:13, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

@Dreamlover8: I'm sorry I'm still confused about what you're referring to? Do you mean stuff like Twinkle and Huggle? Or what templates mean? Or something different?--Breawycker (talk to me!) 00:17, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Where do i access twinkle Dreamlover8 (talk) 00:18, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

""Need to learn all the features of wikipedia" Nine years later, and so do I! Take it easy my friend. You can activate Twinkle in the 'Gadgets' section at Special:Preferences. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:27, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

@Dreamlover8: Ah I'm sorry! I should have been more specific. Twinkle is a gadget that can only be used when you become "autoconfirmed. To become autoconfirmed, you must have 10 edits (which you have 23) and your account must be more than four days old. You can request being confirmed here but such requests are rarely approved. Once you become autoconfirmed (Special:Preferences shows what your user rights are), you can go to here to enable Twinkle. Does that answer your question?--Breawycker (talk to me!) 00:31, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

@Dreamlover8: You might enjoy The Wikipedia Adventure, a guided introduction to editing Wikipedia. Schazjmd (talk) 00:35, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Breawycker so I can't use twinkle now? dangit Dreamlover8 (talk) 02:51, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Need advises or suggestions on the AFC got denied recently

Hi Teahouse, thanks for giving us a place to ask questions first of all! I'm looking for help to improve my company page Hubb. I'm trying to be as neutral as possible and only added the information that's from 3rd party sites for citations. However the comments still think it's not follow the guideline. Any tips, suggestions, or directions to go to will be super appreciated!

HHW (talk) 03:19, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Henhuawang. Your draft includes the following language: "provides solutions to automate the complex workflows and tasks required to collect, manage, and market content". There is absolutely zero useful encyclopedic content in those 16 empty words. That style of writing should be relegated to promotional brochures although I doubt that those anodyne, uninformative words would be effective even in a company pamphlet or on a company website. Read and study about our core content policy, the neutral point of view, and ruthlessly eliminate every trace of promotional or empty language from your draft. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:46, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Submitting article for review

How do I submit a draft to be reviewed on mobile? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vitou012 (talk • contribs) 07:03, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Vitou012. Welcome to the Teahouse. Take a look at Draft:Paulo Victor Soares - there should now be a blue 'submit' button visible for you to send it to review. Do make sure this person meets WP:NSOCCER. It is an incredibly short page for an encyclopaedia. Is there no more information for this so-called 'notable' person available? Nick Moyes (talk) 10:25, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Soundwalk Collective

Dear Teahouse,

I would like to clean up a page. Soundwalk Collective has got two banners and I believe it is because editors believed me to have a personal connection with the subject. I have declared my lack of connection to subject on my user page. Please can you let me know how to proceed in cleaning the page, how the process works? Thank you! Sonnenalle44 (talk) 11:45, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi Sonnenalle44, welcome to the Teahouse. It sounds like your name should now be removed from the displayed list of alleged WP:COI editors. But you might just want to think about rewording your userpage statement which says: :I would like to declare my impersonal relationship with the Collective and it's founder Stephan Crasneanscki. It's a bit ambiguous, but I'm guessing you really mean you wish to declare no personal or professional relationship with them? Nick Moyes (talk) 12:44, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi Nick Moyes Yes, thank you, I've changed the wording. Do you know how I can clean up the mess on Soundwalk Collective's page? Sonnenalle44 (talk) 13:57, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

@Sonnenalle44:  Done I've also removed the multiple external links which I think are unnecessary and too promotional. Could you fix he 'Background' section? It's a bit of a wall of unreadable text. Try splitting it up to tease out notability and add references or removed unreferenced content. The lead should say more clearly why this subject is notable. i.e. specify one or more significant awards that can be expanded upon later, but avoid using phrases like "award-winning", which means nothing. Hope this helps, Nick Moyes (talk) 15:19, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Updating Wiki page for my mother, Jill Melford, Actress. (deceased)

If I were to supply information can someone please help update the wiki page for Jill Melford? She died last year on the 21st February 2018. She was born in 1931 not 1934 as thepeerage website wrongly suggests (I have both her birth and death certificates) and her work over the years was far more prolific than suggested as can be seen on IMDB. I am not a coding expert and have tried to edit the page to be more accurate but I throw my hands up now and hopefully someone to do with this can help. Best Alexander Leon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajl12no (talk • contribs) 14:08, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

@Ajl12no: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm sorry for your loss and sorry that you are having difficulty. Your initial edit to the article about your mother was reverted because it was not sourced to a reliable source. While I'm sure people believe what you say, we can't just take your word for something, as any user can claim anything here without a source. I see that you have already posted on the article talk page, that is the correct thing to do. Do you have an obituary for your mother that was published in a newspaper? That would be sufficient to establish her date of birth and date of death. 331dot (talk) 14:17, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi there 331dot and thank you for the prompt response and kind words. The times wouldn't do an obit because there was nothing on Wiki, which was somewhat upsetting seeing as Wiki is so woefully short of info in this instance, and sadly seems now to be the benchmark for newspapers. I am merely trying to at least get the right information on Wiki albeit too late now for a proper obituary. IMDB has a good source of the work done by my mum and I can provide both birth and death certificates. Mum being born of a different era always made herself younger for her profession, hence the 1934 birth on thepeerage page! Are you able to at least update my mother's work from IMDB in the meantime? Thank you again. BTW her middle name is/was Irene! Kind regards ajl12no — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajl12no (talk • contribs) 16:13, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

