Wikipedia:Teahouse

つがる, a Teahouse host

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

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.

To read the newest questions, skip to bottom
About the Teahouse

Most recent archives
1221, 1222, 1223, 1224, 1225, 1226, 1227, 1228, 1229, 1230, 1231, 1232, 1233, 1234, 1235, 1236, 1237, 1238, 1239, 1240

(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.)

Relevance of an article

I'm toying with the idea to write a list article about Beatles museums worldwide. E.g. Liverpool, Halle, Siegen, Alkmaar, Dunedin, Stanardsville etc. The list would contain an introduction why these museums exist, the name, location, opening year and 'specialty' (short description) of the different museums.

Would this kind of article have a chance to be accepted?
If yes, what should be the title? (List of Beatles Museums? List of Beatles Museums worldwide? List of Museums related to The Beatles? ...)
Would it make sense also to include special locations (e.g. houses where the individual members lived which are now accessible to the publich or bear an official plate citing that state?

I appreciate rather more information about my plan than too little. Thanx. Pte. Salt (talk) 17:06, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm writing inbased on my general knoeldgeof how to buld up sections in WP; this is not really my field: we seem to have articles on only 3: Egri Road Beatles Múzeum in Eger, Hungary , Beatlemania Hamburg, and The Beatles Story in Liverpool. I would suggest the first step is adding some information on the others, not at first in separate articles, but as brief mentions within the "museums" section of the various cities so the information can be at least visible. What to do from there depends upon how much information you have. If there are multiple excellent sources showing the museums are known not just in the surrounding area, it will be possible to make an article for each. If not, ad whatever you do have to the relevant sections.

There are then two possibiltities: if good sources have been written about the general concept of "Beetles Museums", you can make an article based on those sources, containing a list of the individual ones. If such sources do not yet exist, for the general idea, just make a list. ( Don't use your own original ideas about the nature of the museums, but rely only on the sources. ) Link it to the existing articles for the individual museums, and to the sections of the other articles in which the museums are mentioned. Then build from there. mention your project on the talk page at [[WP: WikiProject The Beatles}}, and I would imagine quite a few others interested will help you.

There are other ways--and Gråbergs Gråa Sång's suggestion should also work well. DGG ( talk ) 23:34, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Pte. Salt! Maybe doable (not my area, really). I found List of music museums, which has about 7 Beatles Museums on it. Some redlinked, if you want to try to create articles. Consider starting a section for museums at Cultural impact of the Beatles or Tributes to the Beatles. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 22:55, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note "museums" should be lower-case, e.g., "List of Beatles museums" or "List of museums dedicated to the Beatles". —[AlanM1(talk)]— 23:48, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

!Thanks so far! I keep searching and have found 13 (more or less) museums; not yet included museums (or exhibitions) which focus on only one of the band members. Cultural impact of the Beatles supplies material for an introduction. Still not decided for the title but "List of museums and xxx dedicated to the Beatles" (xxx will also be "material" like houses etc.) is my favorite.

Follow up question (before I move to WP: WikiProject The Beatles): Where can I find pre-made sortable tables to be used in the article? Pte. Salt (talk) 16:02, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See Help:Table, at 5:2. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:37, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect! Very helpful! Thanks! Pte. Salt (talk) 09:12, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tommy Roberts (sports broadcaster)

I need any help with making this a more neutral article and need to know what flowery words need to be taken out. thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Monmouth1946 (talk • contribs) 11:57, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Monmouth1946, looks like you've already gotten plenty assistance from multiple editors at the article itself since you posted here. Recommend MOS:WORDS as further reading on the subject. Cheers! Usedtobecool ☎️ 17:14, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tommy Roberts (sports broadcaster)

I have made numerous changes to give article encyclopedic look. Can someone let me know if they have have given the article a better Format Thank You Monmouth1946 (talk) 20:44, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy link Tommy Roberts (sports broadcaster). TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont)

Tommy Roberts (sports broadcaster)promote the subjectP in making this better for submission

I have streamlined article and taken everything that I could think of to not not promote the subject. I don’t know where to go from here. If someone can help make this a betterarticle for submission I would gladly accept the advice. thank youMonmouth1946 (talk) 16:26, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Will also like to delete maintenance issues at top of article. I am afraid to do it myself because I do not understand the directions.Monmouth1946 (talk) 16:39, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Looking through the text, there is nothing left to justify either of the previously-placed templates ({{peacock}} and {{tone}}), so I removed them. I do think some stuff is unnecessary trivia but have not looked in-depth so will refrain from further edits.

