Wikipedia:Teahouse

Eman235, a Teahouse host

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

Ask a question

Question forumMeet your hostsArticles to improveBecome a host

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

Help Wikipedia

(Please remember to sign your posts on talk pages by typing four keyboard tildes like this: ~~~~. Or, you can use the [ reply ] button, which automatically signs posts.)

Help - blocked on another Wikipedia

I'm sorry if this is the wrong place do ask this, but I need some help right now. My account on the Dutch Wikipedia was automatically blocked because it was caught using an open proxy – my IP is dynamic and shared with other people, so this happens sometimes.

Since this block makes me unable to log in or edit any pages there, including my own talk page, there is no way I can contact the nl-wiki admins. Could someone please copy this message to them so they can verify my IP and possibly unblock me?

In case they need to know this, my IP is 2804:14c:110:8469:a586:cf7a:cdb5:f64 - Munmula (talk), second account of Alumnum 08:35, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Your chances to find an nlwiki admin in the enwiki teahouse aren't good, this should be a known issue on Meta, maybe ask on m:Project:Babylon—their idea of a Village Pump—how that's handled. –84.46.52.84 (talk) 13:17, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

I've asked over at nl:Wikipedia:De kroeg, which is their Village Pump. Maybe they can help here. Victor Schmidt (talk) 18:03, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

The IPv6-range, the IPv6 is in, is blocked because it's a VPN. And I can't give the user a IP block excempt, because the accounts wasn't registered yet on nlwiki. This is me (mbch331) (Questions/Remarks/Complaints etc.) 18:20, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

I used to edit under my old account User:Alumnum. But something is wrong. I cannot log in there, create a new account, or anything. - Munmula (talk), second account of Alumnum 21:42, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

You may ask the admins a password reset and then create a SUL-account on Meta. #HTH Klaas `Z4␟` V 08:45, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

What would that solve? --bdijkstra (talk) 11:05, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Then Munmula can login everywhere (again). Klaas `Z4␟` V 17:24, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

An account gets registered on a local wiki, the first time you log in. But the rules to be able to do that are the same whether you're a completely new user or an existing SUL user that doesn't exist on the local wiki. SUL only prevents others on locally registering an account that already exists on another wiki. We can make it possible for the account Alumnum to edit on nlwiki. This is me (mbch331) (Questions/Remarks/Complaints etc.) 20:57, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you all for your help. Sadly I cannot log into that account anymore since I've lost its password recently (this is why I created another account), but even when I still used the Alumnum account, I was already having open-proxy problems in nl-wiki. This happened here in en-wiki too a couple of times (most recent example). Even if there was an exemption for my IP, it would eventually change again and the new IP could be targeted again. - Munmula (talk), second account of Alumnum 02:49, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

As Munmula is not able to log in on the Dutch Wikipedia because his IP is locked there and the local moderator Mbch331 is not able to give an exemption as Munmula didn't make any edit yet, how about lifting the rangeblock for a short period (or forever), indicated by Munmula, so Munmula can make one or more edits and be given an exemption? RonnieV (talk) 17:42, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

I've allowed account creation and logged in edits from that range temporarily so you can create your local account. Someone can then give your account an ip block exempt, which should allow you to edit from that range without a problem. Afterwards the range will be closed again. Sumurai8 (talk) 10:32, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Samurai8 and all others. As the issue is now solved, this section can be archived. - Munmula (talk), second account of Alumnum 11:33, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Are vs Is

In a recent discussion about a metallic band, I found it odd that the grammar stated: "The Mentally Ill were a punk band". I thought that the band is singular, while the members are plural? i.e. The Kingston Trio: "... is an American folk and pop music group." If you take away the "name" and merely refer to the actual organization for what it is - "band"; one would not say: "The band were ..." but "The band is ...". The Juilliard String Quartet is a classical music string quartet; not "are" a classical music string quartet - regardless of the name. Also, "Vienna Choir Boys is a choir of boy sopranos" not "are". Pentatonix is an American a cappella group in its lede. Why are certain bands like The Who described on WP in the lede as: "The Who are an English rock band" and not "The Who is an English rock band"; like "Nirvana was an American rock band"? This: "Fleetwood Mac are a British-American rock band" just does not sound right. Doesn't the same principles apply? Curious. Thanks in advance. Maineartists (talk) 23:23, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Apparently it's a British construction of long standing ("The Beatles are...") and seems to be preserved against American logical grammar. Dbfirs 23:39, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

They also pronounce aluminum: "aluminium". That doesn't make it right. Are these articles all written only by British WP editors? Maineartists (talk) 23:44, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Please take a look at MOS:ENGVAR and MOS:TIES, but in general Wikipedia doesn't have one preferred national variety of English and generally the style chosen by the first major contributor or through consensus agreed to upon on the article's tall page is the one followed per WP:RETAIN. Same goes for dates, citation style and many other things. You can always be WP:BOLD and change things you think should be change, but you might want to check the article history or its talk page (including the archives) to see whether it's something which has been discussed before. In addition, lots of editors add Wikipedia:Editnotices like {{Use British English}}, {{Use American English}}, etc. (see Category:Use English templates for some more examples ), but whether these were just added by some random editor or based upon some consensus sometimes takes a little digging to figure out. Regardless of which format/variety is used, WP:ARTCON (at least within the particular article and then perhaps to some degree with respect to other similar articles) should be one of the main things considered since mixing multiple formats/varieties of English is not a good idea. Cleaning up for the sake of consistency is probably not going to be much of an issue, but completing changing from one variety of English to another or one citation style to another often turns out to be even if done with the best of intentions. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:26, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Maineartists: errm, actually, we spell it "aluminium" and we also pronounce it "aluminium", too. We think that makes it right. But, if you really want to pick on our pronunciation, you'd be better off having a go at us for things like this. I can't offer any definitive explanation for the vagaries of the English language, but certain is/are combinations sound right, whilst others sound wrong. This sounds right to me: 'The Beatles' is the name given to a group of four lads from Liverpool who formed a popular beat combo in the 1960s. The Beatles (meaning the four lads) were the top-selling artists in the 1970s... That's my two penn'orth, anyway. Cheers, Nick Moyes (talk) 00:48, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Fascinating: Aluminum or Aluminium I learned something new today! Thanks! As for the other revelation as to "sound" versus correct terminology: I agree. In most cases, however, I do not believe it is being properly used here at WP: considering The Backstreet Boys has the same exact "sounds" (lede: Backstreet Boys is an American boy band) while your The Beatles has: The Beatles were an English rock band. Maineartists (talk) 01:59, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Our Manual of style has the valid option: "England are playing Germany", and this plural usage seems to be more common in articles on British bands. I recall a discussion some time ago, but I can't find it. Dbfirs 02:12, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

