Wikipedia:Teahouse

Gråbergs Gråa Sång, 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.)

Are vs Is

Names of bands/teams/groups etc. are treated as singular, unless the name also applies to the individual members of the group. An individual member of The Mentally Ill would not be referred to as "a Mentally Ill", so the band "The Mentally Ill" is treated as singular. On the other hand, members of the Beatles, Rolling Stones, Yankees, Athletics, Flying Tigers, etc. are each referred to as a Beatle, Stone, Yankee, Athletic, and Flying Tiger, respectively, so these groups are treated as is they were plural.Sanctandriensis (talk) 13:58, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

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)

At the risk of unnecessarily keeping this discussion further going here at the Teahouse, the is/are question as it relates to collective nouns is something which is probably never going to be resolved. Even if it could be resolved through some grand meeting of the main minds of the entire English speaking world, things would probably sound strange to the somebody's ear for quite some time thereafter until the deprecated form had fallen out of use for so long a period of time that pretty much nobody remembered it ever even existing. I'd image that pretty much how any language evolves over time; after all, given all of the different national varieties of English there are in the world, I'd image that none of them or certainly not very many of them are exactly the same as that used by previous generations. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:19, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

It's a whole lot easier than all of this. Band names can be singular or plural, or collective singular, or implied plural, or ambiguous. In the case of The Beatles, it's clearly plural. In the case of The Grateful Dead, it could be an implied plural but it's ambiguous so usually defaults to collective singular. If you say Chanticleer Singers that would be plural, if you say just Chanticleer it's singular. The Mentally Ill strikes at least some as an implied plural because of the article. Make a case that it's similar to The Grateful Dead. Meg Zulick 22:03, 26 December 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zulick (talk • contribs)

Youtubers

Hi.

I just wanted to know, what is the creteria a youtuber has to meet for an article to be about them. How many subscribers they have, how many views they get, etc

thanks. Bill cage (talk) 17:35, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Bill cage, and welcome to the Teahouse. Neither number of subscribers not number of views is relevant to whether there should be an article. Articles will only be created about notable topics. Note that Wikipedia uses the word "Notable" in a special sense. Please follow the link.

The primary standard is the general notability criterion. This requires multiple (usually at least three) independent published reliable sources that discuss the topic (in this case the person) in some detail. "Independent" means not including statements by the person, nor from the person's employer, family, or business associates, nor interviews. "Reliable" means, among other things, no blogs, no fan sites, no fora, no user-generated content such as IMDB, no personal web sites or fan sites. Newspapers, magazines, scholarly articles, and their online equivalents are usually good, but the actual determination is case-by-case. Coverage should usually be continued across a period of time, also. Please follow all these links.

Another option is our guideline on the notability of creative people, which has several sub-criteria. Please read it. Note that again reliable independent sources will be needed.

I hope that is helpful. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 17:50, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Note also, Bill cage that creating an article about a living person from a blank start is one of the harder tasks hre on Wikipedia. It is easy to get it wrong. Below are soem steps that, if followed, often lead to success in creating a valid article:

• First, review our guideline on notability, our policy on Verifiability, and our specific guideline on the notability of people. Consider whether your subject clearly meets the standards listed there. Also, check if the topic is already covered, perhaps under a different spelling or in a section of an article about a wider topic. You will waste a lot of time, if you create a new article, and then find that the encyclopedia already has an article about that.
• Second, read how to create Your First Article and referencing for beginners and again consider if you want to go ahead.
• Third, If you have any connection or affiliation with the subject, disclose it in accordance with our guideline on Conflict of interest. If you have been or expect to be paid for making edits, or are making them as part of your job, disclose this according to the strict rules of the Paid-contribution disclosure. This is absolutely required; omitting it can result in you being blocked from further editing.
• Fourth, gather sources. You want independent, professionally published, reliable sources with each discussing the subject in some detail. If you can't find several such sources, stop; an article will not be created! Sources do NOT need to be online, or in English, although it is helpful if at least some are. The "independent" part is vital. Wikipedia does not consider as independent sources such as press releases, or news stories based on press releases, or anything published by the subject itself or an affiliate of the subject. Strictly local coverage is also not preferred. Regional or national newspapers or magazines, books published by mainstream publishers (not self-published), or scholarly journals are usually good. So are online equivalents of these. (Additional sources may verify particular statements but not discuss the subject in detail. But those significant detailed sources are needed first.)
• Fifth, use the article wizard to create a draft under the articles for creation project. This is always a good idea for an inexperienced editor, but in the case of an editor with a conflict of interest it is essential.
• Sixth, use the sources gathered before (and other sources you may find along the way) to write the article. Cite all significant statements to sources. Do not express opinions or judgements, unless they are explicitly attributed to named people or entities, preferably in a direct quotation, and cited to a source. Do not use puffery or marketing-speak. Provide page numbers, dates, authors and titles for sources to the extent these are available. A title is always needed. Submit the draaft when you thimnk it is ready for reviewq. Be prepared to wait a while for a review (several weeks or more).
• Seventh, when (well perhaps if) your draft is declined, pay attention to the comments of the reviewer, and correct the draft and resubmit it. During this whole process, if you face any unresolvable editing hurdles, or cannot comprehend any editing issue, feel free to post a request here or at the help desk and ask the regulars. Repeat this until the draft passes review.

Congratulations, you have now created a valid Wikipedia article. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 17:54, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

So Bill cage, keeping in mind all of the guidelines that DESiegel brought up above, I can tell you from the perspective of an Articles for Creation reviewer that I very rarely, if ever, accept drafts about Youtubers precisely because of notability concerns. Usually these articles are written by superfans, so they are full of language that paints the person in a positive light or worse they are written by the Youtuber themself (or their PR team), and thus are overly promotional (BTW, don't forget to like and subscribe). Unless the person has wide-ranging news coverage (PewDiePie, GameGrumps, Vlogbrothers) (basically if they are famous enough that somebody's grandma might know who they are) then they probably wouldn't pass. I've been proven wrong before though. Which youtuber were you thinking of? Bkissin (talk) 21:44, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

no one in particular. i just needed felt i needed to know as i'm a youtuber myself. Bill cage (talk) 10:47, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Users in Categories

Hello, in Category:Wikipedia template management you'll see under pages, A, E, L, T and W 5 different userpages. This isn't the first time I've come across this. Untill now I've left messages on their talkpages alerting those users, but now I'm seeing a bot. Am I right in assuming userpages shouldn't be in categories or should I just leave them alone? --Dutchy45 (talk) 21:33, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Dutchy45, and welcome to the Teahouse. That category is for pages concerned with managing templates, but some such pages are in user space. For example, User:Ashishmaurya15697 starts: This page provides an index of templates used within Wikipedia, many of which convey messages; they are grouped into topic-specific headings. Such a page properly belongs in that category. You will need to check individually to see if a page seems to be improperly categorized. If it does, drop the user invo9lded note on his or her user talk page. If it is a bot, drop the bot-owner a note. Beyond that I would leave them alone, no major harm seems to be done by this. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 22:20, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

And of course, there are categories intended specifically for users. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 22:22, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

User (sub-)pages showing up in categories not designed for user (sub-)pages, e.g., files only, cats only, templates only, etc., are about the only case where I'd edit any "not me" user (sub-)page, typically adding a colon between [[ and category:…]] to disable the effect. –84.46.52.84 (talk) 22:57, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

​Most of these instances are sandboxes that someone forgot to remove from the categories. You can disable these categories by converting "[[Category" to "[[:Category" and writing in your edit summary "WP:DRAFTNOCAT", you don't need to inform the user in those cases. The page User:Ashishmaurya15697 was for example just a copy of WP:TM and so didn't belong in that category. User:Evad37/TFDcloser is a script for managing template discussions, and so it belongs in the category. – Thjarkur (talk) 08:43, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks I'll do this! Dutchy45 (talk) 04:56, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello Thjarkur, in Category:Wikipedia directories under N there is a user. When I go in there there's no category to "[[:Category". What do you suggest I do in this case? Dutchy45 (talk) 06:07, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

 Fixed.--Moxy 🍁 07:32, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

How do I see my published articles?

