Wikipedia:Teahouse

Eman235, a Teahouse host

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

Ask a question

Question forumMeet your hostsArticles to improveBecome a host

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

Help Wikipedia

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

Draft:Ross Kolby

Dear Teahouse contributors and editors. I am working on an article about a Norwegian artist and author: Draft:Ross Kolby. I have worked on it to try to meet the standards and rules of Wikipedia. Could you please help me to see if something is missing or if I may improve this article more while it is waiting for being evaluated? Best, Constituto (talk) 13:09, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Constituto, I took a quick look at your draft. There are a lot of references there, but the first few I looked at weren't ideal - some very brief mentions, a directory listing, his own YouTube channel, and the websites of galleries displaying his work (which would not really be considered, since they are promoting him). The draft was declined previously because the sources did not demonstrate the subject's notability per WP:NARTIST or WP:GNG. When it comes to notability, you only need a handful of sources, but they need to be high-quality - independent, secondary and reliable sources, giving the subject significant coverage. I'd also ask you whether you have a connection with the subject - one of the photographs is of him meeting the king, which you uploaded as your own work - that suggests to me that you know him? If so, you need to read COI carefully, and make the necessary declarations. GirthSummit _(blether) 14:25, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Girth Summit, Thank you so much for looking at my draft. I am not connected to the subject personally, I just find his art interesting. I got inspired by the article about another Norwegian artist i like: Sverre Malling. I looked at it and its references and gave it a shot. If I succeed with my article I'd like to write more articles about contemporary artists, but I see that finding the right references proves to be a challenge. I am new to this, so I might choose the wrong sources? I thought the articles from the National Broadcaster NRK would be good. Would a National Broadcaster be an independent and reliable source? I uploaded the photo of the artist and the King as my own work because I do own it. I was given the photo from the photographer, free to use in any way. He is an amateur photographer, whereas all the other photos I found from that event was from newspapers and were copyrighted. They could naturally not be uploaded to Commons. But perhaps I should have uploaded the photo in another category? I could remove the text about the exhibitons and the gallery references, if you would suggest that? I put the film from YouTube as a reference merely to say the film exists, not as a indipendent source. Should I remove it, perhaps? I am grateful for your good advices in this to me new process. Best, Constituto (talk) 05:22, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Constituto, the NRK source is good in terms of independence and reliability - if just doesn't tell us much about the subject. It tells us quite a bit about what one of his paintings, and mentions a couple of other ones, but gives us almost nothing about the man himself. Having said that though, reading it through again it would appear that you could make a case for his passing WP:NARTIST based on criterion 4(d) - is his painting of the crowns on permanent display with the crown jewels? And are his paintings of the various Norwegian kings on permanent display in a major gallery? If so, that might be a strong case for notability. With regard to the photograph, ideally the person who created it should have uploaded it, using their own account, since they are the copyright holder. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 09:57, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Girth Summit, Thank you for your remarks. I see. The inline citations I hoped would tell us more about the subject are the interviews with the newspapers Budstikka (reference No. 2) and Varden (reference No. 4). Yes, his painting of the crowns is on permanent display in the statal Crown Regalia Museum by the Nidaros Cathedral in Trondheim. https://www.nidarosdomen.no/en/attractions/riksregaliene. I found no statement about this at their website, but it is there as the NRK article states. His portraits of the three WWII kings are on permanent dispaly at the Armed Forces Museum in Oslo, which is one of Norway's oldest and most visited museums. They in fact state that they exhibit the paintings: http://forsvaretsmuseer.no/Hjemmefrontmuseet/Portretter-av-Frigjoeringskongene. This text simply says that you may se the three portraits at the main exhibiton. I could contact the photographer and ask him if he might upload the portrait on Commons himself. Again thank you for your advice. Best, Constituto (talk) 10:22, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Constituto, OK - I'm becoming convinced of his notability. If I may suggest some changes to the article that would help a reviewer:

• The draft doesn't have a lead section, summarising the content. Write one, being sure to include the basic facts that make him notable (work in the permanent collections of significant galleries).
• Cut extraneous information. You don't need a paragraph explaining who Vera Lynn is, for example - the wikilink to her article will provide all the information the reader needs about her.
• Cut any puffery - there's not much, but for example you don't need to describe the Albert Hall as an 'iconic venue'.
• We don't use honorifics. Harald V is just Harald V, not His Majesty Harald V. (We're not singling out Norway for disrespect - take a look at Elizabeth II!)
• Cut any unsourced assertions - for example, the list of people he has painted portraits of is entirely unsourced.
• The sourcing for his writing isn't great. I'm no kind of expert on Norwegian literary sources, but from a quick look I'm seeing his profile on his publisher's website, there's what appears to be a directory listing for his book, a review on what appears to be a fan site (I see it's 'powered by WordPress', which suggests it's more of a blog than an RS). Reviews in reliably published independent sources would really help beef this section up.

If you do all that, the article will appear less promotional, and it will be clear to a reviewer why he is notable - it should then be a much easier review. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 11:46, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Girth Summit, Splendid! Thank you again so much for your very useful advices. I will carry out all your suggestions. Re. the sources for his writing I put the inline citations merely to prove that the novels indeed were published. So not to claim a book was published without any proof. Of reviews I found one of "Flammer" ("Flames") in Nordlys, a large Norwegian newspaper, and put it in. Do you suggest that I remove the publisher proof that the books were indeed published? Wouldn't an editor then question if I claim something uncertain? Best, Constituto (talk) 12:50, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Constituto, part of writing an article is about deciding what is significant enough to include, and what might be better to leave out. If someone has written a book which was reviewed in a national newspaper, then it's definitely worth mentioning, and the newspaper review itself is the perfect source. If, on the other hand, someone wrote a book that nobody ever reviewed, and the only evidence we can find for its existence is the publisher's website, it's sometimes better to leave that out if it is other work that they are really known for. GirthSummit _(blether) 13:08, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Girth Summit, I fully understand. That is a sound guideline for wtiting articles. Thanks! I see if I can find other reviews, and delete what cannot be supperted by one. Would you be interested in reviewing my article once I am done? I understand it might take months awaiting an editor to come by my draft and then wishing to review it. Best, Constituto (talk) 13:45, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Constituto, I tend not to review articles 'on demand' in response to TeaHouse requests - it's kind of like encouraging people to skip the queue. However, if you make the changes I've suggested, it should be quite an easy review, and so more likely to be picked up early. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 13:54, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Girth Summit, Of course, I fully understand. I'll continue on the article with your suggestions. My reference No. 2 has jumped down a line from the number. Do you know how to make it read like the other references? Thank you again for your time and good advice. And Happy New Year! Best,Constituto (talk) 14:28, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

I would recommend that you expand the references from the current bare URLs, preferably by filling in relevant parameters in templates such as {{cite web}}. --David Biddulph (talk) 17:01, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

How to be recognized for donating?