As someone put it somewhere recently, this is English Wikipedia, not American Wikipedia, so we over here in the U.S. have to live with the fact that most of the world speaks (or is it speak?) a variant of English that is different from ours. If it's consistent within an article with strong MOS:TIES to other countries, it's just something you get used to after a while. Now writing in those articles can be somewhat more challenging – it's easier to remember a valid difference in usage when you see it than it is to write with it. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 06:13, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

As a Brit, I find it annoying that this nonsense is blamed on us. I would say "Pink Floyd is a group"; and that is how I usually hear it said. Some people try to justify "are" by using "The Beatles" as an example; admittedly, I sometimes hear fellow Brits say "The Beatles are a group". But I don't believe that people in Britain generally treat singular group names as plurals. Maproom (talk) 09:54, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Rather to my surprise, The GloWbE corpus shows "The Beatles are/were" outnumbering "The Beatles is/was" not only in British sources (153:40) but also in US sources (145:20). But this may be an oddity of the Beatles, or because "Beatles" is plural anyway. Radiohead shows the pattern I expected: are/were:is/was = 45:15 (UK) 7:15 (US). Aerosmith shows 11:4 (UK), 4:10 (US). (Struggling to find other bands which are 1) well-known enough to appear in the corpus 2) with a name not appearing plural, and 3) not a word or phrase which might turn up in other contexts in the corpus.) --ColinFine (talk) 10:51, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

ColinFine: try Google ngrams. Maproom (talk) 18:01, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

ColinFine:Or this for The Who. Nick Moyes (talk) 01:58, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions of The Who, Maproom, and Metallica Nick Moyes, which give figures of 26:43 (UK), 10:38 (US); and 23:6 (UK), 7:23 (US) respectively in GloWbE. Metallica strongly shows the pattern I expected, but The Who doesn't. Not sure why you pointed me at Ngrams which a) is only books, and b) doesn't readily show the national differences which were my point. --ColinFine (talk) 10:38, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for this thorough discussion. I wonder if there is another forum to bring this to that might result in some form of policy regarding grammar. I say this because recently I saw a social media post stating: "The Two Popes" is on Netflix. Similarly, watching a Christmas episode of Two Fat Ladies, the article's lede states: "Two Fat Ladies is a BBC2 television cooking programme". There is absolutely nothing different in this statement than that of a band. Re: "The Beatles" (which seems to be the root of all evil in this), one does not say: "Roger Daltrey is a Who" like "Paul McCartney is a Beatle" so why should the lede state: "The Who are an English rock band"? Nick Carter may be a Backstreet Boy; but Justin Timberlake is not an NSYNC. Maineartists (talk) 02:13, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

This is a matter of variation between American English, which normally treats band names as singular, and British English, which normally (but not always) treats band names as plural. Band names and similar group names are plural collective nouns. Best practice is to use the forms appropriate to the national connection of the topic. In this particular case, The Mentally Ill was an American band, so should be referred to in the singular, using standard American usage, as I have done here and in the article. The great Elvis Costello played around with this distinction in his masterpiece Oliver's Army, where he writes:

"Oliver's army is here to stay

Oliver's army are on their way

And I would rather be anywhere else

But here today"

Editors dealing with these distinctions should base their decisions on the wise advice in the Manual of Style at National varieties of English and the subsection called "Strong national ties to a topic". Avoid counterproductive battles about such stylistic variations. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:39, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

That sounds advisable and reasonable in this case. I see that you have begun to administer your understanding of the matter already - re: The Mentally Ill: Revision History. Shall we as WP editors take this discussion without proper consensus to do the same: The Mamas and the Papas? I'm not saying this should be an across the board crusade; but it would be nice to have this as a throw-back in the event someone questions an edit. Thanks. Maineartists (talk) 13:02, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

It's not limited to bands – pretty much any organization seems to be treated as a plural, as if to recognize the people comprising it as the subject, not the organizational entity itself. E.g., "Selfridges have taken a decision to something_about_teapots_and_cricket." —[AlanM1(talk)]— 12:16, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Follow-up to Draft Page improving references

Hello - I do not understand why my page cannot be published - it is very short bio and has all the necessary details. I made changes as requested previously in the teahouse. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FFeldspar (talk • contribs) 02:36, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi FFeldspar. It looks like Draft:Colin Grubb (if that's draft your referring to) is still awaiting an AfC review; so, although it hasn't been approved, it also hasn't been declined. There tends to be lots of drafts awaiting review and only so many AfC reviewers doing the reviewing; so, you might just have to wait a bit longer. The AfC template on the draft's page currently says that more than 3,700 drafts awaiting review and that it could take up to four months to review them all. I'm not sure where your draft is currently in the queue of those awaiting review, but perhaps you won't have to wait too much longer. You can still work on the draft why your waiting for it to be reviewed and you might want to take a look at WP:SURNAME and WP:PUFF as well as WP:BLPSOURCES and WP:BLPNAMES for some possible issues that I noticed about the draft after a quick look at it. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:01, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello, FFeldspar. If I was reviewing Draft:Colin Grubb right now, I would not accept it. The draft completely lacks references to significant coverage of Grubb in independent reliable sources. Independent sources are mandatory to establish notability, and links to the websites of the show business projects that Grubb has been involved with are of no value in establishing notability. Have you studied Your first article? If not, I recommend it highly. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:22, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

It's not actually a queue - reviewers pick what they want to review from the list in no particular order (although collectively, they try to not let any get too old). While waiting, you might consider creating sections. David notMD (talk) 11:04, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Declined 20 December for weak referencing. David notMD (talk) 18:13, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Anna Barbara Speckner

Any editors have a free moment to gloss over this article: Anna Barbara Speckner translated from the German Wiki? Thanks in advance! Maineartists (talk) 00:40, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

@Maineartists: I tidied up a bit, and learned something new: {{Draft categories}}. I can't see the content of the BMLO source without allowing scripts, which I'm too tired to look at carefully. Does it cite the place/date of her death? (I added it as a cite for the last sentence in the Life section.) Also, DMY dates would seem more appropriate per MOS:TIES, no? —[AlanM1(talk)]— 12:06, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Notable issues

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

This is my draft, it was un accepted by the reviewer. I didn't understand why is the section (About plays) is not notable. I was referenced by articles reviews. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manar Wehbe (talk • contribs) 11:25, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Last edit said the following "10:21, 21 December 2019‎ MurielMary talk contribs‎ 18,179 bytes +182‎ Declining submission: Suggest the sections on the plays are removed and this article is published as a biography only. If the plays are notable in themselves, could create an article for each play. (AFCH 0.9.1) undo" Not sure on logic itself or notability etc. may just need a tidy up, link to other wikis, and categorizing differently? Hope this may help

121.99.108.78 (talk) 11:52, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello, IP editor, and welcome to the Teahouse. Th answer is that the article is meant to be about a notable person, not their works, whereas you have branched off and went into great depth about each play what they wrote. You can read more about that issue at Wikipedia:Coatrack articles, and hopefully understand why that amount of content is not needed. It's equivalent to an article about an author who published 50 books having a massive article about the plotline and writing history of each of those books in an article about them. A balance needs to be struck, and unfortunately you went slightly too far the wrong way in your enthusiasm. But enthusiasm is a great attribute! I do hope this helps a bit. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 12:01, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

hello! I understand this, but the director is nothing without their plays..should I do sub articles for the plays? I have the full articles and reviews about them, and they are quite notable in my country. Why cant we combine them in one article? and If I deleted that section(about plays) and submitted it only biography is it easy to write another 6 articles for the plays? or should I just summarize the about plays section and write a short synopsis for each? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manar Wehbe (talk • contribs) 22:54, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

I suggest one thing at a time, and only including a couple of sentences about each play. Focus on what reliable sources have written about the playwrite. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 23:45, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

What are Portals and why are editors requesting moves one at a time when the general "move all Portals" failed consensus?