I have created page TM Malhotra, i wrote about him, but I am not able to see my page. how can i see it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TM Malhotra (talk • contribs) 05:06, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

@TM Malhotra: Please see your talk page. The page you created as your user page was considered clear advertising or promotion, which is not allowed on Wikipedia. Please see those links and those on your talk page for more information. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 06:43, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello TM Malhotra. Looking at your contribution history, the only edit you have ever made using this signon is the one asking this question. Are you sure you Saved the changes, and didn't Cancel? Separately, you say you wrote about TM Malhotra - but that is your own user name. Did you intend to write about yourself? --Gronk Oz (talk) 06:42, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello, TM Malhotra. I am an administrator and can review deleted content. You created an autobiographical page which was deleted. Among other things, you wrote "Mr. Tarun is passionate about everything and a self-driven man with enthusiasm and positivity . He is a gadget lover. When in 2007 mobile phones have boosted up the Indian market, he jumped his feet into this new gadget." I am sorry, but self promotion is not allowed on Wikipedia, and that type of content is inappropriate for an encylopedia. There are plenty of social media websites where you are welcome to promote yourself. Wikipedia is not one of those websites. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:01, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Pin Point Map

Hello Teahouse hosts. I am editing the article New Albion specifically for a GAN. A suggestion, which I believe is worthy, has been put forth to include a push pin map such as the example for Jamestown which you may view HERE. I am quite uncertain how to insert this, particularly with determining coordinates. Where might I find further information as to the editing necessary to enable this feature on the New Albion article? I appreciate hearing from any of you. Most kind regards.Hu Nhu (talk) 06:03, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

@Hu Nhu: I've added a pushpin map in the infobox and made a few other tweaks in the article. (I used the coordinates of the monument at Drake's Cove.) Does this look OK? If there are any problems with what I've done, please leave a message on my talk page. Deor (talk) 16:40, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

@Deor:Thank you for the attention to this task. I appreciate your generosity very much. Kind regards.Hu Nhu (talk) 00:56, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Definitions

'Defining a term in the words of the copyright holder and acknowledging the same', does it violate the copyright policy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dattatray Sankpal (talk • contribs) 08:04, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Dattatray Sankpal, and welcome to the TYeahouse.That depends on the exact circumstances. If the definition is quoted from an outside source, then more is needed than acknowledging the same. One must attribute the quote in article prose, must mark it by quote mark or with <blockquote>...</blockquote> tags (or with one of the templates, such as {{quote}} that provide proper block quotes, personally I prefer the raw tag), and one must cite a reliable source inline just after the quote, that specifically says that this quote is by this person (or entity, or that is it self by the person quoted, and contains the quote.

For example an article might include the following:

Jones, in Considerations of FooBar, wrote: "FooBar may be defined as ..."

References

See how all the elements must work together?

Beyond that, the length of the quote must not be excessive, which is a judgement call. See WP:MOSQUOTE and WP:QUOTE for more details on when quotations are appropriate. A definition is no different, except that if it is a widely used definition and the exact wording is significant, that helps make the case for fair use of the quotation. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 12:12, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Note that Wikipedia's copyright policy is generally more restrictive than is US Copyright law (17 USC). Some things which would be held to be fair use, or otherwise not a copyright infringement, under US law are still not allowed under the policy. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 12:24, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

How to change the editing toolbar?

Even though I change the way to edit (Visual vs Source), the editing toolbar does not change as expected in the Help:Edit toolbar. What is wrong? Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 11:27, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Soumyabrata. If it's a Talk page, then currently there is no visual option, only source. I just noticed that I don't see a visual option here on the Teahouse either; the same limitation seems to apply to the Wikipedia: namespace. If you see a pencil icon at the right of the toolbar, you can use that to switch between source and visual mode. (There is also a setting in Preferences that will show two separate links for "Edit" and "Edit source", if you don't want to go with the software giving you whatever mode you used last.) Hope that helps, Pelagic (talk) 20:06, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

A missing article there is nothing on Brian Maccaba

The longest slander action in English legal history came to a close yesterday as the multi-millionaire Brian Maccaba lost his High Court action against a leading rabbi. In a case that had infamously been dubbed the "Indecent Proposal" action, the father of six had denied offering $1m for a friend's wife — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.191.199.221 (talk) 13:14, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Are you proposing there should be an article about Brian Maccaba, with the scandal and litigation being a part? Or an article about the legal case as being notable by itself? David notMD (talk) 13:26, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

How can I undo vandalism faster?

Hello. I have been looking through recent changes in the past few days to find instances of vandalism to undo, but it seems like other editors are usually beating me to it. Then I look at their contributions and see that somehow they can undo many vandal edits within just one minute! Is there something I’m doing wrong or inefficiently? I would like to help keep the encyclopedia free of vandalism but it seems I am unfortunately slower than most. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cunnfum (talk • contribs) 13:56, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi Cunnfum. Those other user are may be using something called WP:TWINKLE or some other type of automated script that allows them to make lots of edits in a short amount of time. Anyway, all that matters is that someone is taking care of the vandalism not really who is taking care of it. Although fighting vandalism is an important thing, it's not like a video game where be the fastest or doing more than others might get you some type of bonus; moreover, there are lots of ways to help improve Wikipedia besides fighting vandalism. So, I wouldn't worry too much if others are doing it faster than you; you can always find another way to help improve articles; furthermore, sometimes it's actually better to do something slowly because it often reduces the chance of making a mistake. —- Marchjuly (talk) 14:35, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes, Cunnfum, I prefer to delay by several hours or even a few days, finding only those more subtle problems that users of quicker automated or semi-automated methods fail to notice. Actually, letting others handle the easy ones is pretty much a necessity for me, with five and a half thousand items on my watchlist. Jim.henderson (talk) 14:57, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

@Cunnfum: I also agree with the above. I often monitor for vandalism quite late at night. But once I see other editors (like the fantastic Shellwood and others) making immediate reverts, I either go to bed, or start looking lower down the Recent Changes list for the stuff these folks have missed. Boy, do they miss them! I use this setting to reveal the most likely bad faith edits. I've turned off the default Page Preview function, and have enabled 'Navigation Popups' in 'Preferences'. For vandal-fighters, this is brilliant! Simply by mousing-over, you see a preview of the recent edit. So it's easy to assess the changes. If they're bad, I use Twinkle to warn or to report repeat offenders. I focus on the most likely bad faith edits, watching especially for either no edit summary, or for summaries like 'fixed typo' - especially if there is a large change in byte content. I ignore popular topics I know little about (someone else will undoubtedly fix these); I focus on my own areas of interest in sciences, geography, or topics I'm personally aware of. I also check every school or college edit, as these are often vandalised. Nobody can do everything; do what you can, and do it well! Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 00:00, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

@Cunnfum: Hi - just a sanity check. Are you using the undo to revert? I looked at some of your reverts and there is no edit summery and so I wondered if you are actually typing or copying the fixes by hand? In case you have not found it yet (and forgive me if I am telling you things you already know), to undo vandalism, compare the two versions in the page history and click the undo button. The reverts will be filled in automatically and you will be given an edit summary that you can leave alone. Just click undo, glance over it to make sure it looks like what you intended, click the "minor edit" check box and publish. See: [[1]] -- Sirfurboy (talk) 15:23, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

How can I contact?

Hello. I want to contact one of my nice and kindhearted fellow editor "Eman 235". He is not responding on his talk page but active on tea house. Why is it so? I hope everything is fine with him. Can anyone tell me the way to contact him? Thanks.(223.230.172.15 (talk) 16:48, 26 December 2019 (UTC))

Looking at your request, it's not really surprisingly they haven't responded. Editors are volunteers, and edit what they want to. Giving someone a long list of requests you'd like them to do isn't going to get the best reaction.

If an edit needs doing, wp:BeBold and do it yourself. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 16:51, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

What the IP hasn't told you, OxonAlex, is that they are determined to edit against consensus. See Talk:Shamsheer Vayalil. --ColinFine (talk) 18:58, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

@OxonAlex: Note the editor is a young person. The relevant range is 223.230.128.0/18 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) with collateral. I imagine things may subside when school is back in session. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 04:18, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

• @Eman235: You haven't responded to any request(mine as well as others)on your talk page since months. Why is it so? Please! reply.

Thanks. (223.230.132.104 (talk) 05:03, 28 December 2019 (UTC))

I don't understand why this website likes messing with me

I can't find my own questions anymore! I don't get this! (user:Vincentmacefe) December 26, 2019

Hi. After your questions have been answered (and after a few days) they are archived. Here's the link to the archives of your previous questions.

• Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1033#Comedy
• Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1036#I edited_the plot for Child's Play (2019), but it went back to normal. Why?
• Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1037#Playing With Fire plot needs corrected

I got these links from your talk page. When your question here at the Teahouse is archived, a bot posts a link on your talk page which links to that archive. Hope this helps. OkayKenji ^{(talk page)} 20:39, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

One way to find your questions is to look at your own userpage (User:Vincentmacefe) or talk page (User talk:Vincentmacefe) and click on "What links here" in the left column. (Wow, it works even if the page does not exist.) The resulting list may not be in any useful order; but in your case it's short. —Tamfang (talk) 03:46, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

@Vincentmacefe: Please try to assume good faith – nobody is "messing with you". Archiving of sections after a few days of inactivity is necessary to keep the page to a reasonable size (currently 38 sections), and allow it to load within a reasonable amount of time. There is a search box near the top of this page, under the table of contents, from which you can search all the archives. If you put your username in there, you'll get a list of all the archive pages containing it, sometimes even with links to the first section in which it is found. Note you can search for other things there, too, if you have a question about a topic that may have been answered before. I hope this helps. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 04:26, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

CNR Bridge

When I read the page titled "CNR Bridge", I changed it to "Queensborough CNR Bridge", then "Queensborough SRY Bridge", only then realising the brief article which said the bridge linked to Queensborough on Lulu Island, was not actually on the subject of the Queensborough rail bridge, but was in fact regarding the CNR bridge downstream (not into Queensborough) that links onto the Richmond part of Lulu Island. The CNR Bridge should be the "Lulu Island CNR Bridge" Is there way of actually deleting my move changes. I am hesitant to proceed further in ignorance because I fear if someone later writes an article entitled the "Queensborough SRY Bridge" on that actual bridge, it will be redirected to the other bridge. DMBanks1 (talk) 20:58, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello, DMBanks1. and welcome to the Teahouse. Moves can always be undone. But it is really best to have a source or sources that indicate what the name should be. Note that Wikipedia follows the common name, that is, the name most often used in reliable sources, not the official name when that is different. If there is any doubt, it is usually better to discuss a move in advance on the talk page of the article(s) concerned, to avoid confusion and complicated moves and un-dos. Do you have any source indicating what the name of this article should be? Do I take it you wan thtings back as they were before you started? DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 22:50, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

The article is now back at CNR Bridge, DMBanks1, with all redirects created by the move now deleted. Please discuss at Talk:CNR Bridge#Article name before moving again. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 23:21, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. I doubt anybody on the talk pages has an intimate knowledge of this bridge. I have lived in Richmond BC for over 25 years and this bridge has never been assigned a precise definition in the press. It has been referred to as the crossing of the North Arm of the Fraser, link to Lulu Island, or link to Richmond. Since it is in rural land far from the commercial and residential centre of Richmond, my suggestion of "Lulu Island CNR Bridge" seems safest. I suspect the CN official designation would use Lulu Island, based on the bridge vintage. The name "CNR Bridge" definitely has to change, since there are numerous CN bridges in Metro Vancouver alone, never mind the rest of Canada. I will briefly edit the content so others will not confuse it with the swing rail bridge at Queensborough. I will leave renaming the page up to you.DMBanks1 (talk) 00:11, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

@DMBanks1: Actually, the best place to find people interested in, and knowledgeable about, a particular article is indeed that article's talk page. It's also desirable to keep the discussions there for the benefit of future contributors to allow easy referral to them and prevent duplicate work. If the page has little activity or few watchers (see the Page information link usually found on the left-side toolbar), you can also post a note to the talk page of one of the adoptive WikiProjects mentioned on the article's talk page, in this case WT:WikiProject Vancouver or WT:WikiProject British Columbia, with a link back to the section on the article's talk page (e.g. Talk:CNR Bridge#Article name), to get more eyeballs on it. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 04:37, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

I have since added naming questions to the talk pages for a couple of other rail bridges near here. Where there is no single name in common usage, has Wikipedia developed any standardised naming convention?DMBanks1 (talk) 16:31, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Restoring my listing?

Naive as I was, 5 years ago, I made the mistake of adding a new credential to my own Wikipedia listing. I was appointed the first Volusia County (Florida) Poet Laureate and thought, as with other biographical listings, I could simple insert that fact as an update. My edit triggered a review of my credentials and I was deleted from Wikipedia. I am as susceptible to pangs of ego as any other author/individual. Thus, I confess to feeling bruised. Yet, I also feel that the accomplishments offered, accepted and listed at Wikipedia were worthy of inclusion. Once the review/deletion process began, it seemed nothing could save the entry. The fact that much of my life was lived prior to the internet impeded documentation of many of my credentials. The fact that it was I, myself, asking for consideration simply further discredited me. Can anything be done to reconsider my career? Might someone advise and/or offer assistance ?I am easily found online. I would ask that you reply via this Wiki portal or contact me directly. Gratefully, David B. Axelrod — Preceding unsigned comment added by Axelrodthepoet (talk • contribs) 23:16, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

@Axelrodthepoet: Remember that this is an encyclopedia, not a place for "listings" or promotion. Read WP:AUTO as to why trying to write about yourself is not a good idea. RudolfRed (talk) 23:22, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Axelrodthepoet and welcome to Wikipedia. The arrticle (not listing as RudolfRed points out David B. Axelrod was deleted after the discussion preserved at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David B. Axelrod. Please read it. YTou will see that it was deleted not because the poet-laureate post was added, but because taken as a whole, even with that post, the editors expressing an opinion back in August 2015 did nopt think that you were notable in the particular sense in which Wikipedia muses that term. Please look over WP:NBIO and WP:NAUTHOR and consider if a proper article can honestly be written about you. If you like, I will undelete the article as a draft. But there will need to be additional sources clearly establishing notability before it is moved back to the main article space. If there are not, it will surely be deleted again. Also, do remember that if an article is once created and notability is established, it is permanent. Even if things are later added to the article that you do not like or want in such an articel, you will not be able to delete them or the article if they are well sourced. So what say you? DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 23:37, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Axelrodthepoet, You might want to read #how do I request a deletion of a wikipedia page about me? above on this page. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 23:39, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

My intention is not to debate but to ask for assistance. Yes, "encyclopedia." Yes, not self-promotion. Exactly that. And I am respectful of the editorial expertise of you police, produce and publish suitable ientries in the encyclopedia. Thus, yes, I would appreciate the restoration of the entry, archived but presently not publically accesible, on David B. Axelrod. I am not the person to improve, defend, prmote my own entry. I would, however, appreciate a further objective evaluation so that the facts may speak for their "notability." The old discusion consisted of increasingly negative coclusions that an adept researcher might cure. Thanks for your responses. I'm sorry I'm not adept enough to repky in a proper place or manor. I entrust you to remedy matters once the old entry is restored for edits and verification. David B. Axelrod — Preceding unsigned comment added by Axelrodthepoet (talk • contribs) 01:00, 27 December 2019 (UTC)‎

Hi Axelrodthepoet. First some general stuff about posting comment on Wikipedia talk pages. The best way to do so is to add a new separate post below the one you're responding to or below the last post added to the thread. Trying to insert you posts/replies into comments made by others almost always creates problems with formatting and other issues. You can found a little more about how to use talk pages at Help:Talk pages. The next thing to try an remember is to always WP:SIGN your posts. There's a few ways to do this, but the easiest is typically as explained in WP:TILDE. Signing posts not only makes it easier for others to see who posted what and when, it also helps separate comments made by different editors.