Hi everyone, I have just donated $20,000 to the wikimedia foundation, and I was disappointed at the lack of recognition for my generosity. Was there a mistake? Just wondering how we can get this resolved. Thanks! - Chris — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrissods (talk • contribs) 00:51, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

@Chrissods: Hi, welcome to the Teahouse. Thanks for your generosity. The Teahouse volunteers don't work with donations and don't have access to donor information. Donors are anonymous by default for privacy reasons but can give permission to be named per foundation:Donor privacy policy/en#Sharing Donor Information. https://wikimediafoundation.org/support/benefactors/ has an email address. You should qualify as a patron donor. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:08, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Chrissods, as this forum is to answer editor's questions about how to edit Wikipedia, let me add this: Your status as a donor has no bearing whatsoever on your editing. Some editors donate, some don't. Either way, it's totally irrelevant to your or my editing activity. John from Idegon (talk) 01:34, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Gosh, John, was that comment really necessary? Nick Moyes (talk) 02:02, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi John from Idegon, thank you for your remark. I’d hoped to come here and be welcomed and thanked for my donation, but I’m glad that you seem to enjoy finding an unsubtle way to denigrate me and my contribution to the project. Take care now, and rest assured that your snide attitude is not lost on me. - Chris Chrissods (talk) 01:48, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hello, Chrissods, and welcome to the Teahouse. Wow! That's an amazing donation, and far more than I earn in a whole year. So, thank you so, so much. I'm afraid none of us here can speak for the Wikimedia Foundation, as English Wikipedia is run wholly by volunteers, and none of us receive any income whatsoever for our efforts. As you no doubt know, the WMF uses your generous donations, not only to fund the immense costs of hosting this amazing Encyclopaedia, but also in a huge program of education and outreach across the globe, as weĺl as the development of the software behind all our wikis, and research into its effectiveness. I would assume that any delay in acknowledging such a donation as you have made would be due to office closures over the Christmas/New Year period. I have genuinely no idea how the WMF office operates, but I would hope you might be willing to give them another week to respond to you. If you get no reply by then, and are concerned that your donation might not have reached its destination, please email: donate@wikimedia.org. You can check you've donated to the correct address by checking the details here Once again, thank you for supporting Wikimedia, and all its projects. Regards from the UK. Nick Moyes (talk) 01:50, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Chrissods. I will take you at your word, and therefore I thank you for your generous donation to the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF). Please realize that the WMF operates hundreds of sites in hundreds of languages with a variety of different objectives. English Wikipedia is the largest of many WMF sites, but English Wikipedia editors and administrators, who are volunteers, have nothing at all to do with the fundraising and have no way at all to verify who is a financial donor and who isn't. Frankly, we do not care at all about financial donations when interacting with other editors. Here on English Wikipedia, we value your volunteer editorial contributions to this encyclopedia, because our goal 24 hours a day and seven days a week is to improve this encyclopedia, and we can easily verify whether or not you are doing so. It is fairly common that we deal with people who want an article changed in one way or another because they claim that they have donated money to the WMF. We must reject any such requests based on money because the policies and guidelines of this encyclopedia always come first. I am sorry that you were offended by an earlier comment. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:13, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

I have rescinded my donation and explained to the foundation in detail why that is. Chrissods (talk) 12:58, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

I am glad to hear that. Thank you! --bonadea contributions talk 13:02, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

I really don't see what was so mean about John's comment. He was just stating the truth- we don't handle donations here, and they have no bearing on your activities here. 331dot (talk) 13:03, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

• I find it curious that this user has done nothing on Wikipedia other than post about their $20,000 donation. Is there any independent way to know if this was given(and taken back)? 331dot (talk) 13:03, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

  As I understand it, 331dot if a person donates, and does not check the box allowing public sharing of donation info, there is no way for anyone outside the WMF office that handles donations to verify the donation (well maybe the tax authorities are told). And of course, even if we knew that Person X donated $10,000, we can't confirm that Person X edits as User:X without violating the privacy policy. Even if User:X openly claims to be Person X there is no easy and reliable way to confirm that. And In any case it shouldn't matter. Even if the claim is false, that is not a reason to block or treat edits differently, and if the claim is true that is certainly not a reason to give edits priority or special handling. So the only real answer is "Thank you, can we help you with editing?" to anyone who says "I donated $NNN." I'm sorry that this person took the response above as "snide" when I don't think it was so intended. But Misunderstandings do happen. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 17:28, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

• How does one go about "recinding" a donation? I've ran a 501(c)3 for many years and that has never come up. John from Idegon (talk) 20:28, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

If this is real then it may refer to donate:FAQ#What is your refund policy? PrimeHunter (talk) 21:30, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Merging Talk Pages

I recently merged Swaminarayan Sampraday to Swaminarayan (spiritual tradition) as outlined in WP:MERGE. While I reconciled the talk page tags from the source page, do I need to also copy the source talk page (here) posts into the destination talk page (here)? Thank you. Moksha88 (talk) 03:06, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

I would place on the talk page of the target (destination) article a link to the talk page of the source article, with a note that relevant discussion might be found there. They won't be significantly harder to find than old archived discussions with no merge. I would not advise copying old talk page discussions onto the new talk page or its archive pages (if any). If there are really significant discussion (major RfCs or agreements on significant points, say) you could include a separate note with a link right to the relevant discussion section, on an archive page if it has been archived. As long as there is a way for readers to get to all the old talk discussions without too much trouble, I would think that enough. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 17:34, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

DES Excellent, thank you. Moksha88 (talk) 04:02, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Just a little typo I found on the main section of an electronics article. There's no 'edit source' button. How do I fix it? :)

Hi there, Just wondering about a little typo I found on the main section of an electronics article. It's a lovely article. There's no 'edit source' link to fix the typo - though there're 'edit source' links next to subsections. How do I fix a typo in the main article? Thanks heaps :)  :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Researchgatematerials (talk • contribs) 03:28, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

On a computer there is an "edit source" link at the very top above the title. Not sure about on a phone though! --Bduke (talk) 04:27, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi Researchgatematerials and welcome to the Teahouse! The edit button (if you're using a web browser instead of the app to edit) looks kind of like a pencil. It's at the top of an article and is the last button on the right. If you need clarification or help with other questions about editing Wikipedia, feel free to come here again and ask. Clovermoss (talk) 23:11, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Idea..