My view is a portal is an entry point, to a subject or area of interest, they are also an entry point for potentially new editors or registered users to engage, so should cater towards them almost exclusively.

The above should dictate that no internal wiki move request, WP redirects etc. are present, they should look clean and be immediately engaging.

Unfortunately, many of the pages prefixed with Wikipedia, Contents and Portal are loaded with internal notices, are bland, are long-winded and not engaging at all.

While there is much work to resolve the engagement issues itself, a well defined process and a detailed expectation of what we would like to see on each section of name space could help focus and provide a consistent approach and further drive users and improvements.

So, the question remains, Why, specifically, are a few editors requesting moves one at a time? and to what end?

Thoughts

121.99.108.78 (talk) 11:43, 21 December 2019 (UTC) aka USER:The Original Filfi

IOW, too many portals are messy, lack maintenance, can be abused, and cause conflicts. Some are perfectly nice. Check out Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Portals for a current conflict. –84.46.53.208 (talk) 13:07, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict):Welcome back, IP editor! That's a difficult question to answer because there are many different perspectives on the matter, so I can only give my own perspective in an attempt to answer you. Others, I know, would not agree with me, and I confess to not having kept up with recent development. There are, however, a small number of editors who seem to have taken a strong and active dislike to Portals, believing them to be outdated and not having sufficient numbers of pageviews to justify their existence here (I would note this is never a factor we consider when it comes to Articles for Deletion).

About 2 years ago there was an RFC proposal to delete all Portals. At first, that proposal wasn't even advertised on the Portal pages themselves until someone undertook to inform everyone. After a lengthy discussion, that proposal was closed with a decision to retain them, and a desire to see Portals revitalised. A handful of editors undertook to address the concerns of the community and try to reinvigorate them. Unfortunately, one particular editor (who's activities I initially admired) went far too far and made it possible for anyone to create new portals on almost any new topic in a couple of mouse-clicks. Sadly they did just that, and made numerous pointless new portals, perhaps as a reaction against those who had argued to delete them all in the first place. The portal nay-sayers jumped on this and (I think) the creating editor was topic-banned from making new portals and many of the new Portals they created were deleted; I think that was probably fair. The nay-sayers then appeared to continued their quest to delete portals, and so a period of attrition has set in with a wide range of potentially quite useful Portals being put up for deletion, one at a time. E.g. Portal:Earthquakes (where even its original creator was in favour of deletion). Walls of words appeared to anyone arguing on one side or the other and, I suspect, some people feel rather demoralised by how this has worked out, and have stayed out of these lengthy and sometimes heated discussions. Rather like a game of Jenga, the nay-sayers seem set to inevitably manage to undermine the whole Portal structure until we all think the best thing to do is to knock it down and sweep them all away. They would counter by highlighting that everyone is welcome to monitor WP:MFD and put forward their opinions on each deletion proposal.

Personally, I would find the gradual erosion of Portals to be a great shame and a huge loss, and a goood example of the damage that an overzealous or deletionist approach can have in restricting information dissemination. Portals have always been poorly advertised within articles, yet they could do far more by offering a bright 'shop window' into a topic; more than any number of blue wikilinks in a wordy article, or a simple Category or two at the bottom of the page, can provide. As long as their content is good, and not too out-dated, they don't need to be constantly edited. After all, not all articles get that kid of attention, either, yet we don't go all out to delete them. They could certainly have been better linked from every 'See also' section within relevant articles; to me, the number of views is wholly irrelevant - it's the quality and breadth of content that is important. And I suspect this may well become a lost opportunity which few will grieve over.

I will end by explaining that I have spent nearly 35 years of my life working in the museums profession, where education and communication with an audience takes place at a wide variety of levels and in a variety of ways (permanent exhibitions, temporary displays, books, guided walks, enquiries, talks and lectures etc). Some are incredibly well attended, whilst others are less so. If we only try to engage an audience in one or two ways we limit how we get our message across. I've seen people's lives utterly changed by the tiniest spark of knowledge that fell on them in the most unusual of ways and, to me, Portals are a cost effective, yet low-traffic means of communication across a broad topic that I would hate to see us throw away, whether en masse or piecemeal. I believe there are now discussions going on about drafting proposals for wider discussion about what Portal criteria should now be, and I suspect the nay-sayers might succeed in persuading the pro-portalistas that only the broadest, highest level topics should have Portals, whereas it's actually about breadth of coverage that seems most relevant to any sort of 'topic-taster'.  Bear in mind this is just my view, and I've not been deeply involved in these discussions at all. Nick Moyes (talk) 13:53, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Nick Moyes, although I would be somewhat reticent to read your reply for a subject you were involved in unless I had a spare weekend or two, oh wait I do at the moment, so back on topic, great reply, I think you summed up past and present approaches and shall we say the Portal Police activities and motivations. Is there a way we can publicize this and get their input and hopefully agreement and have high-level portals, e.g. top level only, so that there would only be around 10-12 live portals that sparkle which have no wiki internal items etc., and they contain invites to join us, randomised featured content from each area and an engaging look and feel that entices new users and editors to participate by any of the click, edit or join options?121.99.108.78 (talk) 09:51, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Help with checking a draft page ready for publication

Hi. I have created a draft for a proposed new page: Draft:Association of Guernsey Charities As this is the first page that I have created, please could someone take a look and let me have any advice for changes - and how I then go about getting it reviewed to be included? I have read plenty of your help pages, and tried to ensure that I have included the necessary citations. Thanks, Malcolm — Preceding unsigned comment added by Malcolmwoodhams (talk • contribs) 12:19, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Malcolm, and welcome to the Teahouse. The main problem I see with the draft is the lack of independent sources. The question to ask is "where have people wholly unconnected with the Association or the Bailiwick, and unprompted by the Association, chosen to write at some length about the Association?" If there is no answer, then it is impossible to write an acceptable article about the Association at present because it is not notable. Wikipedia is basically not interested in what the subject of an article, or people associated with it, say or want to say about it: it is only interested in what independent people have published.