As for the comments about the article David B. Axelrod, articles are usually only deleted via Wikipedia:Articles for deletion when the community consensus is that the subject matter doesn't meet Wikipedia:Notability, which appears to have been the case with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David B. Axelrod. If you disagree with the close of that discussion, you can ask that it be reviewed per Wikipedia:Deletion review. That discussion took place in 2015, and it's possible that things have changed since then so that you actually now satisfy the two notability that DES mentioned above. Many created about subjects (e.g. actors, writers) early on in their careers are deleted because it's simply WP:TOOSOON for a Wikipedia article to be written about them, but over time things change and as they move on in their careers they accomplish things or receive significant coverage that pushes them over the Wikipedia notability threshold. If you feel that is an accurate reflection the situation, then perhaps that would be something to bring up in a deletion review and may actually lead to a "new" article being written about you. At the same time, if your primary argument is going to be that the discussion which led to the previous article's deletion was "increasingly negative" and that the "old entry" should be restored for editing and verification, then you might have some trouble convincing others. Articles are not really intended to be written by "adept researchers" any more than they are intended to be read by readers "knowledgeable/well-versed" in the subject matter. Anyone can, in principle, write a Wikipedia article and whatever personal writing/research skills they may possess are skills that may help them do that better than some, but all of the great writing/researching ability an editor has is not really go to help them if the subject they want to write about is not Wikipedia notable. In this case, the consensus of the discussion was that the subject matter failed to satisfy any of Wikipedia's notability guidelines. not that the article was badly researched or written; if things have changed since 2015, then perhaps a new consensus can be established to reflect this new state of things. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:10, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

@Axelrodthepoet: Note that it helps if sources are online, but it's not a requirement. This is particularly an issue for people whose careers are largely pre-1990, though we do have online access to a lot of older newspapers and some journals, more as time goes by. If a Draft: article is either restored or re-created, it will be helpful if you can provide pointers to sources that may demonstrate notability, whether they are online or not. Try to focus on quality and independence – a few high-quality sources, instead of a pile of passing mentions, are more likely to get someone to do the necessary legwork of verifying offline/hard-to-find sources. Some folks at WP:RX may have access to offline archives as well. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 05:00, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Axelrodthepoet, I have restored the text as Draft:David B. Axelrod You will need to find significantly better sources than are now present. You will need to do your best to stick to the neutral point of view There are formatting issues also, but they are minor, sources are the thing. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 05:28, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

@DES: I'm not sure that was the best thing to do and I've gone into more detail as why I feel that way on your user talk page. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:44, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

I put some guidance comments on Axelrod's Talk page, including an example of an article about a poet. David notMD (talk) 12:37, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Please help me understand why the wiki I created has been deleted

Hello everyone, can anyone help me understand why the wiki I created has been deleted? This is the second time my contribution got deleted. The reason for deletion is section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion. I must admit that my first submission was objective. But this time, I used neutral POV as per wiki suggestions so it doesn't sound like promotional (I also had someone read it to get another's perspective). Still, no luck. This makes me believe that we can't possibly create a wiki article for someone not so famous? Or maybe I did miss something? What should I do to have it approved? Please help. Thanks and happy holidays! Ohjesabee (talk) 03:46, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

What is your intended subject matter? —Tamfang (talk) 03:57, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Only admins can see your deleted sandbox, an admin deleted "Matt Artisan is a dating coach and a Youtuber" (etc.) as U5: Blatant misuse of Wikipedia as a web host. –84.46.52.176 (talk) 04:31, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi Ohjesabee a person doesn't need to be "famous" to have a Wikipedia article written about them, and being famous does not automatically mean someone should have a Wikipedia article written about them. The only thing that matters is whether the person meets Wikipedia:Notability (more specifically Wikipedia:Notability (people)). While there is sometimes a strong connection between fame and Wikipedia notability, they aren't the same thing when it comes to Wikipedia. If you're able to demonstrate that the person you want to create an article about satisfies one of Wikipedia's various notability guidelines, then you can try and write an article about them. Even if the article you end up writing is filled with all kinds or promotional sounding content or just badly written overall, as long as the subject is Wikipedia article all of those things can cleaned up and the content of the article brought more in line with relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines per WP:PRESERVE. At the same time though, if you're trying to create an article about someone who is not Wikipedia notable or is at least not Wikipedia notable right now, then you could be the best writer that ever lived and write the perfect article with no mistakes of any kind at all, but none of that would make the subject Wikipedia notable. We can't make a subject Wikipedia notable through editing; they either are or aren't depending on whether they are receiving significant coverage in reliable sources which are writing about it out in the real world. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:07, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

(ec) @Ohjesabee: Pinging Fastily, who most recently deleted it. I see you already messaged the nominator Bonadea. While waiting, please note that in addition to being encyclopedic in tone, the article must have reliable, independent sources that demonstrate notability and you must declare a COI if you have one. (I can't see the deleted content, so I'm not commenting on whether you did this or not, just providing info in case it was missed.) —[AlanM1(talk)]— 05:25, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

I already responded on my user talk page, but from what I can recall of the sandbox page it was blatantly promotional – in addition it was obvious that the person was very far from being notable, but a sandbox draft would not be tagged or deleted for that reason. The original poster said that they are writing it on behalf of the subject, so WP:COI/WP:PAID also applies. (Also, given that any Wikipedia article about the person would certainly include critical content based on e.g. this reliable independent source, I suspect he would regret hiring someone to create the article in the first place!) --bonadea contributions talk 09:13, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

I did not mention I am writing in behalf of the subject but I did say that "we want him" to be on wiki as one of the dating coaches listed on this site. I am also not paid to write a wiki for the subject nor using this site as a marketing tool, just as I mentioned in your talk page. Now, I'm not appealing to your assessment. I'm just puzzled for the reason of deletion because you say it is "blatantly promotional" when in fact, I did not use promotional or subjective words, just as how this reliable independent source created her article. AND I do not know how you suspect the subject would regret "hiring" a person to create a wiki. Did you ever made an inquiry? No answer needed, I think I know why it was deleted. Ohjesabee (talk) 06:14, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Promotionalism is not simply a question of particular words or phrases – the content of the draft was, as far as I recall, entirely promotional. It looks like you are trying to be subtly derisive about the source I linked to; nobody could accuse that text of not wanting to promote a particular point of view, but that is the function of a review. The author was hired to voice his or her opinion about a book, while Wikipedia editors are not hired and should always avoid letting their opinions shine through in article text. Academic sources are preferred for Wikipedia articles, but as you can see here, other sources are also acceptable, for instance reviews written by people independent of the subject, and published in a source that meets Wikipedia's criteria.

Obviously I have not been in contact with the subject of the draft, that would never have occurred to me, and I said "I suspect", which indicates a guess. I had never heard of him before seeing the sandbox draft, and I had actually forgotten his name when you asked the question – I have a terrible memory for names, and edit rather many different articles, like most editors do. Please understand that Wikipedia articles are not in any way controlled by the subject of the article; Wikipedia does not care about what the subject of the article wants, nor what they say about themselves. You asked on my user talk page whether it matters that you know the subject personally. Again, please read WP:COI. (And who is "we" in "we want him"?) Thank you. --bonadea contributions talk 08:37, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

OK, I did go through some of the approved wikis you proofread and I think I understand why the one I made is tagged as promotional. Thank you and happy holidays you all! Ohjesabee (talk) 06:14, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Administrator guidance needed

Hello Belated Merry Christmas, everyone As I was working on the article, the image file which I uploaded was removed due to non-usage on infobox. So I would like to apply for a request for restoring the image File:Beautiful (2019 film).jpg as the article is ready and now the image file can be used on the article infobox. And one more request before restoring it please do the necessary file name changes and move it from the old title File:Beautiful (2019 film).jpg to the new title File:Beautiful (2020 film).jpg. Thanks, I duly respect the hardwork of an Administrator hatsoff. FascinateGuy (talk) 07:03, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi FascinateGuy. There are two things you can do in this case: (1) post a message on the user talk page of the administrator who actually deleted the file (who in this case is named Explicit) and ask him to restore it, or (2) post a request at WP:REFUND and ask that any administrator restore the file. It's possible for sure that an administrator who is also a Teahouse host will see this post and restore the file for you as well, but one of the other two ways might be faster. As for the name, you can request a file name change as described in WP:FMV/W per WP:FNC#1; perhaps the administrator who restores the file for you will also move it to a new name for you. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:15, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello @Marchjuly:, it is so nice of you to reply soon. But my friend I tried to ask assistance from the administrator cyphoidbomb and he is busy that I duly respect. And the admin who performed the action actually, he is inactive for a while due to holidays. Thanks for your reply. FascinateGuy (talk) 07:19, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

You can post a request at WP:REFUND, but the deleted file isn’t really going anywhere so whether you get restored today, tomorrow or in a few days won't matter much one way or another. While your waiting for the image to be restored, you can continue to work on improving the article. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:56, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

FascinateGuy,  Done Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:04, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