Ever thought about putting out donation bins? It would be very convenient and I’m sure people would give change at least. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1702:3760:E920:70E2:3B09:D9D4:609E (talk) 04:16, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Donations are handled by the Wikimedia Foundation that operates the computers Wikipedia is on, and not us editors here. You are welcome to communicate any suggestions you have to them, though if you mean physical donation collection, that would likely be a massive operation for a worldwide site to conduct. 331dot (talk) 10:13, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Userspace templates

Not sure where else would be the appropriate place to ask this so I guess here? When leaving a warning on a user talk page, such as {{uw-unsourced}}, I know that piping the article title in will mention the article. I’ve seen on some talk pages, however, that the specific diff is also linked. How do you link to a specific article revision with these templates? TIA, Alex (talk) 04:47, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

@Alexanderlee: AFAIK, this is only possible for messages left by Huggle. All Huggle messages can be found at Template:Huggle and its subpages. Victor Schmidt mobil (talk) 06:54, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Hawaiian Lullaby

Aloha! Need help moving Draft:Hawaiian Lullaby into main space by experienced editors. Once done I can upload image. Thanks! Allanbcool (talk) 05:24, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Welcome back to the Teahouse, Allanbcool. Your draft needs a "critical reception" section, which should summarize reviews of the album published in reliable sources. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:31, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Cullen³²⁸ Okay section added with sources as requested.--Allanbcool (talk) 08:59, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Adding a date of death

I (and it seems, several others) have tried to add death information for Scott Sowers. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Sowers

Multiple online sources have announced his death, e.g. imdb.com, and https://fcnp.com/2018/06/13/our-man-in-arlington-276/

My edits and others have been reverted. Can someone advise what we're doing wrong? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bob baseline (talk • contribs) 05:35, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

His (possible) death has been discussed on his article's Talk page. The theory there is that it was an April Fool's Day hoax. The source you gave is a church newsletter, probably not what we would normally regard as a great source. IMDB is also notoriously unreliable. Is there a genuinely reliable source out there? Anyway, since it's already under discussion there, I suggest you take your thoughts to the Talk page. HiLo48 (talk) 05:50, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

I did some digging, documented at Talk:Scott Sowers. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 08:28, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Chances (Backstreet Boys song) submission rejection assistance

I have recently come across this draft a few months ago when it was declined three times by two different reviewers due to the same editor resubmitting the article without thoroughly following advice. In the following months since I found the draft, I have added several reliable secondary sources establishing the notability of the song, while also adding primary sources to support these statements. The draft was then rejected due to the lack of secondary sources and for the same reasons as the previously declined submissions, despite adding several more reliable secondary sources.

I have since followed the reviewer's advice to discuss the state of the draft over at the main article's talk page two weeks ago. However, no other editor had responded over the two weeks, and I have not been able to gain consensus about whether contents of the draft should be merged as suggested by the reviewer, or if any other editors are willing to assist in the editing process. I am also unsure about the approximate number of reliable secondary sources that would be acceptable for the draft to pass submission, as information in most sources are combined with the announcement of the DNA World Tour or only solely mentioned during a television performance of said song.

Any help will be greatly appreciated. — Angryjoe1111 (talk) 06:48, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Angryjoe1111: in your opinion, which four of the 20 references in the draft do most to establish that the subject is notable, by linking to reliable published independent sources with in-depth discussion of the subject? Maproom (talk) 09:50, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Maproom: Thank you for responding. I'm not sure if these two references establish detailed notability of the song itself, but both [1] and [2] exclusively mention the song's publicity through televised performances. Billboard is a reliable reference for the publication of the subject, as it documents music events and charts. Even though the song may be overshadowed by the announcement of their world tour and album release, these four secondary sources briefly detail the song's release.[3][4][5][6] This source [7] only spends half of the interview about the song itself; however the content found in the article is extensive and thoroughly used within the draft. Although barely any of these sources individually discuss the subject in full due to the announcement of the album's release date and world tour overshadowing it, the seven secondary sources listed should indicate that the song is somewhat notable, in addition to charting on multiple music charts as seen in the draft's Charts section. Thank you again for taking the time to respond. — Angryjoe1111 (talk) 12:17, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Maproom: I've added around eight references to the draft since from several secondary sources, which should help establish the song's notability. Feel free to comment if you have time. — Angryjoe1111 (talk) 09:58, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Angryjoe1111: the problem was not the number of references. When a reviewer assesses whether you've established that the subject is notable, it's the quality of the references that counts, not the quantity. I'll repeat my previous question, which you did not answer: in your opinion, which four of the references in the draft do most to establish that the subject is notable? Maproom (talk) 10:16, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Maproom: These sources [8][9][10][11] all provide context on the song's notability. The song was released alongside the announcement of the album's release date and world tour, which doesn't conflict with the notability guidelines that excludes sources derived from an album review. — Angryjoe1111 (talk) 16:32, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Angryjoe1111: I can't judge 8, as I'm not registered with the site and so can't read most of it. 9 is based on an interview with a band member and so not independent. 10 does have two sentences of discussion of the song. 11 is based on a press release, and so not independent. That's really not enough to establish notability. I have to agree with Robert McClenon, who did not just decline your draft (meaning that it did not establish the notability of its subject), he rejected it (meaning that he considers the subject is simply not notable, and no amount of work by you can change that). Maproom (talk) 18:06, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