Notice that the article Tommy Roberts (sports broadcaster) has been in mainspace since its creation in November, unless I am missing some page move somewhere, so it is already "submitted" and visible to the public at large. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 17:14, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tigraan, it has not been reviewed/accepted by WP:NPP so it doesn't yet show in the search engine results outside of Wikipedia. Most sources are offline so it should take some time unless someone bold or familiar comes across it. Usedtobecool ☎️ 18:03, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tommy Roberts (sports broadcaster)

I would like to submit article for publication. It has been vetted for any mistakes on talk and Teahouse. Would someone show me how t odd it orvsubmit it for me. I have done everything I can possibly do to make it read correctly. Also many of you have helped immensely inv preparing it foe submission. Thank YouMonmouth1946 (talk) 17:53, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Monmouth1946: As I wrote above (though you might have missed it), that article is already "live", so it is visible to our readers. (The article can still be improved, of course, as is the case for 99.9% of Wikipedia text.) Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 18:02, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Monmouth1946, WP:NPP has a backlog of 6000+ articles and most of the sources in your article do not have online links; therefore the article is not easy to review for everyone. If after 90 days of creation, it is still left unreviewed, it will automatically be released for indexing by search engines. So, there's nothing to do but wait a couple months. Although, if you could find and add online links to sources, it might help speed things up. Usedtobecool ☎️ 18:09, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am confused as to what “live” means. Does it mean that I don’t have to submit it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Monmouth1946 (talk • contribs) 01:44, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Live" means that Tommy Roberts (sports broadcaster) is already a Wikipedia article, not just a draft. The purpose of submitting it has been achieved. Maproom (talk) 07:14, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It means "visible to Googlebot" and other crawlers per WP:NPP (new page patrol). The article is published, all wikilinks to the former draft are redirected to the article, check out Special:WhatLinksHere/Tommy Roberts (sports broadcaster). –84.46.52.190 (talk) 08:12, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fiction as references

I came across an article about floor-coverings that was using a work of fiction as a reference. It's easy to fix but I couldn't find an Help: page specifically saying not to use fiction as a reference for factual articles. Can someone, A) point to such an Help: page and, B) disclose an easy way to search Help: and Wikipedia: pages for answers? Thanks Mensch (talk) 16:31, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, that may be considered so self-explanatory nobody wrote it down. WP:Reliable sources does not mention "fiction". Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:42, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A bit like "but the fridge did not have a warning saying "Do not slam the door into your head 15 times"". Its sad but I suspect we may need to say "fiction is not an RS for real world facts".Slatersteven (talk) 18:51, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Slatersteven: You know you can sue..? François Robere (talk) 19:53, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations, Mensch. I've been on WP 10+ years but I can't remember encountering this question before. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:11, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW - I've commonly seen "In popular fiction" subsections, which I know annoy many editors, but that would be an appropriate use of a fictional work as a source. And of course don't forget the numerous "Blank in fiction" genre articles. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:05, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here I slightly disagree. Such subsections/articles should be cited to a decent secondary source that noticed that the pop-cult exists. Plot-sections are an exception, and they also annoy many editors. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:20, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In two minds, yes I see no issue with them, and wp:or means we should not be deciding if something is a cultural reference (say a major plot element vs a bit of scene dressing). But its also all pretty much trivia (which we should not really have). I suppose I err on the side of "it is interesting", and thus would judge each entry on that, is it in fact interesting.Slatersteven (talk) 10:26, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think we need to see the context of this question.Slatersteven (talk) 10:26, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the example, "Most U.S. Navy warships removed their linoleum deck coverings following the attack on Pearl Harbor, as they were considered too flammable. (Use of linoleum persisted in U.S. Navy submarines.</ref> Beach, Edward L., Jr. “Run Silent, Run Deep” and “Dust on the Sea”.</ref>)" Found at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linoleum#Use I 'broke' the reference to make it render. I'm familiar with cultural references and while I find them overused I tend to leave those alone. Mensch (talk) 11:53, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Then no, I would say this is not as fiction is not generally regarded as RS for facts.Slatersteven (talk) 12:24, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've WP:BOLDly created Wikipedia:Fiction as references as a redirect back to here (permalinked). ^{[Username Needed]} 12:00, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've also replaced the ref with a {{Citation Needed}}. ^{[Username Needed]} 12:05, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion was mentioned at WP:RSN § Interesting question at the Teahouse, so I'll copy over what I said there: The most applicable guideline is Wikipedia:Reliable sources § Context matters (WP:RSCONTEXT). A claim in a work of fiction is not reliable for anything outside of the context of its fictional universe. — Newslinger talk 10:31, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