I am a bit concerned by your statement that this is the first page that you have created, since the messages on your talk page indicate that you previously attempted to create the same article in 2015. --ColinFine (talk) 13:25, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

I cleaned up the draft a bit, but concur that the majority (all?) of the references are not independent. David notMD (talk) 16:27, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

The Joy Machine

Hello,

My band is The Joy Machine. We are an American band originating from Champaign, IL. We would like to inquire about how to get our band listed on Wikipedia? We have performed multiple times publicly and believe it would be an honor to be a foot note at his point on Wikipedia.

Please let us know our next steps on getting listed on Wikipedia at your earliest convenience.

Best Regards,

Francis Wassom

(Redacted) www.thejoymachine.band — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cfranciswossom (talk • contribs) 13:57, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Cfranciswossom, and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm afraid that, like many people, you have a misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is. It is not a directory or social media, which has "listings". It is an encyclopaedia, which has neutral, referenced articles about notable subjects (by Wikipedia's definition, not yours). If your band gets written about by people wholly unconnected with you, and those writings get published in reliable places such as major newspapers or books from reputable publishers; or if you band meets the criteria in NMUSIC; then somebody could write an article about you. It will not be your article, it will not say what you want it to say, and it will be mostly based on what those independent people have published about you; and you will be strongly discouraged from editing it directly.

You might find it more rewarding to put your energies into promoting your band in places where promotion is appropriate. --ColinFine (talk) 14:16, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

• Note: Also asked and answered at the help desk. Eagleash (talk) 15:18, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your very thoughtful response. It is very nice of you and very helpful for a budding artist. Thank you very much and please let me know how I might send said objectively written article for consideration? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cfranciswossom (talk • contribs) 13:57, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Follow the guidance at Help:Your first article. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:22, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

@Cfranciswossom: Joy Machine was created and deleted twice (in 2008 and 2014) because the article failed to establish that the band is notable according to WP:NBAND. I don't know if this is the same band, but before you spend the time to write a complete article about yourself (and it will take time, especially for someone who hasn't written a Wikipedia article before, as it's one of the hardest things to do here), be sure that you have the several, required, independent, reliable sources to establish that you are notable. Without those, the article cannot be accepted. Also note that you have a conflict of interest, and are strongly discouraged from writing an article about your band. If you choose to, however, you must comply with WP:PAID. Please click the blue links to read the specifics of these policies. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 10:34, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Username Change

Hello, I need help changing my name. Thanks in advance for any help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mystery Bros (talk • contribs) 14:10, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

@Mystery Bros: The easiest way to change your username is to put a request in at Wikipedia:Changing_username/Simple. Just make sure you read our username policy before selecting a username and putting a request in. Interstellarity (talk) 16:21, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

@Mystery Bros: I would respectfully differ from Interstellarity in that it is probably easier to use Special:GlobalRenameRequest to have your username changed, as you only need to fill out the form. It does require providing an email address; if you don't wish to do that, or there is something unusual about your request, you should use the method Interstellarity suggests. 331dot (talk) 10:40, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

How long does it take to see my page on internet after I publish it...

How long does it take to see my page on internet after I publish it... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Domtaino (talk • contribs) 15:09, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Domtaino. Please see my response to the earlier question #The Joy Machine. Please also note that you User page is for sharing information about you as a Wikipedia editor and will never get indexed by search enginges. --ColinFine (talk) 15:52, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

@Domtaino: It does look as though you are thinking about using your userpage to write about yourself as if it were an encyclopaedia page. I'm afraid we dont permit that, so please dont be tempted. However your sandbox is there and can be used to draft articles about notable topics. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 18:44, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Elijah Mccoy

when you search for Elijah Mccoy in Google, the box that pops up with summary details has "Known for: Inventions, particularly His Vibrator". Not sure who added that but it is not correct. It should say "automatic lubricator".

I cannot figure out a way to change that section. Can anyone help?

It was a piece of vandalism in Wikipedia three days ago, fixed within a few seconds. Google will reindex the article again at some point, but Wikipedia has no control over that, or way of knowing how long it will take. --ColinFine (talk) 16:42, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

I see the vandalism as having taken place in November, but answer is the same, expectation is that in time Google will revise its description, as it draws on the Wikipedia article. David notMD (talk) 16:49, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

You're right, David notMD: my mistake. ColinFine (talk) 18:12, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

This type of thing is a well known problem with Google's Knowledge Graph. There is a feedback link in the lower right corner of the panel that allows readers to report specific problems to Google. I have done so in this case, and others should as well. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:42, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Old account

I made an account on wikipedia 7 years agoo that I have forgotten the password to, and I can't reset that password because it seems that I haven't linked the account to any email. How would I go about getting the account back? 2601:249:902:B0A0:F053:D17:710B:6338 (talk) 17:55, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Hola y bienvenidos a la casa de té. What is the username of your account? The only way to recover an account is if the account has email enabled. If there is no email enabled, then it is not possible to regain access to the account. Interstellarity (talk) 18:11, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

[Edit Conflict] Simple answer – with no email linked, you can't. The best you can do is to create a new account (with a different name), and mention on that account's User or Talk page that you previously edited as the first account: since your periods of using each account will not overlap, no question of Wikipedia:Sock puppetry should arise. If you don't care about retaining credit for what you did under the first account, you don't even need to mention it. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.199.211.222 (talk) 18:15, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

definition - massing

Massing should be in the dictionary as a verb for the process of finding the mass of an object. I would not allow my students to say they were weighing and object when using a pan balance to find the object's mass. Just as weight and mass are two very different descriptions of a given body, so the process of finding the mass of an object should be defined differently than the process of finding the weight of an object. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonathan S Harger (talk • contribs) 19:16, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

This is Wikipedia, an encyclopaedia. The verb "to mass" with your meaning of ascertaining a mass by comparing masses on a pan balance is not in general use and does not appear in Wikipedia nor in the big Oxford Dictionary. You are, of course, welcome to teach your students new meaning for old words, and I fully appreciate the point you are making to distinguish mass from weight. Dbfirs 19:56, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm surprised that this usage hasn't made it into the Oxford Dictionary, as it was in use twenty-odd years ago when I was a student. --Khajidha (talk) 21:34, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

If you can find some published examples of this use, Khajidha, and you could submit them to the OED, and add it to wiktionary yourself. But if you can't, then I would take it as a local usage which does not (so far) belong in a dictionary. I couldn't find any examples of it among 4239 instances of "massing" in the iWeb corpus - but I've only scanned a few dozen of them, I admit. --ColinFine (talk) 22:33, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

The only one I can think of off the top of my head is the Isaac Asimov essay "The Man Who Massed The Earth". http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?117086 But even that was more of an argument for adoption of the usage. I know I had instructors use it, but I have no idea if it was or is used in any texts. --Khajidha (talk) 22:12, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

• Pedantry alert: actually, most scales in current use counterbalance the Earth's graviational pull on the object with an electromagnet or a torsion spring, so they are "weighting" rather than "massing" devices. The results are given in mass units but would not match the object's mass if the operation was done (say) on the Moon without recalibration. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 13:12, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Оплата работы редактора википедии