User:Angryjoe1111 - I don't often reject a submission unless there is something wrong with it or unless it is hopeless. In this case the problem was that the reviewers were ignoring the advice to discuss at the album talk page and were just tendentiously resubmitting the song. The discussion at the album talk page is only after I rejected the song. So if there is a consensus at the album talk page that the song should have a separate article, I for one will re-review it, but only if there is discussion. What I do not like is repeated resubmission without following the reviewer advice. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:48, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Robert McClenon: Thank you for clarifying what went wrong with the draft. It seems that the initial editor's constant resubmissions had a negative impact on how I would have needed to make drastic improvements from where he last left off. I am also at fault for not following your comments on the draft, as I was trying to ensure that the draft would be validated by several reliable secondary sources. Since the album talk page is inactive, there is no consensus on whether they would approve of the draft or whether I could merge contents into the article, which is also another reason why I brought this question here. I will notify you again when the draft is agreed upon in the talk page. — Angryjoe1111 (talk) 00:37, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, User:Angryjoe1111. If you get consensus at the album talk page, that will override the rejection, and the rejected draft can then be deleted to make way for a new draft. In the meantime, there should be discussion at the album talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:28, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

By the way, this situation is relatively common at Articles for Creation with music drafts. Often an author is advised to discuss a draft on an album at the talk page about the group, or the author of a draft about a song is advised to discuss it at the album talk page. For some reason, some authors don't understand the idea of discussing at another talk page. So this happens from time to time. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:28, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Strange RGraph edits - should these be undone?

Hello, can someone help me understand if the recent edits by users 86.30.29.225 and Richard heyes to RGraph should be undone or how to treat them? Richard heyes stated COI on the user talk page. 86.30.29.225 has only made edits to RGraph so far. Actually, I created the RGraph page and it is not even reviewed yet if I am not mistaken, and in the current state after those multiple edits by these users it looks less neutral than in the state I made it... Please advise what should be done in such cases. Thank you. Avbgok (talk) 09:57, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

In my personal opinion, the edits by Richard heyes are not improvements to the article. They are promotional, and give excessive detail in the form of a code sample. Richard heyes, as the creator of the subject software, has an undeclared conflict of interest. The edits by the IP editor are constructive copyedits to the content added by Richard heyes. Maproom (talk) 10:35, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Appears you created the article (no longer a draft), and editor Richard heyes, who claims to be the creator of RGraph, has added lots of content to the article, doubling the length. Best place to discuss whether those additions are appropriate is at Talk page of article. David notMD (talk) 11:19, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi Avbgok. Any editor can undo another editor's edit(s) if they believe they aren't improvements or otherwise not in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines. If that's the case here, then you can undo the edits. However, if you decide to do that, you should leave a clearly worded edit summary explaining why also probably further clarify on the article's talk page. The other accounts involved might be not as familiar with Wikipedia editing as you are and not really know about things like WP:DR and WP:BRD, etc. so try to avoid WP:BITE. It also might help to mention in your edit summary that they can discuss things on the article's talk page. Even though there does appear to be a COI at play here with at least one of the other accounts, just reverting everything on that basis alone is not really a good thing to do; so, if you can improve on the content in any way without undoing it all, then that might be a better thing to do. If you want to get more editors involved who are experienced in editing articles about software to assess the article, then try asking at the WikiProjects listed on the article's talk page. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:49, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the opinions. I think then I should not revert all the edits just like that but instead I will write about this situation on the talk page for other editors' attention and probably will look into the essence of what was added on those edits later by myself as well. Thank you all very much. Avbgok (talk) 13:52, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I'll remove the sample code, the supported chart types and the big logo picture and add a detail box like the on the D3 page. How's that? Richard heyes

Added an entry, but I need assistance for English Wikipedia (Second draft, enhanced article sources in references)

Hello everybody,

thanks for the assistance regarding the entry "Added an entry, but I need assistance for English Wikipedia". The draft has not been approved due to missing reliable independent sources in the references. I added four new ones and linked to two other Wikipedia languages entries. Could this new draft please be checked?

Have a good start into 2020, Dominic2105 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:908:1A74:4360:C1B8:8A45:92CC:BE46 (talk) 11:54, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Courtesy link: this is about Draft:Sayonara Player.   Maproom (talk) 12:08, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi IP 2A02:908:1A74:4360:C1B8:8A45:92CC:BE46. Wikipedia articles are not considered reliable sources for any purpose per WP:WPNOTRS and this includes articles found on other language Wikipedias as well; so, linking to those two non-English articles aren't really relevant at all to determining whether the subject you're trying to create an article about is something considered to be Wikipedia notable. What matters is whether Wikipedia:Notability (software) is being met.

Now, the other sources you added might be, but that's something you might want to try asking about at WT:COMP or WT:SOFTWARE since that's where you're likely going to find editors familiar with these types of articles and with what types of sources are generally considered reliable.

Finally, please don't move/remove any AfD decline templates or any comments left by an AfC reviewer. I'm sure you meant well, but its best to leave them at the top of the page so that any future reviewers are aware of them and can easily find them. Everything will be cleaned up as needed if the draft is eventually accepted and all the templates/comments will be removed when that happens. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:13, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

When you have resolved the problems, the way to resubmit for further review is with the blue "Resubmit" button in the feedback box on the draft. --David Biddulph (talk) 12:35, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the "Resubmit" button help. So much text on the pages and English is not my native language ;-) I've updated everything and clicked the button. Let's see what the future brings. Thanks to you, David and Marchjuly. Dominic2105 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:908:1A74:4360:C1B8:8A45:92CC:BE46 (talk) 13:27, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Question about editing

So, our organization was noticing there was a lot of outdated information in wikipedia about our industry, and we tried to provide an update to the information (not promotional!!), just basic 101 type of definitions, and trends, but it shows that our IP or userid got blocked/blacklisted. Why would that happen? Nothing we tried to edit was offensive, or promotional. We even provided links to resources that are publicly available in industry publications. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.199.134.100 (talk) 16:52, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello, IP user. The only recent edit from this IP address was this, which has not been reverted. Judging from your comments, you were editing from a logged-in account, but you haven't given us any clue to this. My guess is that the account was blocked because you chose a name which implied you were editing on behalf of an organisation - if so, there will be a message on your user talk page telling you what you need to do. In fact, if you have been blocked for any reason, there should be a message on your user talk page explaining why.