`{{PD-Cuba}}`

Apparently this Licensing template, {{PD-Cuba}}, is no longer valid (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Casa_de_Beneficencia_y_Maternidad_de_La_Habana.jpg), where do I go to find out why it is so and what happens now with all images thare were uploaded via the template. Thank you very much for any info. ovA_165443 (talk) 16:50, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Osvaldo valdes 165443, at the time of deletion, the template had no images on the English Wikipedia using it. Any images that it would apply to should be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, where, as you linked to, the template is still existent.

The deletion of the template here had no effect on Commons, and was just because it wasn't used, and public domain images should be at Commons anyway, so any WMF wiki can use them.

~~ OxonAlex - talk 18:41, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's related to your recent question about maps in infoboxes here. Triggered by that I fixed d:Q5687504 for La Alameda de Paula, Havana, you added the coordinates on Wikidata, and the infobox worked as expected.
While at it I also fixed File:Alameda de Paula, Havana. !950s after the 1940s renovation.jpg with edit summary (visible in the history)
move to commons per File:Alameda de Paula, Havana during ca. 1940s.jpg
and File:Alameda de Paula, Havana during ca. 1940s.jpg with edit summary
The Template:PD-Cuba deletion debate suggests a move to commons: Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2017 January 18#Template:PD-Cuba
–84.46.52.210 (talk) 11:38, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification please for adding a filmography