@Galobtter and Marchjuly: FascinateGuy was blocked as a sock of Vc4137. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:46, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Sigh Galobtter (pingó mió) 20:40, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Problems when referencing

So, today i tried to add references to MicroLED and Samsung Galaxy Fold, but i noticed that when i added a reference, the wiki software would treat the reference as plain text and not as a link, like it should. I discovered this problem when i was using reFill and i noticed that reFill was not recognizing the refs that i added. Thanks in advance. It turns out that it was because my refs didn't have "https://" in them. Pancho507 (talk) 09:09, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

why can't i create a page?

why can't i create a page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brep8 (talk • contribs) 14:48, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

To find out how to create an acceptable draft, try reading the advice at WP:Your first article. --David Biddulph (talk) 14:53, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

You got a STOP for your first attempt (Draft:Droopy McCool). This was not to say you cannot create an article, just that your first attempt was about a very minor Star Wars character, and thus not article worthy. And you need to learn about the essentiality of references. David notMD (talk) 17:39, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

The user is only 8 years old and this may be contributing to the difficulty. Theroadislong (talk) 17:48, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Royal Albert Hall article/Events

The Rollingstones performed notable concert at Royal Albert Hall on 23. 09. 1966. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.37.26.161 (talk) 16:53, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

See The Rolling Stones British Tour 1966#Tour dates. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 09:01, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

How do I make my article read less like an advertisement?

I tried to publish an article on a summer camp program and my article read too much like an advertisement and was declined. How do I make the changes to make it sound less like an advertisement? — Preceding unsigned comment added by PJohnston2260 (talk • contribs) 17:19, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, PJohnston2260 Content should be written in a neutral tone and report what reliable independent sources say, much of your content is inappropriate in tone for example...“an early pioneer in outdoor leadership programs” “some of the most coveted commercial backcountry permits” “they saw great possibility for growth in their students” “They wanted to instill a true appreciation of the wilderness” “curriculum includes a myriad of outdoor activities” “Campers are invited to participate in week-long sessions at Snow King Mountain” none of this reads like a neutral encyclopedia, it reads like you are trying to promote the camp. 17:27, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

How will I know when an article has been approved?

Hey, I've just submitted my first two articles. Will I receive an email to confirm it's being checked out and when it's been approved? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SECopywriting (talk • contribs) 18:05, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

@SECopywriting: Your two drafts have not yet been submitted for review. Please read WP:PAID for required disclosures and that each account must be controlled by only one person, if you decide to come back after your block. RudolfRed (talk) 18:29, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

{{U|SECopywriting|| has been blocked indefinately for an inappropraite username and for promotional editing. RudolfRed. If the user manages to be unblocked, this discussion might resume, perhaps at a new thread. If not, it will be moot. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 21:48, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Being allowed to edit your Wikipedia article, "Global Warming", because of my pecular experience and knowledge (I have actually studied the IPCC's Assessment Report 5)

Thank you all!

Although it might be a big bite for a newbie, I am very hungry to start a major editing of this article. Its author has made an excellent effort, and is unbiassed in that his main source is the actual AR of the IPCC. Unfortunately, after over a century of increasingly intensive study, every reputable scientific organization has declared that the existence of this phenomenon is a certainty-unprecedented for scientists-the majority of Americans refuse to accept the reality of Global Warming. This is in my opinion due to two factors:

(i) One side of this issue seems to have free access to the media to press their position (the nonexistence of Global Warming). Believe me I have spent a lot of time trying to find a valid, reliable source for their position. I have yet to find such a source.

(ii) On the side supporting the existence of Global Warming (I am neutral), the inability of the scientific community the present their conclusions about such a huge and complex phenomenon in a language readily understandable to the general public has inadvertently much of all this bias.

I feel that, as the reputation of Wikipedia as an acceptable source continues to grow, you would perform a great service for our country and planet if you were to post an article on Global Warming which is both scientifically accurate and in a non-technical language that is crystal clear to the average reader.

I just feel that, although excellently researched and written, this article does not sufficiently meet these criteria.

Last thing: there is a possibility that this article will be viciously attacked for its supposed bias and/falsehoods.

Thank you for your attention in this matter.

James Standerfer.Sanctandriensis (talk) 18:50, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi Sanctandriensis and welcome to the Teahouse. You will see if you click on the history of the article that it is the result of many disagreements and modifications by many editors. Further rewriting is indeed possible, but should be discussed first on the talk page of the article to reach consensus before major changes are made. Dbfirs 19:03, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

@Sanctandriensis: While the talk page of the article (whichever article we're talking about) is the right place to discuss it, I don't want you to go off with the unreasonable expectation that you will be able to make any kind of major changes to such a hot button topic. Such articles are the result of much research and many pages of discussion over the minutest of details and careful balance of facts, such as editors here can find them anyway. Some of the wording in your post above leads me to think you are here to push a point-of-view and to do battle to right great wrongs; please read those links for more information about what Wikipedia is and what it is not, and why your post might have raised those concerns. I hope this helps. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 09:21, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

AfC Submission Question

An AfC reviewer recommended that I contact the Teahouse for the opinions of other editors on whether Draft:Janette Nesheiwat meets notability guidelines for WP:JOURNALIST section 1. The subject has made multiple television appearances as a medical news correspondent on Fox Business Network, Fox News, CBS News, and MSNBC. Any feedback you can offer would be appreciated. My paid contribution disclosure is noted on the draft's talk page. Thank you. E-Stylus (talk) 19:24, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Content like "Nesheiwat was selected by Arkansas Business for the publication's annual "40 under 40" tends to suggest that you are scraping the barrel for evidence of notability. It would be better if the article could tell us something about the facts she has presented, or views she has expressed, while appearing on television. Maproom (talk) 19:48, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Expert on some "White House opioid summit" could be notable, apparently she convinced Trump, or he saw her on Fox News. I trimmed the "40 under 40" to once, HuffPost to never, and wikilinked one source in a reference. Please put references after the punctuation (comma, period, etc.) –84.46.52.63 (talk) 12:19, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Follow-up to Uploading Copyright Release

Hey Muninnbot‬: Thank you for this information. I still need help uploading a PDF file from Portrait Innovations with copyright release for the portrait of me (Randy Jirtle) that is entitled Portrait of Randy Jirtle 2019.jpg. I have uploaded this to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Portrait_of_Randy_Jirtle_2019.jpg#Summary. If anyone can tell me in a step by step manner how to accomplish this task, I would be VERY grateful.Rjirtle (talk) 19:38, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Rjirtle, and welcome back. "Muninnbot‬" is an automated script, ot "bot" (short for robot) that informs editors when teahouse threads have been archived, and performs other limited functions. It is not a person, and cannot answer general questions. (Most user names ending in "bot" are also automated scripts.)

The description page at File:Portrait of Randy Jirtle 2019.jpg says that an email has been sent to the proper address, including evidence of copyright permission for this image. If that is so, one of the OTRS volunteers will review the email and either mark it as approved, or indicate what is lacking. There is nothing else you need do until a volunteer responds. This may take a while, as there are few volunteers and may images waiting. But you need not wait, you can use the image while waiting for final approval. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 22:00, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Did you want help in understanding how to use the image, now that it has been uploaded? DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 22:00, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Venezuelan cinema task force

Last year, the Venezuelan cinema task force, but I cannot include the task force when I'm assessing the articles in their talk page. Is there a way to solve this? --Jamez42 (talk) 19:55, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

​Support for the |Venezuelan-cinema-task-force=yes parameter hasn't been added yet. Kingsif has created support for them in the sandbox of the templates, but the requests to have them implemented were denied (1) (2) as they hadn't been discussed. I personally would have thought these edits were uncontroversial, but you can reopen the request on {{WikiProject Venezuela}} pointing to a discussion about the creation of this task force. If this hasn't been discussed, just start a discussion on WT:VENEZUELA so this may be implemented. – Thjarkur (talk) 02:03, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

I've tested your (= the project) instruction on Talk:Secuestro_Express, the |Venezuelan-cinema-task-force=yes for WikiProect Film did not work for me. Not tested: |Venezuelan=yes. Not tested: WikiProject Venezuela. If the task force is basically down to you, close it please, the default = dead state for almost all projects, portals, and task forces is not helpful (and certainly not your fault.) –84.46.52.63 (talk) 02:13, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

@IP84 ...well, yes, the parameter hasn’t been added to either Film or Venezuela WP talk templates yet, so it wouldn’t work. The task force is doing well, thanks, but since I can’t find the discussion with Jamez about starting it, the parameters have not been added. Kingsif (talk) 03:58, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Not doing too well, if the co-founder of the task force can't follow their published instructions. Just kidding: 84.46.52.63 (talk) 09:06, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Upload draft

Hello, I have an article in my sandbox how do I going about having it upload to the main platform where persons can search and fond the article.