But unless you tell us the username, or some of the articles you edited, it is unlikely that anybody here is going to be able to help you. --ColinFine (talk) 17:04, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Nimäävil

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Inta kärvi hikkalaamataakat tuosinaalum, itu pala partikarä urrartakkuotu empataal, atäät törppatasku mummar koortirttuk kaartappartta atuo artippartääk korkäkarääp passuo valuvaama purital tuovääppartukisatu: Massikarä varajasuttal, usavukarä pihatinitittuvappartuttuvatasku hamampaartukarä uruvaakkutal töövai virakkutal. 172.58.238.238 (talk) 17:54, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

This is the help page for the English language Wikipedia. You can perhaps find a Wikipedia for your language here: [12]. RudolfRed (talk) 18:12, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

New to Wikipedia and already pending deletion

Hello everyone, I became a monthly donor to Wikipedia and decided to set up a user page. As best as I could tell, it is a page that is intended to describe the user, but perhaps that is incorrect? It is not clear to me how the user page needs to be setup. I am not writing an article, just the user page. Any guidance would be greatly appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BeowulfTheDionysian (talk • contribs) 17:55, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

You'll find advice at WP:User pages. --David Biddulph (talk) 18:04, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

I would add that- while thanks for your donation- you don't need to donate to be a Wikipedia user, and donations have no bearing on your Wikipedia activities. All fundraising matters are handled by the Wikimedia Foundation, which is not usually involved with day to day operations here on Wikipedia. 331dot (talk) 18:12, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Your User page and you are not one.If it comes to deletion of your current User page content, you can start over. And even if you decide to leave your User page empty, you will still be able to contribute to articles and comment on Talk pages. David notMD (talk) 19:38, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi BeowulfTheDionysian and welcome to the Teahouse. You are welcome to put some information about yourself on your own user page, but it should not look like an article, so one change you can make is to change it to first person. Also, it should not advertise in any way. Best wishes for your future editing. Dbfirs 19:49, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

BeowulfTheDionysian, you are not allowed to remove a deletion template from a page you created. As your efforts are clearly in good faith, I removed it and blanked your userpage. Feel free to start over, but please consider making contributions to the encyclopedia (in other words, edit). A userpage is an unimportant detail. John from Idegon (talk) 19:58, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you John from Idegon, it has been a clumsy introduction for me. I just started becoming a monthly donor and thought I would become active in the community, but I see I have so much to learn. I'll give it some thought and try again at a later date. BeowulfTheDionysian (talk) 20:04, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

BeowulfTheDionysian, our training programs leave much to be desired. As en.wiki is entirely volunteer, that won't likely improve until an individual comes along that wants to fix that. One thing we do have is WP:TWA, an interactive learning tool formatted as a video game. Please try it before giving up. I doubt we share many common interests, so I'd be unable to help you with research, but you can always leave me or any other editor a note on their talk page if you have technical problems. Also, you may want to check out the various Wikiprojects for one that covers topics you are interested in. John from Idegon (talk) 20:21, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Templates

How do I get templates Tram1203 (talk) 22:28, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi Tram1203 and welcome to the Teahouse! Can you clarify what you would like to know about templates? There are many different type of templates used on Wikipedia, so it'd be easier for me to answer your question if I know what you need help with. Clovermoss (talk) 23:04, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Error uploading a new version of image

Hello! I've been adding the logos of the Spanish football clubs that were missing and made a mistake - my logos were .jpgs with white background. I wasn't sensible enough to read the guidelines first, but I am willing to correct them to the .pngs with transparent background. However, when I tried to upload a new correct version, I've got this error: "File extension ".jpg" does not match the detected MIME type of the file (image/png)". It's my first time dealing with images, so I have no clue what's going on. I've read guidelines on images now but I can't find anything about this error there. Can please someone explain what am I doing wrong and how to upload a new logo? Would also be grateful for a link to read about it. Thank you! Less Unless (talk) 23:39, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi Less Unless. Since the previous versions of the file's are in jpeg format, the software is telling you in its own way that it's not going to replace them with a newer versions uploaded in png format. So, you should upload the png version as a new file, not an update, and then replace the jpeg files manually with the png versions in the relevant articles. You can then add Template:PNG version available to the jpeg file pages. Once the jpeg files have been removed, they will become orphaned non-free files as explained in WP:F5, and will be tagged for speedy deletion by a bot. If you uploaded the jpegs, you'll receive a notification of this on your user page that you can just ignore. If someone else uploaded the jpegs, they receive the notifications. If nobody tries to reuse the jpegs, they will be deleted after five days. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:50, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you Marchjuly for the detailed explanation. Happy Holidays!--Less Unless (talk) 20:17, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Is Lafée (K-pop) notable enough to write a page about?

Lafée, also known as Sherry or Lee Sae-Bom, is a K-Pop artist who appeared on season 3, episode 9 of Korean music game show I Can See Your Voice. She released a single called Love Fever on November 8, 2018 and an EP called HELLO on January 10, 2019 (can be found here and has music videos, distributed via GENIE YouTube). Her voice is notable for its distinctive huskiness, which is more noticeable in her busking videos. Before appearing on I Can See Your Voice, she was a medical resident in Los Angeles.

Benefits of adding her page: People will know what happened to Sherry on the ICSYV page if they really liked her.

My main concern is that she might not be 'notable enough' to have a page, as per Wikipedia guidelines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Choerrybom (talk • contribs) 02:08, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

WP:NMUSIC offers some "notable" chart position for bands/musicians. For claims like "husky voice" you'd need reliable sources. New articles are always a gamble, if you pick the draft route it could be rejected. If you go directly to the article namespace there can be a "speedy deletion request" in less than one minute, later followed up by an AFD, but an article surviving its AFD was good enough. –84.46.52.46 (talk) 12:20, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

December 31

Is it possible for something on Wikipedia to be notable if they are a YouTuber with a million subscribers? CheatCodes4ever (talk) 02:23, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

@CheatCodes4ever: We've always held that subscriber numbers don't matter when it comes to notability. ミラP 02:34, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Improving the lead section for Anthony Barr (American football)

What's up guys. Is there anything I could do to improve the lead section for Anthony Barr (American football) (or in other words, what to include)? --UCLAgirl623 ^{(Whats up!)} 03:36, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi UCLAgirl623. You can find out more at MOS:LEAD, but the lead of an article should basically be a brief summary of the main points that are covered in more detail later in the body of the article. The current lead of the article doesn't seem badly written to me; if, however, you think you can improve it then go ahead. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:53, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

My article is rejected stating that it is not notable

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Jitendra_Kumar_Soni
Draft:Jitendra Kumar Soni

Jitendra Soni is awarded with Sahitya Academy Award in the year 2016 for "Rankhaar" - Rajasthani Poetry, i have given sufficient references for the same. On the other hand he has published more then 10 books.