Оплачивается ли работа редактора википедии ? Если да то каким образом происходит оплата работы редактора википедии? Каков алгоритм оплаты работы редактора википедии? Ильинских Сергей 19:17, 21 December 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.85.48.131 (talk)

This is the English Wikipedia, please ask questions in English. Это английская википедия. Пожалуйста, задавайте вопросы на английском языке. 331dot (talk) 19:21, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Additionally, we are volunteers––unfortunately, no one is paid to simply edit Wikipedia. Мы работаем волонтиром, к сожалению никто не зарабатывает деньги._signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:25, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

How to get approved a draft

I have a draft submitted for review, but I can not get it published and I am sure it accomplish with all the parameters and reliability sources--Kubanische (talk) 22:30, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi Kubanische and welcome to the Teahouse. Sorry to disappoint you, but the draft will never be approved in its present form, no matter how much canvassing you do. There is not a single WP:Reliable source provided in which the band is discussed independently. You need to read WP:Referencing for beginners and WP:NBAND. It might just be WP:Too soon for an article. Most bands just never qualify for articles. Dbfirs 22:42, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Also, Kubanische, your draft contains very subjective, promotional material such as "Portraying an exotic sonority where the intensity of the most passionate Rock together with the happiness and contagious groove of the Caribbean, these cuban musicians show that they don´t believe in established slogans, they don´t believe on fatal walls, so they project themselves to the world as the reference for the cuban metal music." Which independent published source has described their sonority as "exotic"? Which independent source has talked about "the intensity of the most passionate Rock"? Phrases like this do not belong anywhere in Wikipedia, unless they are directly quoted from a reliable published source wholly independent of the subject. --ColinFine (talk) 22:53, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

There;s no point in submitting for review if you haven't read and understood WP:Referencing for beginners. I suggest that you delete the current content, find the references first, then base a new article on your summary of independent references. Dbfirs 15:11, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Citing a source where the original video is missing but is backed up on youtube

I have a source I want to cite for a page here, and there is an original article on the news website, but the website's video player is broken and doesn't have the original video anymore. The news site also uploaded the video to youtube to their official youtube channel and it IS still located there. How would I properly cite this source, as the youtube article doesn't have all of the information like the article author, and the article doesn't have the video (which is where all of the content is)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by EliotWL (talk • contribs) 23:37, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi EliotWL. Sources cited in article have to be reliable, but they don't necessarily have to be available online. As long as they were published and are (reasonably) accessible, they can still be used as a source. Not being available online doesn't make a source any less reliable, but it might make it a bit harder to verify; however, as long as it can be verified (even for a fee), then it might be OK to use. Be prepared though to explain how the source is reliable and how it's being used in proper context when queried, particularly if the content it's used to support is controversial and possibly contradicted by other sources. One thing about YouTube and other similar sites to be careful of is whether the content uploaded to it could be in violation of someone's copyright; so, before you go link to any YouTube videos, please read WP:COPYLINK, WP:ELNEVER and WP:YOUTUBE. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:57, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

​Linking directly to the YouTube video is fine even if you found the author somewhere else. But if you want to link both to the article and the video, you could write something like: <ref>{{cite web|url=news.com|title=News}}. Video available [https://youtube.com/12345 via YouTube].</ref> – Thjarkur (talk) 02:05, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi thanks to both of you Marchjuly, and Þjarkur. I can verify that the youtube video was uploaded by the original news source directly to their official youtube so copywrite infringement isn't an issue there at least. Anyways thank you!— Preceding unsigned comment added by EliotWL (talk • contribs) 02:11, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Inline citation

I need help please with an inline citation to include a quotation to support an COI edit request.

I understand how to include a quotation inside of a template citation. For example, template citations:

I do not understand how to include a quotation inside of a named reference so that the text is available but does not show up in the body of the text. For example, named reference:<ref name="Oille-1983" />|quote=Like any museum everywhere, this was to display the middle links, the connections between person, place and time...

References

I hope this makes sense. Thank you! LorriBrown (talk) 02:51, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

​If you have already defined the full citation somewhere else, you can write <ref>Oille, 1983, p. 32: "Like any museum everywhere.."</ref>.
An alternative but lesser used solution is a nested reference: {{refn|"Like any museum everywhere.."<ref name="Oille-1983" />}}
Added formatting to your post to make the last part of your question more obvious
– Thjarkur (talk) 03:49, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

​ Thank you!! :) LorriBrown (talk) 04:18, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

British and American English

Hello Teahouse hosts. I am working on New Albion and attempting a GA designation. The reviewer noted that the dates are in British English so I tagged the Talk page with that notation. However, while I am rather familiar with both American (best) and British (good) language nuances, I am uncertain if there are changes necessary to make this purely British. So, I would like one from Britain to peruse the article. How do I go about finding such an editor? Most kind regards,Hu Nhu (talk) 05:29, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

@Hu Nhu: I am happy to give it a skim read for American English that needs changing, if that's what you're asking for? Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 09:15, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

@Hu Nhu: I've also had a quick read through, and made a few changes to British English except inside one quotation, which I didn't like to touch, though I suspect it will need changing. There were a few oddly worded sentences, especially this: Drake had friendly interactions with the Coast Miwok explored the surrounding land by foot, ..." Finally, there was an Archaeological District mentioned. I this seemed to wrongly use British English spelling in its name as it is must be an American body, surely? Please check and correct. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 10:29, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

@Hu Nhu: I also just noticed that there is inconsistency of spelling in this article. I find 13 examples of Drakes Bay, and 11 of Drake's Bay. I assume there should be a match (without the apostrophe) with the preferred spelling used on the Drakes Bay page? Nick Moyes (talk) 14:40, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes and Willbb234: Hello to both of you. I am most grateful for your kind attention. I have corrected and addressed the troublesome apostrophe matter, and you may read about it on the New Albion talk page. I was able to check the apostrophe within the two authors' quotes and found that the Wikipedia editor had correctly used them. Archaeological District is spelled the same in the article as it is in the accompanying photo of the National Historic Landmark plaque, so the spelling must be correct. I read the American and British English spelling differences and talk page HERE and even so found uncertainties.