Regards Clarendon Post — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clarendon Post (talk • contribs) 20:09, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Clarendon Post Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I would first ask you if your username is the name of a newspaper(perhaps one you work for). If it is, you will need to visit Special:GlobalRenameRequest or WP:CHUS to change your username to something else. Usernames that are that of any organization are not permitted- each username must indicate that a specific individual is exclusively operating the account(you don't need to use your real name or any proper name, just something unique to you).

Successfully writing a new Wikipedia article is the hardest task to perform here. It takes much effort and practice. If you were to submit your draft now, it would not be accepted, as there are no independent reliable sources in the draft to support its content.(you have some words with external links, but these are not sources.) I would suggest that you take some time to first learn more about how Wikipedia works, by using the new user tutorial and reviewing Your First Article. You might also want to take some time to edit existing articles in areas that interest you, to get a feel for how Wikipedia operates and what is expected of article content. When you feel you are ready, you can use Articles for Creation to submit your draft to be reviewed by an experienced editor before it is formally placed in the encyclopedia- doing it this way means you will get feedback beforehand, instead of afterwards when it will be treated more critically.

You may also want to review Wikipedia's special definition of a notable politician; I'm not sure a member of a municipal legislative body/city council would qualify. 331dot (talk) 20:33, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

You'll soon have the rights for a Special:MovePage/User:Clarendon Post/sandbox to, say, Draft:Romaine K. Morris, but as you are the only contributor on your sandbox you can get the same effect by copy + paste followed by a "blank sandbox". A draft should start with {{draft}}, that template gives you a "submit" link when (mostly) ready. Clearly it is not yet ready, you should have a minimum of three independent and reliable sources (references) to demonstrate why this person is notable for a valid {{bio-stub}}. Or just one reference for the office, if it is an automatically notable officeholder. –84.46.52.63 (talk) 02:38, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Fake articles?

Hello. I'm curious if anyone knows anything about The Deadweights and its related articles--they all seem fake? Thanks. Caro7200 (talk) 21:04, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Caro7200 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I see that very little of the article content is cited- is that why you think it is a hoax article? 331dot (talk) 21:09, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello, thanks. It seems like a hoax. I did some general google searches, and nothing adds up, for that article and the articles about the band's albums... Caro7200 (talk) 21:11, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

If you feel strongly that it is a hoax, you can tag it for speedy deletion as a hoax article(WP:G3). If you aren't quite that certain, you can start an Articles for Deletion discussion. In either event, you could attempt to contact the creator of the article(s) and ask about their sources. It is possible(if unlikely) that there are print-only sources. 331dot (talk) 21:42, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Ok, thank you. I'm pretty sure that the article is a hoax, as are all its related album articles. I've never attempted anything as "complicated" as starting an articles for deletion discussion, but may attempt to fumble through it later tonight. Thanks. Caro7200 (talk) 22:02, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Caro7200 pleases be careful. It would nto be at all unlikely for a punk rock band from the 1980s not to have much in the way of online sources, and when you add that "deadweight" is a commom term, online searches become hard to do usefully. The article Crisis (The Deadweights album) says that this album charted in Sept 1985. Billboard back issues are paywalled and I do not have a subscription. But I found, adn added to the article, a page that gives a track listing and says that this charted. See here Now this may be a hoax also, but if it is it is a quite elaborate one, with several Wikipedia articles, and at least one outside site. The article about the group has been here since 2007, and has been edited by many users. The article about teh album "Crisis" linked above has also been here since 2007, adn was started by a different editor, albeit one who also edited the main article. I suspect an under documented, possibly non-notable, but real band. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 22:28, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

There is also https://www.letssingit.com/the-deadweights-zskq9 which may not be a reliable source (or it may be), but is consistent with the info in the various articles. There are also several sites which seem to have copied from W@ikipedia. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 22:43, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I'll be careful. It does look like a hoax. For example, Crisis (The Deadweights album) is mentioned as appearing at #94 on a SPIN magazine list. Not true: https://www.spin.com/2005/06/100-greatest-albums-1985-2005/. Thank you. Caro7200 (talk) 22:45, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Carrite (Tim Davenport) is an editor with expertise in punk rock. Tim, can you add anything to this conversation? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:53, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

I think it's significant that hardly any articles link back to The Deadweights. Slash Records and Reprise Records are significant record labels, yet there aren't any legit sources connecting them to this band. And Raymond Pettibon is an artist, notable for his SST Records work, not known as a musician etc. Caro7200 (talk) 01:18, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm not an expert on punk rock, but I agree that this looks fishy. All of the sources used in these articles appear to be user generated content sites that allow anyone to add entries with no fact checking, e.g. Rate Your Music and Let's Sing It. The articles claim that dozens of their songs and albums charted, so you'd expect to see some online coverage of them somewhere, even if only on some punk fan's blog, but this band seems to only exist on Wikipedia and in user generated databases. (Note, the Revolvy link posted above by DESiegel is a Wikipedia mirror.)
Also, one of the articles claims that the band released an album in 2008 which hit #29 on the Billboard charts, so there should be some coverage of that online, but there's nothing besides UGC sites and Wikipedia mirrors. Not even an Ebay listing or a passing mention on a forum somewhere... And does this album cover look like it was made in 1981 to you? It looks like it was done in MS Paint. Seriously - a punk band that topped the charts for 30 years and there's nothing about them online? Sounds bogus. There are bands a thousand times more obscure with dedicated online fanbases. I don't think this should be tagged for speedy deletion because it's not an immediately obvious hoax, but it should go to articles for deletion. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 01:53, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

I have taken all the articles to WP:AFD they are all clearly blatant hoaxes. Theroadislong (talk) 09:25, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Meanwhile all G3'ed (following Paul Hedgersman in 2009). The 12 years could be a new record, maybe report it on The Signpost. –84.46.52.63 (talk) 11:06, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Theroadislong Thanks for nominating and removing. I was hesitant since I'd never attempted it before, but wanted to report it somehow. Kudos (of a kind) to those little punks who constructed all those articles, ha... Caro7200 (talk) 14:47, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

• Slow on the draw with my pings... It's a fair cop. Carrite (talk) 17:07, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

New Editor Requests Guidance on an Article

Hi all, I'm a new editor to WP and just starting out with some copy editing. I saw this article in the community portal, and I'm not really sure where to start. If anyone who sees this wants to use it as a way to train me on how to deal with articles like this that aren't very fleshed out, I'd be deeply grateful. In the meantime, I'll just make minor changes. Feel free to revert any of my edits but please respond on the talk page with an explanation so that I can learn from it. Thanks! LittleChongsto (talk) 22:18, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi! That's a great choice you made there to be bold and not hesitant to edit the article, Happy editing! If you have questions or want me to look at your edits, please let me know! --Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 22:40, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

How initiate revision

How can I alert the world of editors that I would like to revise an article or section? How can I present my suggested revision for comparison with existing text, without just replacing existing text? Thanks.TBR-qed (talk) 22:38, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

You can leave a message on the article's talkpage or your Sandbox and let other editors review it. Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 22:41, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, TBR-qed. If you are confident that your revision will improve the article, then just go ahead and make the edit. Read WP:BOLD for advice and encouragement. If you think the edit may be controversial, then discuss it on the article's talk page. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:44, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

What are some articles that need to be edited?