Mr. Soni is also awarded with Uttam Jeevan Raksha Padak, to save 8 people.

Following are the reference :

• https://pib.gov.in/newsite/PrintRelease.aspx?relid=135762
• https://www.jagranjosh.com/current-affairs/jeevan-raksha-padak-awards-2015-announced-1453717402-1
• https://www.sify.com/news/jeevan-raksha-padak-awards-2015-announced-news-national-qbznKiacgdhfb.html

Kindly guide me how to improve my article and get it approved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dkmohta (talk • contribs) 05:13, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Dkmohta, You need many more good sources. If you could find these sources, then why are they not in the draft? You need to find as many good references as possible, that have significant coverage of the subject, and add them to the draft. Expanding the draft with a section about the subject's life and career would also help out greatly. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 07:20, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

@Dkmohta: I second what CaptainEek said above. But please be aware you should not put too much emphasis on “You need to find as many good references as possible” but rather concentrate on “as many good references as possible”. (Please don't consider this note an evaluation of your links – I didn't even check them. This is a general hint on referencing: quality before quantity. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources for detailed guidelines.) --CiaPan (talk) 08:00, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Coppa vandalism

(Courtesy link: Children's Online Privacy Protection Act. Nick Moyes (talk) 10:14, 31 December 2019 (UTC))

Hi, as you may know the Coppa page is out of control. I know the public outrage, and I feel it too. But for heaven's sake please lock the page, as it's getting out of control. Plz help us admin you are our only hope. Oh and happy New year 🍾  link— Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.246.68.50 (talk) 05:34, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi 98.246.68.50 and welcome to the Teahouse! I started a request for pending changes protection (which means review before edits are seen by non-logged in users) at Requests for page protection. Ultimately, it's up to an administrator to look at my report and decide what the best course of action is. Thank you for posting here, and feel free to come here again if you have any other questions about editing. Happy new year to you as well. Clovermoss (talk) 05:56, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi IP 98.246.68.50. Thanks for pointing this out, but next if will make it easier for others to help you if you can provide a link or at least the exact name of the page where the problems exist.

In addition, you might want to take a look at WP:UP#NOT and WP:TPG because your user talk page is not really being used in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines; so, you may want to save that content somewhere else before the page gets blanked by an administrator or another editor. — Marchjuly (talk) 06:03, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Article Submission

Hi,

I was trying to make a new article up and it has been rejected. Please help me understand how I can make this page up: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:MediaKind — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevethomas4 (talk • contribs) 06:47, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Stevethomas4. Do not try to submit advertisements posing as encyclopedia articles. Any neutral uninvolved editor would see your draft as an advertisement. Start by removing every single promotional word or phrase, and removing every single solitary bit of unreferenced content. Then, change your ugly, uninformative bare URLs to informative and correctly formatted references with titles, authors, publications, dates and so on. Check to be sure that every reference remaining is to a truly a reliable source, completely independent of MediaKind. Please comply fully with WP: PAID if it applies to you in any way. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:02, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Cullen328. I have removed the unwanted text and links and submitted it again for the review. Please suggest your feedbacks: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:MediaKind — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevethomas4 (talk • contribs) 08:52, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Reviewers will doubtless comment in due course, but one obvious point is that Wikipedia is not an acceptable reference, see WP:CIRCULAR. Where relevant you may, of course, use wikilinks. It is also worth noting that in your questions it is better to use a wikilink Draft:MediaKind rather than the url https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:MediaKind. --David Biddulph (talk) 09:05, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

The other point, of course, is that you have totally ignored Cullen328's wise advice about resolving the bare URLs in your references, and about removing unreferenced text. --David Biddulph (talk) 09:10, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

first time contributor

Hello, I have made a submission title "Romaine Morris" where it was declined due to " The content of this submission includes material that does not meet Wikipedia's minimum standard for inline citations. Please cite your sources using footnotes.", as I am inexperience on the platform I would appreciate some help in order to meet the above requirement. Thank You — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clarendon Post (talk • contribs) 14:27, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

In the Declined, the reviewer recommended you go to Help:Referencing for beginners. David notMD (talk) 15:03, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

article taken down and made a draft for Articles for Creation

An article I wrote Draft:Tibet House US was taken down and made a draft for articles for creation. Aside from the fact that the article was live on Wiki for months, had well over 1000 views including views and edits by other editors, it was taken down without any prior notice, and tagged: "Do not copy-paste material from sources, or your submission will be rejected for copyright violations. Write from a neutral point of view and base your article on reliable sources that are independent of the subject. It is strongly discouraged to write about yourself or your own business. If you do so, you must declare it." -- I checked all the instructions related to these claims and do not understand why the article was taken down. Nothing was copy and pasted except for direct quotes from reliably sourced articles that are listed according to Wiki standards as quotes with citations. All the citations are from reliable sources independent of the subject. It was not written about myself or my own business. I also improved the general Tibet House article so the Tibet House and Tibet House US entries were up to date and in line with reliably sourced facts. I took a lot of time on this article and would appreciate some insight and help. Thank you. (Ogmany (talk) 16:30, 31 December 2019 (UTC))

Those bullets (copy-paste, neutral, not you or your business) are standard for the template that is placed atop not-yet-submitted drafts. You are not accused/suspected of any of those activities. As for why the article was moved to Draft, that is because the reviewer (User:Rosguill) who took this action did so because what you wrote does not meet Wikipedia standards, yet has potential if edited properly to become an article. Query the reviewer on the reviewer's talk page for more guidance. David notMD (talk) 16:46, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Are special rights required