If you would like to further advise or further edit New Albion, I would greatly appreciate it. And perhaps most importantly, which version of English do you believe should be used? I am beginning to think it is American as most recent attention to the subject seems to be American. Most kind regards. Hu Nhu (talk) 21:49, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi Hu Nhu. When in doubt, you should probably follow MOS:ENGVAR and defer to the variety used by the first major contributor. It seems like MOS:TIES/MOS:DATETIES could be argued both ways in this case; so maybe ENGVAR and MOS:DATEVAR, and in general MOS:RETAIN should be followed here. — Marchjuly (talk) 22:14, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

The spelling "archaeology" (and its derivatives) is quite common in American English. I found several articles online (including some from the National Park Service) using either or BOTH spellings. The plaque pictured in the article uses "Archaeological", so I'd say that is as close to official and definitive as we can get. --Khajidha (talk) 22:27, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

As an example, I took Archaeological Field Methods as a course at East Carolina University. Their current catalog includes that course, 3 others with "Archaeological" in the titles, and 16 more with "Archaeology" in their names. And several others with those spellings in their course descriptions.--Khajidha (talk) 22:42, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Pages for planet vs star

I asked this at WikiProject Astronomy, but it is perhaps more of a general Wikipedia question. Is there any general convention on creating pages for a planet versus one for the parent star? I'm going through and adding in information from the IAU NameExoWorlds campaign to the relevant stars/planets, and have come across a number of instances where there is a page for the planet but not for the star, e.g. HAT-P-14b and HAT-P-14 or HD 206610b and HD 206610. Where there is a page for the star but not the planet I've added the names for both on the star page (e.g. HD 131496, and where there is already a page for both I've put the information on both pages (e.g. HD 49674 and HD 49674b), but it seems slightly odd to be putting the information on just the planet page. On the other hand the pages for the planets are themselves very short and creating yet another very short page for the star seems like creating unnecessary clutter. My inclination would be to create a page for the star and move the planet information over, turning the planet page into a re-direct (I would also be inclined to merge HD 49674 and HD 49674b), but I wanted to see if there is any convention already in place. Physdragon (talk) 17:50, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

@Physdragon: Hola y bienvenidos a la casa de té. This page might help: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (astronomical objects). Interstellarity (talk) 18:07, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, that page was of some help. Physdragon (talk) 16:50, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

What to call a family of sorting algorithms?

I started Draft:Proportion extend sort describing a sorting algorithm published by J.-C. Chen in 2001, but in my research found that Eliezer A. Albacea had published essentially the same algorithm (with different parameters) under the name Leapfrogging samplesort in 1995. So I decided to rewrite the article with WP:DUE credit to the earlier author.

But now I need a name for the broader category. I thought I could use the name from Richard J. Cole's paper The Average Case Analysis of Partition Sorts, but he distinguishes "partition sorts" from "Chen's algorithm", and I want to discuss the category including Chen's and Albacea's algorithms.

Chen published a modified version of his algorithm called Symmetry Partition Sort, so perhaps I should just use "Partition Sort" sensu lato anyway?

Thanks for any suggestions; this issue is blocking my writing. 196.247.24.22 (talk) 21:15, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

I would use the name partition sort and make appropriate redirects from various plausible search terms. It seems to be the least worse option that you know of, so as long as you are open to corrections if someone comes by with a more established term, Cunningham's law applies. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 13:17, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

@Tigraan: Thank you, I was drifting to the same conclusion. It's the only substring which is in two of the names, even if Cole's "Partition sort" is least like the others. It'll just take some careful wording to distinguish the WP article's definition of the term from Cole's. I'm pretty darn sure there isn't a more established term, but I think Wikipedia editors all feel the same urges, so we'll see. 196.247.24.22 (talk) 15:25, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

COI Editing possible issue

I'd appreciate if someone neutral can check out Talk:Society of the Cincinnati#COI Editing question to ensure a possible COI edit question involving Train of Knowledge and Marlan Drive; both relatively new users I believe, is being handled in the correct fashion. I wish to stand back from this myself but wish a neutral with good COI understanding to review the situation. I will not be watching the Teahouse unless ping'ed. and at least have the current intention not to rejoin the discussion but merely observe and take on board any learnpoints (it is not impossible for me to re-engage but I ideally wish not to). Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 23:30, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Different question?

because some images of singles and albums in English Wikipedia do not appear in related searches but in the article itself where the single is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by David lima'h (talk • contribs) 00:14, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi David lima'h. It's not clear what you're asking about which means it's going to be kind of hard for a Teahouse host to help you. If you can clarify your post or re-word it in the form of a question, then it would be easier for someone to tyr and help you. In addition, if you do post here again, please try to remember to sign your talk page posts. If you're not sure how to do that please look at Wikipedia:Signatures#How to sign your posts. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:07, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

new to editing - want to learn more

hi! I am new to editing and want to learn more. How does one decide what article to work on? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarasota6 (talk • contribs) 00:43, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello @Sarasota6:. I recommend that you pick something that interests you such as sports, geography, arts, and science to fix typos on and add references to unsourced claims. Check out Wikipedia:Contributing to Wikipedia for ways to help out. Interstellarity (talk) 01:09, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

@Sarasota6: Also, the content at User:Sarasota6/sandbox/user profile of Sarasota6 that you submitted to AfC is not really appropriate for an article in mainspace. It would be acceptable on your user page User:Sarasota6 though, which is probably what you intended. I suggest you copy it there (without the {{AFC submission}}) and then blank that sandbox page. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 02:54, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

thank you all for the help! I have determined a page I would to update but not sure how to start (dont want to mess up anything) .

If I try to edit the page with the edit button would that be a bad idea or should I somehow start in the sandbox and try to add my edit that way? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarasota6 (talk • contribs) 03:03, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

If a relatively simple edit, edit directly in article. Be sure to compose an Edit summary (space at bottom) to describe what you did. It's hard to "break' an article, as if you are in error, an editor can revert your changes. No penalty for editing in good faith (although vandalism will get you warnings, and if repeated, being blocked). If you want to do something more extensive, consider copying a section of the article into your Sandbox, work on it there, then click Publish (which really means Save). This allows you to see what you have done. If satisfied, then copy from Sandbox and paste into the article. "Bold/Revert/Discuss" refers to practice of being Bold about edits, and if then Reverted, go to Talk page of the article to Discuss the conflict. P.S. Type four of ~ at end of your Talk comments to 'sign' what you wrote. David notMD (talk) 04:04, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

@Sarasota6: I would also make use of the Preview button, which will show you what the article (or section) will look like with your changes applied. You can then make any necessary changes, previewing again, etc. until it looks right. Please remember that any significant additions or changes in facts must either be to correct an already-cited source or must include a new citation that can be used to verify the content added. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 11:19, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

No sources

Hello, I have a question. If an article does not cite any sources, how has it not been deleted yet? Especially if the article has been up for more than five or six years? I don't want to tag any articles that have no sources for deletion if there is some reason why we should keep them. Aspenkiddo (talk) 03:54, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

That sounds like a fundamental problem, as you have implied. Bus stop (talk) 04:01, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

You can start discussing on the talk page of the article and add some tags to it if you want. Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 04:05, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Some old articles may have been retained because the subject seemed notable but no-one has bothered to find the required refs. Ideally, you could find appropriate references and add them to bring the article up to modern standards. Dbfirs 14:59, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, under our verifibility policy, an article does not have to cite sources, Aspenkiddo, provided that sources can be found if any editor demands them. With more recently created articles, editors tend to make such a demand right away. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 19:51, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Two different questions

1st question: How can I use the same source as a reference twice if I am using separate pages from a book?