Could the Teahouse participants kindly help me to clarify how to add a filmography to an article and what are the requirements for adding specific films? I've had conversation previously about tables vs. lists but in looking at articles in Wikipedia - I see that they are all over the map. Some lists have no Wikilinks and no references and some have a few references and/or Wikilinks and some have all Wikilinks. If a filmmaker has an existing Wikipedia page - is it required that each film entry be proven to be notable, i.e its own page? I also see often in artists' biographies, that lists of exhibitions do not always have references to reviews written about them that support each entry. The references often refer to the gallery websites etc. Specifically, I am referring to the edit request made on the Kent Tate talk page where I have prepared and requested to add a select filmography of this filmmakers films dividing them into experimental films and exhibitions. This list consist of specific films that have been screened or installations that have been presented in Canada or internationally. Your help clarifying the requirements made by the responding editor that each film requires an reliable, independent secondary source. Your clarification on these requirements will be greatly appreciated! It was my understanding that if an artist/filmmaker has been established as notable then a reasonable list of works would be allowed? Thank you! LorriBrown (talk) 18:10, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@LorriBrown: You are correct that there's no hard and fast rule about how to present a filmography. For Tate, I would add a section called Notable works, and put in the films and exhibitions mentioned in the article, with a source after each. Use the <Ref name = XYZ/> code to reuse your refs. See Help:Footnotes#Footnotes: using a source more than once. If there are more, add whatever you can find independent third party sourcing for. If the list gets too long, and you have lots of sources, you can decide to then leave it as is, collapse it or fork it, but it all depends on how much you have and how good the sourcing is. If all there is is what shows now, you'd be fine with that short section called "Notable works". Hope this helps. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:16, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Timtempleton for your reply. The question is that this filmmaker is a producer/director/editor/sound designer of independent, short, experimental films that have been screened and exhibited in Canada and internationally. The filmmaker is distributed by three Canadian distributors, has some of their film previews on Vimeo or IMDb or on the distributors' websites or on their own website. It has been determined as per prior discussions that this person is notable. The films do not have Wikipedia pages. These films have not been widely writen about by independent reviewers - they are experimental short films. It was my understanding that if an individual is noteworthy that a short list of their work would be allowed. I have COI with this person so I've prepared a list and have requested an edit request for this list to be added - and it has been denied because there is no independent third party sourcing available for several of these - only the film festival pages. There is a newspaper article and a third party article for one of the movies that received an award. The confusion for me is that because there is COI with the subject this post is held to a higher standards than a large portion of articles that are in Wikipedia. I see having looked at many artists and filmmakers and have created pages for other artist that have references to gallery websites for exhibitions or have filmography lists with not reference at all. It leads me to believe this requirement may be subjective. Since no other editors (as of yet) have shown interest in adding content to this page and since I can not change the fact that I have a COI - the only way to try to improve the article is to make edit requests. When I see all types of variations of acceptable format on Wikipedia it make me quite frustrated. This list that I've constructed is not an exhaustive list of every movie this filmmaker has ever created. It is a select list of movies that have been selected for screening or exhibition at international festivals - or have been screened or exhibited in video installations in Canada. Please do look at the edit request I am speaking of on the Talk:Kent Tate page - 9 January 2020 request. It seemed reasonable to me but I am the one who created it. Further help requested please & thank you! LorriBrown (talk) 21:49, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, Timtempleton To hopefully clarify why I am so perplexed by this denial for my edit request - I have created a short list of examples: Kelly Richardson and the following are from the list of Category:Canadian experimental filmmakers which includes: Sarah Abbott, Ken Anderlini, Jack Chambers, Millefiore Clarkes, Denis Cote, Daniel Cockburn, Jonathan Culp, Patricia Gruben, Rick Hancox, Mike Hoolboom, G.B. Jones. This list has more filmmakers but I think there are enough examples here to express the point that these lists do not all have references - or Wikipedia pages for these films. Thank you again!LorriBrown (talk) 22:17, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@LorriBrown: There are one or two things going on here - 1) you stated a COI and 2) because of that or maybe another reason the article is getting attention. Many existing articles were created when there was little oversight, but newer articles are held to a higher standard, so you can't point to other examples of poor articles as reasons to change policy. See WP:OTHERSTUFF. I see that the subject requested deletion so this might be a moot point. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 22:28, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Timtempleton The reason the subject has requested a deletion is because much of the content was removed from the article prior to its AfC approval and subsequently when I have attempted to make edit request - the responding editor has removed additional content. When I attempt to add content I have been denied. This is not a mute point - it is the point! The article can be improved and should be improved. The WP:OTHERSTUFF argument is really not a good argument. It certainly is hard to argue with but still not a reasonable one from my perspective. If this is true then these articles should also be held to the higher standard as well - and they are not. It feels quite subjective and should be more consistently implemented.LorriBrown (talk) 22:40, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@LorriBrown: there are too many articles and not enough people to fix them - we are all volunteers. If you'd like to see fairness in action, nobody will successfully stop you if you go ahead and delete any promotional and/or unsourced info from any of the other similar articles. If anyone tries while you are correctly following policy, then they are likely connected editors (or hypercommitted fans), and will eventually be blocked. You're welcome to request an article deletion, but I think having better sourced material in a smaller article is better than nothing. Since this is a public encyclopedia, nobody can claim ownership, and anyone can edit if they are following policy and are not being disruptive. If you want to post info that is exactly how you want it and controlled by you only, there are better forums. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 22:51, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@LorriBrown: My experience with filmographies is limited to Sasha Grey#Film and common sense: Folks don't want to see all her (ca. 200) adult + other films, that would violate several "what wikipedia is not". OTOH no adult film at all, even if it can be wikilinked, would be UNDUE. So many films are only indirectly covered by external links (IMDb etc.), likewise Kent Tate's vimeo account is covered by an external link.
If you suggest a filmography on the talk page—wikilink to your draft, no need to flood the talk page—and there are no serious objections that's it, somebody should copy it to the article, and maybe trim it if they feel that it's too much. Films mentioned explicitly in the article definitely belong into the filmography. The opposite is tricky, can the filmography contain films not mentioned in the article? I think yes to some degree, if it's wikilinked or at least sourced, but not everything, pick what you consider as notable (by the quality of your sources). –84.46.52.210 (talk) 12:18, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@84.46.52.210: Thank you for your reply. I appreciate your perspective. I constructed a short list of films by this artist - supported by the galleries or film festival sources for films that have been exhibited or have been officially selected or have won an award. This and one prior request have both been recently denied due to the lack of reliable third party sources. My contention was that most of all the filmmakers I have seen that have pages in Wikipedia have unsourced lists (detailed above). This argument is dissuaded by the OtherStuffExists argument. I am not interested in deleting content from these articles as @Timtempleton: mentioned could be done within reason – because I believe that these lists should be allowed, perhaps not excessively long lists. I disagree with the notion of OtherStuffExists. If it was that important to Wikipedians that this OtherStuff does not exist then there would be an entirely different process (I would think) for posting and adding to articles. I have made one final attempt to improve this article. I have additional research about current and prior work that could be added – that has been removed by the current edit request editor that always seems to be the only respondent to my numerous requests. I have reached out to editors directly (don’t recommend doing that) and indirectly. I just wanted to see a short list of this filmmaker’s films added to the article…. as a start to expanding and improving this article.