Can anyone hat/hab or cot/cob portions of a talk page or is this right reserved to admins or selected editors. Can anyone provide a link to the policy and guidance page which discusses the appropriate use of these tools. Thanks.Oldperson (talk) 17:14, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

@Oldperson: I'm not sure I quite understand your question. Could you please rephrase it so I or other Teahouse hosts can better answer it? Thank you, Interstellarity (talk) 17:47, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Oldperson. There's nothing special about the templates {{hat}} and {{cot}}. If you can edit a page, you can insert these. See the links for how to use them. --ColinFine (talk) 17:53, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

As ColinFine says, no special rights are required to use these and other similar templates Oldperson. However, one should be careful not to disrupt discussion or hide legitimate comment. See WP:TP, Wikipedia:Refactoring talk pages and the documentation for each individual template. If in doubt, suggest that another editor close the discussion. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 17:59, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

DESiegelHow does one get another editor (I presume you are referring to an univolved editor) closing out that discussion. If so how does one do that without WP:CANVASS. What I have notice in the use of hat or cot is that it is often employed as a censorshp tool to hide talk conversations that an editor does not like. That's the way I see it anyway. As a "legal" way of hiding a talk conversation, in as much it is not kosher to modify or delete anothers conversation, and a revert on a talk page can only be done if it is obvious vandalism. Or am I missing something.Oldperson (talk) 18:47, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

I changed the brackets so that this was linking to WP:CANVASS rather than transcluding it. --ColinFine (talk) 18:53, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

oldperson tha tis one of the concerns with the use of such templates. I have seen people post in a discussion "I wish someone would close this, but I am too WP:INVOLVED". The general ruel is that when there seems to be consensus that a conversation is not closed, or pre-existing consensus that something is outside of the scoup of a page, using {{hat}} is reasonable. (For example, a person asking a question not in English was closed recently right here on the teahouse.) Like any other edit, use of such a template can be reverted, and I have seen people revert such a closure when they thought it was incorrect. Like many other things here, it is a judgement call. A general appeal for closure in the discussion itself would clearly not be canvassing. A request to an uninvolved admin or experienced editor to help, which resulted in a closure by that editor's judgement would probably not be either. A specific request to a specific person to close, might be. If the discussion is basically trolling, hatting is often reasonable. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 19:08, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

@Oldperson: I think there's a important distinction be "CLOSE" (i.e. WP:CLOSE) and "close" (as in "shut down" or "stop"). Most talk page discussions don't seem to require a formal CLOSE; they sort of just slow down to the point where the posts have stopped and nobody seems interested anymore or there seems to be an obvious WP:CONSENSUS which is then implemented and enforced by WP:SILENCE. Some discussions, however, might benefit from a more formal CLOSE and these can be requested at WP:AN/RFC. Ideally, as explained WP:ACD, a non-involved editor will see the request, look at the discussion, decide whether a consensus has been established and then implement it. The editor doing this doesn't need to be an administrator and anyone can CLOSE a discussion as long as the do so in good-faith and in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines. Many people, however, seem to prefer to have administrators CLOSE discussion because of the following reasons: (1) an administrator can do certain things like delete pages that non-administrators can't and thus can more readily implement whatever close is reached; and (2) administrators (at least most of them these days) had to actually go through a somewhat formal process to become an administrator and thus have already been vetted in a sense by the community as being trusted to make appropriate decisions. This doesn't mean mistakes are never made; a CLOSE by an administrator is not automatically considered beyond reproach just because it was made by an administrator anymore than a CLOSE made by a non-administrator is automatically considered suspect just because it was made by a non-administrator. Any CLOSE can be challenged/reviewed per WP:CLOSECHALLENGE, but there needs to be a good reason that generally has to do with the actual CLOSE itself and not the person making it.

A "close", on the other hand, has to do more to do with WP:TPG#Off-topic posts and is more related to things like WP:NOTFORUM and other parts of WP:NOT. It's sort of a way to remind others to stick to the subject at hand, which in the case of an article talk page usually always means the subject of improving the corresponding article in a Wikipedia sense and not a general discussion of the subject of the article. Sometimes these posts are simply answered by a polite "stay on topic" type of answer or just ignored; collapsing/hatting seems to reserved to case where things have started to get a bit out of control or the post is a rather long wall of text that does nothing but really take up space and has no potential for positive discussion related to Wikipedia or the post otherwise disrupts an ongoing discussion and risks causing it to go off in some weird unproductive tangent if left to as is. Figuring out such things can be a bit subjective and not everyone may agree; so, care needs to be taken in doing so with respect to contentious and complex discussions.

It seems that you have a particular discussion in mind; so, you kind of need to self-assess whether you're looking for a CLOSE or just want to close a discussion. If all you're looking for is the latter, then often the easiest thing to do is just stop posting and move on. Other people will either stop posting and the discussion will slow down and eventually end of its own accord, or new people will post and keep things moving towards some consensus. You can always return to the discussion later on and post. One thing to be careful of though is WP:BLUDGEON because even when one's intentions are good it can create a situation where others may be less inclined to participate because they don't want to get caught up in a heated back-and-forth between two sides which show no sign of even wanting to try and reach a consensus but are more interested in WP:WIN instead. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:15, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Unlock archive

What is the way to unlock an archive? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.230.144.194 (talk) 19:23, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

I think you'll need to be more specific, IP user. What kind of archive? How is it locked? Why do you want to unlock it? Are you even asking about something in editing Wikipedia (if not, this is not the right place for the question. If it is about computing unrelated to Wikipedia, WP:RDC would be a better place). --ColinFine (talk) 19:38, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

• I don't know how many archives are present on wikipedia but I want to know about that archive which contains information about awards and accolades only( which are given to notable persons).I'll extract some information from it and use it as a reference in one of the article. I'll not copy any information for personal use. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.230.144.194 (talk) 19:44, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello, IP editor. Wikipedia contains many archives of various kinds, but almost none of them are in any sense locked. Most can be read by any editor. I don't know of any archive dealing with awards and accolades Most information about awards and accolades is included in articles about people who have received them, or organizations who have given them out.

Do note that no Wikipedia article should ever be used as a reference in any other Wikipedia article. However if a reliable source is cited in one article, that citation may normally be reused in other articles, if it is relevant.