2nd question: Do all new articles need an etymology if the name of the article is not an English word?Prana1111 (talk) 04:26, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi Prana1111. The answer to your first question is fairly easy and there are a couple of ways to do such a thing. One such way would be to be link directly to the page you're citing if possible and treat each citation as a separate page; there's a bit of redundancy here in that your technically citing the same source, but linking to the specific page will make it easier for the reader to actually find the specific content in the source being cited. If that seems a little confusing or it's too hard or even possible to link to a specific page, then you can use Template:Rp or a short-foot note for the source depending upon the citation style currently being used in the article and your preference. The "Rp" template is fairly straightforward in that you simply add another template after the citation for the source being cited to indicate the page you're citing. Short-footnotes are a bit more complex to format, but it's a style is often used in publications, etc. so many find it easier for the reader to follow.

As for your other questions, that's not so easy to answer and what to do might depend upon Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English) and Wikipedia:Article titles#Foreign names and anglicization. Wikipedia isn't really Wikitionary, so often all that's need is a brief sentence clarifying the meaning of the word in it's native language and how it's pronounced without going into too much detail about it's etymology since that's not really what the article should be about. What's more important, in my opinion, is to try and write an encyclopedic article as opposed to a dictionary entry and if an bit more about the origin of the term helps you do that and can be supported by citations to reliable sources, then it's probably OK to do. If, on the other hand, the entire article is turns out to be pretty much an etymology, with no other real encyclopedic content, then perhaps that's not really the right direction to be moving in and you may run into problems per WP:WORDISSUBJECT. You can, if you want, try looking at articles where the title is a non-English word (for example Vrykolakas) for reference and see what's being done in them. Perhaps you'll see some things that would work well in the article you're trying to create. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:03, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello @Prana1111: I think Help:References and page numbers can help with your first question. It shows a couple different ways that people do this. You can choose whichever one you like best, as long as you stay consistent within the same article. If it's helpful to see examples in a full articles, you can compare the citations in Marion du Faouët and Ōyama Sutematsu, which use two different approaches.

As to your second question, I'm not sure what you mean by an etymology. The answer is probably no, it's not required, since all that's really required for a basic stub article is a very simple mention of why the subject is notable (and then articles can grow from stubs over time), but depending on what you mean by "etymology" it might be valuable to the article to include, and perhaps we can help you determine how to do it. Can you link an example of a page where you have seen one? Or, can you say more about the article you have in mind? ~ oulfis 🌸(talk) 08:02, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

@Prana1111: See also U.S. Route 6 in Nevada#Major intersections for some extensive use of the {{Rp}} template. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 11:28, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

@Oulfis: For the 2nd question it is an article I would like to create in the future. I still need to do more research on the topic and search for good sources, so I have not started the page yet, but to give you some details it is the name of a mythological city in Buddhism called Ketumati.Prana1111 (talk) 16:42, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Shah Niamatullah

Hi, an user found a problem on that page. Then, I have tried to correct it. Is it OK now? Thanks in advance.S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:31, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

@S. M. Nazmus Shakib: Yes, it looks better now. Thanks, Thatoneweirdwikier Say hi 09:25, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Still close paraphrasing, though. It looks like some words and phrases have been changed or moved around, which is not enough to remove that issue. --bonadea contributions talk 09:55, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

@Bonadea: Is it OK now?S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 10:16, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

How to link a new article to other articles

I have created some articles but they're often tagged ORPHAN because they are not linked to other similar articles.

How do I find other similar articles to the new article during creation?

And how do I link new articles to other articles — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akgideens (talk • contribs) 06:25, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi Akgideens. You can find out more about this in WP:DE-ORPHAN, but basically what you'll be looking to do is add at least one WP:WIKILINK which leads to the "orphaned article" to another related article. Sometimes this can be fairly easy to do, but other times it can be tricky. What you'll need to do is make sure there is a contextual and encyclopedic reason for adding a link to another article because if you just add a link to some random article or an article where the connection isn't very strong or is not supported by sources, then it's likely going to be removed by another editor which will make the target article an orphan again. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:12, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm also going to add that after looking at some of the articles you created, you might want to take a look at Wikipedia:Your first article, MOS:HEAD and MOS:SECTIONCAPS because just at first glance you seem to be making a number of formatting errors that are things you can easily fix yourself. You might also want to consider emailing your WP:CONSENT to Wikimedia OTRS to verify your copyright ownership of File:David Idris Zacharias in 2019.jpg to make sure it's not mistakenly tagged for deletion per WP:F11. If the file's licensing is verified, it can be moved to Wikimedia Commons to make it easier to use by other Wikimedia Foundation projects. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:22, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Akgideens has now been blocked indefinitely. Maproom (talk) 08:50, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Actually the account was only blocked for a week. Generally, sockpuppet accounts are only the ones indefinitely blocked right away, but master accounts may only be blocked for a specific period of time depending upon the discretion of the blocking administrator. If you're reading this Akgideens, please don't create any other accounts to try and respond here or make any other edits to Wikipedia. If you do that, not only will those accounts likely end up being blocked, but it will become that much harder to get your main account unblocked. Instead follow the instructions given in Wikipedia:Appealing a block and focus on what you need to do to get your account unblocked. You can always go back to editing articles, etc. with that account once it's unblocked. -- Marchjuly (talk) 09:00, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

The user page shows an indef CU block template, put there at 2019-12-14T09:00:29Z by JJMC89, but they don't appear to be blocked. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 11:54, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

The block was from 12 December for a week, so has now expired. --David Biddulph (talk) 13:35, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Follow-up to Victor Makalala Profile

I submitted a request for a profile creation for a player named Victor Makalala but I really do not know why they keep rejecting my submission despite the necessary proof submitted.

https://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/victor-makalala/profil/spieler/730124

He joined Warri Wolves following the start of the season in Nigeria Professional Football League

https://www.today.ng/sport/football/makalala-joined-warri-wolves-257188

He was a former player of Rivers United.

https://kelvianomedia.blogspot.com/2018/01/npfl-am-ready-to-work-for-rivers-united.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Makalala02 (talk • contribs) 09:53, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Makalala02. As you have been told repeatedly, Wikipedia does not host profiles. Not one. It hosts encyclopaedia articles, which are based almost entirely on what people who have no connection with the subject have chosen to publish about the subject, The three sources you mention above are 1) a mere listing; 2) a statement by Makalala; 3) somebody's blog. None of this does anything at all to establish that Makalala currently meets Wikipedia's criteria of notability. Please have a look at the essay WP:No amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability.