I wanna get more experience for writing wikipedia articles, and i wanna edit some. What are some articles without some citations or with some spelling mistakes? YeeeeeeeEemumomoawaWimoweh (talk) 23:55, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

YeeeeeeeEemumomoawaWimoweh, you should check out the Help out section of the Wikipedia:Community portal. It automatically updates with articles that need various kinds of help, and the page also has useful links to other related pages. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 00:12, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Four examples of "article wish lists":

1. Wikipedia:Requested articles/music/Performers, bands and songwriters ^[2]
2. Wikipedia:WikiProject_Women_in_Red/Journalists ^[3]
3. Wikipedia:Requested articles/music/Albums ^[4]
4. Wikipedia:WikiProject_Women_in_Red/Computer_science ^[5]

That's also a fair warning, these wishes work best when followed up by a DIY aka WP:FIXIT. –84.46.52.63 (talk) 03:08, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

@YeeeeeeeEemumomoawaWimoweh: I'd also like to suggest, before you do too much more, that you consider changing your username – it's too long to type accurately, copy/paste on a mobile creates more work for other editors to address you (something that may happen a lot as a newbie), and it clutters talk pages more signature and less actual content. Something that people will find memorable and easy to type would be a good choice, like LionSleeps . Requests can be made at WP:CHU. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 09:44, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

@YeeeeeeeEemumomoawaWimoweh: Yep, I'd agree that your username is not conducive to easy communication, and a name change would be appreciated. But that account has, thus far, made only six edits. I advise simply abandoning this account, never using it again (i.e. forget the password) and create a brand new account. You can link the two together, if you wish, so long as you never use the older one. This makes far less work for the account name-changing volunteers. For live spell-checking and correcting, you could install WP:LUPIN. But be aware that this tool also reports spelling mistakes in urls and filenames - these must never be corrected, so you do need to be on your toes when using it. But that's half the fun, isn't it? Adding the {{notatypo}} template to apparent errors (such as archaic spellings within quoted text) is really helpful to alert subsequent spell-checkers. Season's greetings. Nick Moyes (talk) 11:02, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

apostrophe, how to ?

i have found words " friends' ", " parents' " in an article. my first impression is they are wrong. for spellings i refer to wiktionary and article language. before changing punctuation marks, where should i look ? do we have manual or guide ?

Leela52452 (talk) 06:41, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Leela52452, welcome to the Teahouse. Please take a look at the Manual of Style which will give you answers to your questions about punctuation, capitalization and other types of usage issues. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:58, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Quick guide for possessives:

• Friend's work means the work of one friend
• Friends' work means the work of multiple friends

I.e.:

1. Add the plural 's' if necessary;
2. Add the apostrophe to indicate possessive;
3. Add an 's' if you didn't add one in step 1.

Note it's actually more complicated and there are exceptions, like its, at Apostrophe#Possessive apostrophe. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 10:01, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Pinging Leela52452 —[AlanM1(talk)]— 10:03, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

How can I make bullet points show on a {{Collapsible list}} template?

Thanks, Thatoneweirdwikier Say hi 10:31, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Thatoneweirdwikier. The {{Collapsible list}} page that you linked to actually contains the instructions I think you need. If you read down, it says you need to include a bullet parameter in the heading.

bullets: Include as |bullets=on, |bullets=true, etc to place a bullet point before each list item.

Have you tried this, and did it not work for you? Please explain the problem in more detail if you can't resolve it, and link to any experimental page you've created, as I can't see anything obvious in your contribution history.

My favourite holiday destinations (click 'show' on right of page to display)

• Iceland
• France
• Mexico
• Switzerland

Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 11:29, 28 December 2019 (UTC).

I didn't know this was possible. Thanks very much! Thanks, Thatoneweirdwikier Say hi 11:48, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

You're welcome Thatoneweirdwikier. The list and template documentation pages are quite detailed, and there are many clever things you can do with them. When you have some spare time, it's worth gently browsing through the documentation and help pages listed in See also and you'll be surprised what you might find. From the user perspective, I would suggest not starting off with a page showing a hidden table or list, but have it fully visible with the option for that user to collapse it later. Otherwise you risk a person failing to see some important bit of content. Best, Nick Moyes (talk) 12:03, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Follow-up to Request to guide me how can I approve my article

How can I approve my article, please guide me ASAP.(Aureliojohn (talk) 11:44, 28 December 2019 (UTC))

@Aureliojohn: Did you really mean "approve", or do you actually mean "improve"? I suspect the latter. If so, sometimes no amount of editing can make an article meet our notability criteria for companies, other than inserting the right type of independent non-marketing references. Have you now done that? If so, perhaps you could link to the three best sources that you feel genuinely support Wikipedia's definition of 'Notability', and we can look through them for you. Personally, I think it looks like it fits with our description we call "WP:TOOSOON". Wikipedia cannot be used to promote or market new companies - there are millions of them in the world. You simply have to wait until there is evidence that third parties have actually taken note of and have written about that company or product in depth. No amount of LinkedIn links or short business notes are going to achieve that. Sorry if this isn't what you wanted to hear. Nick Moyes (talk) 11:54, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

User:Nick Moyes - You are being optimistic in thinking that the OP means "improve". They want their draft approved to list it in article space. Other than that, you have tried to answer. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:09, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes:I have created one article to my sandbox behave of phemex they are working on bitcoin, and crptocurrency on worldwide. the company based in Singapore and I have worked on this platform last six months and now I'm still research and working on this platform. Please check my sandbox and let me know how to improve my article once I will improve my article after my article is also approve for the Wikipedia.(Aureliojohn (talk) 12:13, 28 December 2019 (UTC))

Your draft was already discussed four days ago here, and the TOOSOON consensus won't change ASAP, cf. NORUSH. –84.46.52.63 (talk) 12:37, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Aureliojohn: That was the page I looked at (i.e. User:Aureliojohn/sandbox - it now redirects to Draft:Phemex, and that was the page I was referring to in my answer above. So, please fully re-read all the way through our notability criteria for companies and tell us which three sources you think best support Wikipedia's definition of 'Notability'. I will then try to re-assess the significance of each of those sources and tell you why I don't feel it is sufficient to meet our critieria. As far as I can tell, you have added nothing significant since Robert McClenon declined it as failing notability. So without hearing more from you, or seeing better sources added, I am at a loss to help you further. A failure to meet Notability Criteria means that, no matter how hard you try, you will never get an article about that subject on Wikipedia at this moment in time. How we might view it in the future, is another matter entirely. So, if a major national newspaper writes about this company, we start to get what we need. Your main sources are all insider financial reports simply regurgitating and repeating the identical text of a press release, which is what insider news outlets do. This is not sufficient. Nick Moyes (talk) 12:39, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes:. Thank you for your time, I really appreciated for your guideline.(Aureliojohn (talk) 20:16, 28 December 2019 (UTC))

You wrote "I have worked on this platform last six months and now I'm still research and working on this platform." That clearly indicates a paid relationship. You must declare that on your User page. David notMD (talk) 13:10, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

User:Aureliojohn - See general sanctions for cryptocurrencies. Many editors want to use Wikipedia to advertise cryptocurrencies, and other uses of blockchains, and exchanges for trading cryptocurrency. We have had so many editors trying to use Wikipedia to advertise cryptocurrencies that we have had to implement special rules to deal with editors who are promoting cryptocurrencies, especially editors who have a conflict of interest. Some editors are topic-banned from cryptocurrencies, or even blocked. We have had a problem with editors who try to advertise cryptocurrencies. If you cannot establish notability, your draft will not be accepted. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:09, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

@David NotMD:. I mean, I'm working on this platform for the last six months, I'm not employed for this company.(Aureliojohn (talk) 20:16, 28 December 2019 (UTC))

Creating a biography on Wikipedia

I need help to create a biography for Professor (Chief) Kolawole Waziri Olagboyega, an educator. Please help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Professor (Chief) Kolawole Waziri Olagboyega (talk • contribs) 12:49, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Hey Professor (Chief) Kolawole Waziri Olagboyega, assuming you are the subject about which you wish to write, you should note that writing autobiographies on Wikipedia is strongly discouraged, as it is exceedingly difficult to write about yourself in a way that complies with Wikipedia's standards for neutrality. If you feel you must do so, you should first determine whether you meet Wikipedia's standards for notability, which requires sustained in-depth coverage in reliable published sources, usually things like books, magazines and newspapers, and excluding things like social media and official websites. If you do, then you can create a draft using the Article Wizard, and it can be submitted for review by and experienced volunteer who can offer feedback prior to publishing. GMG^talk 12:54, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

For academics, we do have special notability criteria, which need to be read in full. Please see: Wikipedia:Notability (academics). Nick Moyes (talk) 13:21, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Black Holes

Unable to edit Wikipedia Black Holes

The subject of Black Holes has been completed for some time However the subject is not complete, and my editing skills are not great

What I would like to see some of this added (after editing)

Black Holes are an object of very condensed matter. Possibly containing atoms that have had the space removed. The mass of a Black Holes acts very much like the mass of stars, the closer you get, the greater the effects of gravity. However, because they are very condensed, objects can get much closer before colliding.

https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › S0–102

Is one of the closest stars that we know of near Sagittarius A and has an orbiting period of 11.5 years

Closer objects would orbit in a shorter period of time and the orbit speed would be faster Somewhere near what is described at the event horizon, objects including light would orbit at the speed of light.