Note also that any information on Wikipedia is available for personal (or commercial) use under the terms of the CC-BY-SA license (or the GFDL). DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 20:04, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

223.230.144.194's only other edits are to this discussion about Shamsheer Vayalil, where AlanM1 removed an award claim as the cited source and the "archived version as of December 2011" did not support the claim. Presumably, this is the "archived version as of December 2011" to which they referred. 71.234.210.113 (talk) 03:37, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

This has become an WP:IDHT and WP:CIR problem, likely due to the IP editors' age (it's supposedly two pre-teen/teen brothers). The discussion on the talk page shows consensus that the award is not notable, which is ultimately why it is not in the article. The IP editor keeps on it, though, on help pages, user talk pages, etc. He's found an issu/scribd-type document pile with limited access to a PR announcement and is trying to get full access to it (without paying for it or whatever that particular site's deal is). Note the document is classified under "Arts & Humanities – Communications – Marketing". The part that they don't/won't get is that it doesn't matter – multiple editors have decided it's a pay-for-promotion award, and therefore doesn't belong here. The IP editors are not old enough to have the real-world knowledge to gauge such things, and apparently not old enough to understand the explanations that they've been given, why what they're doing is wrong, or have a clue that they don't know. In any case, it's just WP:TENDENTIOUS at this point. I've already asked an admin about this situation privately, because I'm stumped about what to do. Now I guess I'm asking publicly. (Reminder: see the range for their contribs – the IPs change frequently: 223.230.128.0/18 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log)). —[AlanM1(talk)]— 06:10, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

• I don't believe this. I'm in shock that " Stevie award " is pay for promotion award. How can anyone buy an award for his/her organisation? You guys are joking. Is there any proof which describes it as pay for promotion award?

Thanks. (223.230.171.242 (talk) 09:00, 1 January 2020 (UTC))

preference of "citation needed" template to "cn" template

I'm just curious... I've noticed a couple of cases where someone has replaced the "cn" template in an article with "citation needed" (in at least one case, I think that was the only change made).

Is it wrong to characterize this as a gratuitous change? Is there a generally accepted preference for the longer form? TIA! Fabrickator (talk) 22:40, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

@Fabrickator: It is an unneeded change, but you should WP:AGF. The two templates are the same: Cn redirects to Citation needed. RudolfRed (talk) 22:55, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Fabrickator, Wikipedia:Bots/Dictionary says: A cosmetic edit is one that doesn't change the output HTML or readable text of a page. By contrast, a substantive edit is one that does change the output HTML or readable text of a page. However, the term cosmetic edit is often used to encompass all edits of such little value that the community deems them to not be worth making in bulk, even though those edits might change the output HTML or readable text in subtle ways. In general, making a change that is purely a cosmetic edit in that sense is frowned upon, and may be considered disruptive editing if done habitually. Also WP:NOTBROKEN says Do not "fix" links to redirects that are not broken. I will add that I pretty mush always use {{cn}} rather than the 'full" name when I place this in an article. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 00:01, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

RudolfRed DESiegel I appreciate these responses, I really wanted to be sure that this wasn't some convention that I should be conforming to, and that when I encounter these in either format in an existing article, it is best to just leave them alone, regardless of what had been done in the specific edits I mentioned. Fabrickator (talk) 01:22, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

@Fabrickator: Some automated tools, like AWB, will perform such edits. The user running the tool should know not to save such edits if they are the only ones the tool finds (or they discard the other changes). Sometimes, people (including me) will forget, though, and such edits will slip in. Note that some tools have bugs in them, too, which will cause them to replace a redirect with the target, even though the redirect is not equivalent in meaning, and will likely turn into a non-redirect at some point. Cleanup templates are common examples of this. I would discuss it with the user making the edits if it's not an isolated incident.

Note that there are exceptions to the "cosmetic" rule, like replacing deprecated or improperly used HTML tags, which may not make an immediate change to the rendered page, but can affect browsers in the future and screen-readers (e.g., replacing <br />-separated lists with proper list templates). —[AlanM1(talk)]— 06:27, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Vascular

I am confident that there is a term that is not adequately defined and I have questions pertaining to it. The term is vascular and anthroprocentrically in wikipedia it goes to the the human anatomy. This is a term that could refer to plants, how water or energy flows through ecology, how goods and services are distributed in an economy, and in finance it can deal with the velocity and the trajectories of the flow of money...it can also deal with the spread and distribution of ideas and thoughts throughout humanity and possibly biology. If vascular is searched for in wiki an immediate link to "Blood Vessel" ...how do I communicate with the right people to make this change? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.12.250.144 (talk) 02:00, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi 71.12.250.144 and welcome to the Teahouse! This is the article on Vascular plants. Vascular is currently a redirect and that is why Blood vessel showed up when you typed vascular as a search term. As for the other terms listed, do reliable sources provide in-depth coverage (think several paragraphs) on these terms beyond a dictionary definition? If so, you might want to start a draft for an article. If not, you should know that Wikipedia is not dictionary, but dictionary defintions are welcome at Wikitionary [13]. Clovermoss (talk) 02:48, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Pending AfC submissions being reviewed now

I have a draft currently being reviewed and I would like to know if accomplish with reliability --152.207.241.206 (talk) 02:19, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi 152.207.241.206 and welcome to the Teahouse! I looked at your contributions but the only edit I could find was your edit here. This is likely because the IP address that you are using to edit has changed. Could you provide a link to your draft so I can see it? Also, it would be helpful if you clarify what you would like help with. Clovermoss (talk) 03:47, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Question from User:Haridallas

How do I edit a semi-protected article? If it is only a minor change in the way the word is spelled can I use in brackets? tufah /tofah توپھ تفع — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haridallas (talk • contribs) 21:20, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi Haridallas and welcome to the Teahouse! Most articles can be edited directly, but a small percentage are protected. You could fill out an edit request on the talk page of the article you'd like to improve with the changes you would like to make. If there are any other questions that you have about editing Wikipedia, feel free to come back here and ask. Clovermoss (talk) 03:58, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

About this program does every one know that people with similaar intrests can join here and create and improve wikipedia articles — Preceding unsigned comment added by Venu ryalapati (talk • contribs) 06:18, 1 January 2020 (UTC)