Furthermore, since from your user name, you appear to be Victor Makalala, or somebody closely associated with him, please also read about why writing about yourself is strongly discouraged. --ColinFine (talk) 11:25, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

100% of my created pages are rejected

I've created pages for Julie Martin (an artist who worked EQUALLY with her husband, who is allowed a page -- this is just sexism in my view!) and for Alan Isler's novel 'The Prince of West End Avenue', which was a multi-award-winning book in 1994. Neither are deemed worthy of pages. I'm told I don't cite enough sources, but I don't work on these things as an academic, but was just not pleased when I was searching Wiki for both that that didn't have pages that would tell me more, so I thought I'd create them. Is there a way of drawing these pages to the attention of groups involved in adding pages of a) Women Artists (for Julie Martin) and b) Jewish writers (for THe Prince of West End Avenue), as they might be able to make the pages publishable by adding references? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eeleach (talk • contribs) 12:50, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

• Greeting, Eeleach. Well, when you create a page, the onus is on you to bring some sources; not all Wikipedia editors are academics, but all have to follow referencing guidelines.

I am not sure about Julia Martin; our article about Billy Klüver does seem to say they worked a lot in common but the question is whether she is notable in her own right (BK is by virtue of the awards he received in personal capacity, see WP:NARTIST). You can try your luck at Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red.

For Draft:The Prince of West End Avenue I would think refs relative to the awards would be enough to pass it. (The author, Alan Isler, already has an article, which paradoxically could increase the barrier, because a stub about the piece could be merged to the article of the author). I am not sure of where to find help - maybe Wikipedia:WikiProject Judaism? Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 13:35, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Eeleach. The best way to demonstrate that a novel like The Prince of West End Avenue is notable is to provide references to book reviews in reliable sources. I found four additional reviews, in The Sunday Times (London), in Kirkus Review, in Publishers Weekly, and in a book called The Best Novels of the Nineties: A Reader's Guide. If you summarize content from those reviews, and provide references to them, that article should be accepted. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:44, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Request support to format the Champions Box/Table in INRC

Have edited the page and added the 2019 champion here under CHAMPIONS. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_National_Rally_Championship

But the format of the table has gone haywire, wondering if I can get help to get it formatted. thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidindia (talk • contribs) 17:23, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

 Done. Maproom (talk) 17:43, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Need some mentorship on football logo upload +info whether I may do it

Hello! I'm editing this club now and there's no logo. I've looked here, but it's not there either. I wondered if I could upload it, but I have no clue if I may (copyright is not my thing) and if so how. Can someone help me with that? Please throw some links at me, I'll study. Thank you in advance. --Less Unless (talk) 17:37, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello Less Unless,

Thankfully logos are one of the few copyrighted things that we can use here.

Upload the image to Wikipedia, rather than to Commons, by using the Wikipedia:File Upload Wizard. When it asks for copyright status, select This is a copyrighted, non-free work, but I believe it is Fair Use, and fill in the boxes; they're fairly self explanatory.

If you wish to read the full policy, it's at Wikipedia:Logos.

Thanks, ~~ OxonAlex - talk 18:17, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, ~~ OxonAlex. Happy Holidays! Less Unless (talk) 19:29, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Is there a specific area to create draft articles in?

I have found a bunch of football related articles at the requests for creation board that I would like to take a shot at creating. I've seen mentions of draft space being used to start creating new articles but I've no idea how to get there (if that makes sense). LampGenie01 (talk) 18:20, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, LampGenie01 You will find some useful guidance here Wikipedia:Articles for creation. Theroadislong (talk) 18:24, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hello LampGenie01,

You can start an draft by placing Draft:the name of the draft into the search bar.

It will then give a link to Create the page "Draft:name" on this wiki!, at the top of the results. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 18:24, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks guys. LampGenie01 (talk) 18:26, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

LampGenie01, I'd also advise to do it via Wikipedia:Articles for creation and then WP:Article Wizard.

The way I suggested to do does work, but just gives you a blank draft, whilst the linked page automatically adds templates etc. that can be useful if you haven't created a lot of articles before. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 18:31, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Got it. Again, thanks for your help. Hopefully my first article will be a success. LampGenie01 (talk) 18:33, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Blocked?

WHY WAS I BLOCKED?! WHAT DID I EDIT THAT WAS WRONG?! I DON'T GET WHY THIS I'M BEING ATTACKED FOR NOTHING! WHAT PAGE DID I EDIT THAT CAUSED THIS? PLEASE, SOMEONE TELL ME! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vincentmacefe (talk • contribs) 18:30, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Vincentmacefe, You were blocked for adding unsourced content to articles. Looking through your edits that added content to articles, you were adding information without a source to support it.

In order to keep the information in the encyclopedia verifiable, we need references to support said information. You should read either Help:Introduction to referencing with Wiki Markup/1 or Help:Introduction to referencing with VisualEditor/1 for details of how to do this.

Thanks, ~~ OxonAlex - talk 18:36, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

48 hour block, should already be over. David notMD (talk) 18:42, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Vincentmacefe You were blocked for 48 hours for persistent addition of unsourced content. For example you added unsourced content here [1]. Theroadislong (talk) 18:45, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Permission

Hi.

So, i had an idea for an article and i wanted to know if it was a good idea or not. It's called Donald Trump and fast food. It would essiently be about trump's history with fast food chains like mcdonalds and dominoes. I only ask because there are already a plethora of trump related pages, but i thought that this might be worth documenting.

thanks. Bill cage (talk) 19:06, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Bill cage and welcome to the Teahouse. The question is, would such a topic be notable and encyclopedic?

• First of all, have multiple independent published reliable sources discussed it in some detail? if not, there should not be an article.
• Secondly, would it fall afoul of any of the points at what Wikipedia is not? On a quick review, this might go against Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. But that is a judgement call.
• Note also that US Politics are a particularly contentious area, and are subject to Discretionary sanctions. So be extra careful to conform to policy in such issues.

I hope that is helpful. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 19:43, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

i found 6 news articles about trump and mcdonalds. so perhaps, i could rework to Donald trump and mcdonalds?Bill cage (talk) 20:27, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

General Robert Manners was, apparently, godfather to the illigitimate child of General Charles Asgill - by Manners' mistress

This is almost certainly not the right day to be asking a question here...but perhaps it can languish until people have finished their seasonal celebrations?

I have been told that Robert Manners was godfather to the illegitimate son of Sir Charles Asgill (=Charles Childs). The latter was born to Asgill and Mary Ann Mansel in 1816. Manners and Mary Ann had 6 children together and Asgill and Mary Ann just the one. I have always imagined that Manners would not have been very happy regarding the 1816 birth of Charles Childs. However, had he agreed to be godfather, that assumption may not be right. Incidentally, in his will, Charles Asgill left his black mare and saddle to the youngest living child of General Manners (=Herbert Mansel). Asgill left nothing to his own child though. Could anyone help me find the truth of whether, or not, Manners was the godfather of Charles Childs? I've searched Google but nothing comes up. Where should I look to find this godfather record? Any help gratefully received. Arbil44 (talk) 19:33, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

@Arbil44: the day is not a problem (this is an international and multi-cultural community), but the Teahouse is intended for questions about editing Wikipedia. The Reference desk is a better place for general information questions. Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 19:42, 23 December 2019 (UTC)