@Ajl12no: IMDB is not considered a reliable source by Wikipedia as it is user-editable. However, the only source you need that she appeared in a production is the production itself, as it can be viewed to confirm her involvement. They just need to be added to the article. I'd like to invite other editors to comment on this discussion as for what to do to be able to source a date of death. I don't know if you could just upload an image of the death certificate or not- or if it is a publicly available document. 331dot (talk) 16:20, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Your local newspaper would not run an obituary because it was not mentioned on Wikipedia? That seems odd to me; my local newspaper runs death notices for free and paid obituaries of anyone that will pay for them. 331dot (talk) 16:21, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Birth and death certificates are publicly available as far as I am aware. The theatrical agents all use IMDB and the productions are easily verifiable if someone has the time and inclination to sit and watch all of them! I don't have a local newspaper in Chelsea, London and the Times (UK) was approached with the chance to write an obit and felt after looking at Wiki there was not enough to write. Her widower didn't pay or bother to put a mention in the smaller announcements. This digital world we now live in is a pain and as such, I am now on the verge of giving up on this, as the whole affair now seems pointless and if someone is faintly interested they can always ring me up! Why do I not count as a verifiable source; I lived with her for 53 years and can prove my identity if required... If we leave her alive on this site she'll end up being the longest living human and break all records...digitally anyway! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajl12no (talk • contribs) 16:41, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Ajl12no: I can imagine how frustrating this must be for you, especially when other reliable sources such as this Encyclopaedia of Film and this entry from the National Portrait Gallery also use the date 1934. Might I respectfully suggest you take advantage of the link provided on that form to update the NPG of your mother's birth details, and even offer to send them a copy of the birth certificate as confirmation, if they require it? Once we see details published on reputable websites, we can use them. Sadly, we have to rely on such (usually) reliable sources as we would otherwise be inundated with false information if we allowed everyone to simply add 'stuff they happen to know' - even if it is absolutely correct, as here. Individual paper archives can't be checked by users, so we have to ignore them unless reliably published by someone. Bear in mind that Wikipedia doesn't even regard itself as a 'reliable source'. Just like imdb.com, it is user-edited, and anyone can add anything there. We do our best to weed out unsubstantiated statements on Wikipedia, and we try not to rely on other websites like imdb that don't have any editorial oversight. Whilst I could find no obituary online, do bear in mind that we are happy to use references to printed news sources and books. Oh, and please be careful if editing the article itself (see WP:COI), and only add content that you can show is reliably sourced. Someone has made quite a mess of adding unsourced content which has damaged the page appearance. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 16:44, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

I would add, as Nick ably did above- that I absolutely believe what you say. However, please try to understand that on the internet and here in particular, anyone can claim to know anything about anyone. We need to be able to check what is claimed. Please also understand that an important principle of Wikipedia is verifiability. You aren't going to be around forever to call up on the phone and ask to confirm the information given. It needs to be documented somewhere. I get that is probably incredibly frustrating, and I again state I am sorry. 331dot (talk) 16:48, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

I cleaned out the mess that Nick noted, and also removed the unsourced CV material. Nick's advice about working with the National Portrait Gallery to update their website is the best way to go to get that info corrected. 331's advice on the verifiability of her appearances in various productions is correct, but omitted a very salient point. Simply being verifiable does not make content encyclopedic. For a highly noted performer, likely every production they ever appeared in is encyclopedic, right down to school productions that can be verified. For a relatively minor performer however, we should only list productions where she is mentioned in reviews from respected sources, and verify that content to the review. This isn't LinkedIn. Our content is based on what reliable secondary sources have noted. If a topic is discussed in secondary sources, then you can use primary sources to add color. If you want a complete record of your mom's career published, you'll need to either convince or commission an author to write a book (or newspaper article) on her. I appreciate your motivation, Ajl12no, and you have my honest sympathy for your loss. None of that however has any bearing on the questions at hand, and I hope you can appreciate that. Article in question is Jill Melford. John from Idegon (talk) 17:08, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Looking for template to invite an editor into a discussion

Good morning, Wikipedians. I remember seeing somewhere a template for inviting an editor into a discussion, however I can't find it now. I'd greatly appreciate any assistance in locating it. Thank you. GGSloth (talk) 14:42, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

@GGSloth: You could try a ping with a text of your choosing. Lectonar (talk) 14:50, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

{{Please see}} can be used on user talk pages. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:57, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Hah! "Please see" -- That's the one I saw! Many thanks to you both. :) GGSloth (talk) 15:59, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

uploading a photo to a website

I am in a Chinese finger trap with Wikimedia. I attempted to upload a photograph of a person, claiming ownership, but it was flagged for copyright reasons that confused me. I had someone else attempt to do it, claiming a different owner, same photo. Although my attempt was flagged, citing copyright problems, his was flagged because I'd claimed ownership. I would sorely like to change the image on a person's wikipedia page to a better image, especially since she's about to be given a major honor and her current photo is terrible, but don't know how to proceed. I'd like to resolve this as quickly as humanly possible. I am willing to relinquish ownership (this is for a university professor and I work at the university) of the image (I'd claimed ownership because I work in the university communications department and thought it would just be most efficient for me to claim to own the photo). Now Im in a quandary: I want the university to own it and get that on her site before the awards ceremony. HELP please. I can't remember what the copyright issues were, and can't find the archived string of comments from those who flagged the image. Kgberg (talk) 17:33, 20 March 2019 (UTC)