There is no indication that the event horizon is at the surface of a black hole Thus, any object orbiting closer to the surface, would be travelling faster than the speed of light. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Victoria7j (talk • contribs) 13:16, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Victoria7j. The article Black Hole is 'semi-protected' meaning that new editors or those with less than ten edits may not alter it. You meet the age criteria, but only have made nine edits. So you aren't far off being able to edit such an article. That said, your suggested text is too simplistic and unsourced, and seems more like your own conjecture. None of this type of content would be accepted. On highly complex, scientific articles full links to high-quality academic sources would be needed. If you wish to make an {{edit request}} on an article, you should go to that page's talk page.

As for the second part of your post, I fear I don't fully understand what you are asking of us. However, no edit request would be enacted upon unless it clearly improved an article and was based upon Reliable Sources. Sorry about that. (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.) Nick Moyes (talk) 13:32, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

How do I remove a broken link?

On the Wikipedia page for David Baldwin (historian) there is a link out to his official Facebook page. This page no longer exists. I would like to remove it. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.9.54.147 (talk) 13:52, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse. That is indeed a dead link, and now that you bring it up, external links to Facebook or other social media are generally not even supposed to be present unless there is nothing else to add (for more information on this guideline and external linking, see WP:FACEBOOK). That doesn't seem to be the case; there are plenty of online, reputable sources, so feel free to remove it. In other cases, though, I would recommend using the Wayback Machine ([6]) to find an archived link and use that instead. Happy editing! ComplexRational (talk) 14:07, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Wrestler information

Plz write the in wrestling section comprising of the wrestler information regarding his/her moves, theme songs, managers etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2401:4900:C07:42B9:E906:620C:4228:1C20 (talk) 14:09, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Added an entry, but I need assistance for English Wikipedia

Hello everybody, Hello to the community,

I'm coming from Germany and I try to include my knowledge into German Wikipedia for years. But with the English one I have some difficulties in understanding the procedure maybe... Since 24th of October 2019 there is a draft of the entry "Sayonara Player", which is also available in two other languages: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sayonara_Player

Can anybody give me some assistance on what I need to do, that the entry gets reviewed and published? My target is to include it here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_audio_player_software where only players with an own entry are accepted.

The reason is, that I was searching for a good Linux audio player since eight years. Finally I found one this summer, but it's not well-known and I think Wikipedia could be a solution to change this situation.

Thanks to everybody for attention and have a good start in 2020, Dominic2105 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dominic2105 (talk • contribs) 14:44, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi Dominic2105 and welcome to the Teahouse! I took a look at your draft and it appears that the draft was declined. It's not the best feeling in the world, so I'll try to explain why it happened. So far, you've cited four sources, which is good. However, these sources are not independant and reliable. For example, the first source and second sources is the player's own website, and although it would be appropriate to provide a link in an external links section, it isn't suitable to demonstrate notability because it is not an independant source. I can try to explain this further if you're still confused. As for the differences between the English and the German Wikipedia, I'm not too familiar with that, so maybe another editor's input would be helpful here. Clovermoss (talk) 17:28, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Referred

How to make a reference pages

And other head titles — Preceding unsigned comment added by JantjiesAthule (talk • contribs) 12:06, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi JantjiesAthule and welcome to the Teahouse! A bit more context would help me answer your question so I understand what exactly you're asking. Are you refering to Reference sections in articles or something else? Clovermoss (talk) 17:12, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Follow-up to Understood and thank you for your time, but I have just created a brand new page on Radmila and attempted to publish. Did I do something incorrectly or do I need to revisit the first attempt?

Hi Captain Eek,

The discussion was archived regarding Radmila Lolly, so I am following up here. I am not clear how Radmila does not qualify as notable with the amount of coverage I included in my article draft. As far as possibly requiring some years before becoming notable, Radmila has been publicly active since 2012. I have also left out things that Wikipedia doesn't approve of (e.g. "dating a celebrity"), but said things also prove that public celebrities/influencers attend Radmila's events and that she has other known affiliates with Wikipedia pages of their own. Please, please help me as I have remained within Wikipedia's guidelines for citing/giving sources.

Carlden10, Howdy hello and welcome to the Teahouse! The main issue here is that at the moment, the community has determined (based on this discussion) that Lolly is not currently notable, i.e. they are not sufficiently written about and cannot be covered on Wikipedia. Realistically, some years may need to pass before this person does enough to make them notable to be on Wikipedia. At this time, I do not recommend you work on Lolly further. Creating a new article from scratch is one of the hardest thing to do on Wikipedia. You are likely best served by working on editing existing articles to get a feel for how Wikipedia works. Please feel free to ask any other questions you have about Lolly, or Wikipedia in general. Smooth sailing, Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 23:14, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Carlden10 (talk • contribs)

Hello, Carlden10, and welcome back to the Teahouse. In Draft:Radmila Lolly, the first 10 sources cited are either press releases or interviews, which do not help to establish notability at all. The article in The Spectator looks useful, but at the end says PR Agency: SGG Public Relations indicating that it is directly based on a press release, and so is not independent coverage and does not count toward notability. The Women Fitness article is again an interview. So is the article from VOCE SPETTACOLO. The article from NSCMagazine again ends with PR Agency: SGG Public Relations and so is of no value for establishing notability. I cannot asses the article from Óyeme Magazine as it is not in English, but even if it is a high-class source, one independent reliable source is not enough. At least three are needed, and high-quality sources are particularly needed to overcome the determination made at the AfD discussion. If you want to proceed (which I advise against) drop all the interviews and Press releases and look for Independent and reliable sources that each discuss her in detail. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 19:10, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Editing an edit

If my edit is the most recent, is there a way to make changes to it without reverting it and recreating it, or creating a separate additional edit? Also, if I accidentally forget to create an Edit Summary, is there a way to add one after the fact? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joelkfla (talk • contribs) 18:24, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Joelkfla, and welcome to the Teahouse. You can always simply start from the current state, who ever made the most recent edit, including yourself, and make further changes to bring the article or page to the desired state. Many editors work in a series of small changes. Also, it is very common for an edit to be followed by an additional edit to correct typos or other errors in the first edit.

You cna always make a dummy edit, for example by adding a single space to teh end of a line, whoich will make no change in the display, and use the edit summary there to explain the previous edit. For example "Previous edit was to add a source citation".

In your preferences, in the editing section, there is an option (see Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-editing) "Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary (or the default undo summary)" which will warn you if you try to save without entering an edit summary. I strongly recommend it. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 18:37, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Joelkfla (talk) 18:48, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Follow-up to Undo while editing?

Please diseregard. Joelkfla (talk) 18:50, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Kirazuri and Kirazuri

While we have Kirazuri in page namespace, someone has created/translated a draft page with the same subject. Kirazuri &oldid=927741474 was created at 13:36, 24 November 2019, while Draft:Kirazuri &oldid=927006724 at 19:47, 19 November 2019. I don't think the Draft has been reviewed/approved, nor Kirazuri the page span out from that. What is the best way to avoid confusion? Do we file AfD? --Omotecho (talk) 19:13, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Omotecho, and Welcome to the Teahouse. Thank you for drawing attention to this. I have redirected Draft:Kirazuri to Kirazuri. There is no need for deletion. If a draft does need to be deleted WP:MFD is used, not AfD.

You might want to look over the cited sources in the history of the draft (which remains available at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Kirazuri&action=history) and if any of them are useful and reliable sources, add them to the article. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 19:28, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello, DESiegel, thank you for crisp reply, and appreciate your pointing me to MFD. Yes, I have supported and worked on refs/citations on Kirazuri a while ago; FYI, was told it's part of a classroom project, and the original editor also translated it into jawp as well. Cheers, --Omotecho (talk) 20:07, 28 December 2019 (UTC)