By the way – this artist requested that the article be deleted and an ongoing conversation is currently underway in this regard so unless anyone contest it and providing that is does not get improved they will likely succeed in getting it erased from Wikipedia. : - ) LorriBrown (talk) 18:35, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy link to ongoing deletion discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kent Tate. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 23:24, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation Question for Two Individuals with Same Name in Same Line of Work

Hello,

We are curious what is the preferred degree of disambiguation for two individuals with the same name in the same line of work. We have a submission for a chef named John Shields, of which there are two. We've renamed drafts to add the middle initial, which should help.

Thank you! Joey — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jziemniak (talk • contribs) 21:43, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Joey, and welcome to the Teahouse. That should work. The relevant policy is explained at WP:ATDAB. --ColinFine (talk) 21:50, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Jziemniak: Are you being paid to create this submission? Your use of the term "we" not only suggests that more than one person is using your account, but that you could be working for some sort of public relations or marketing agency, acting on behalf of clients. I might be wrong, of course, but if either, or both of these things is true, then you need to read and follow our policies carefully. If you are being paid directly or indirectly, you must cease editing straight away until such time as you have made a formal declaration of your Conflict of Interest on your Userpage, and/or on the articles you are writing. To do this, please read and follow the instructions at this link: Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure. As we do not permit more than one person to use one account name (see WP:NOSHARING), it would anyway be helpful if you could clarify whether 'we' refers to two or more people using your account - and change it so that only one person can use it from now on. Of course, if you are acquainted with, or have some sort of kinship with the people you are creating an article about, you will definitely need to make a WP:COI declaration as just explained. Sorry to be a party-pooper, but Wikipedia isn't here to help people promote themselves, either directly or indirectly, and so these questions have to be asked. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:52, 10 January 2020 (UTC) [reply]

Reviewer Input Request

I reviewed Draft:John Shields (chef) and declined it because we already have an article John Shields (chef). I noted that there was information in the draft that is not in the article, and information in the article that is not in the draft, and advised the author to update the article. The author then advised me that the subject of the draft and the subject of the article are two different people with the same first name and last name and occupation. This is an interesting disambiguation case because (as occasionally happens) there needs to be multiple disambiguation. I have renamed the draft to Draft:John B. Shields (chef), but am wondering what advice other experienced editors have about the best way to handle this. There is a disambiguation page, John Shields, also known as John Shields (disambiguation). I would appreciate advice on two issues from other experienced editors. First, should the draft be accepted? If it should not, because its subject is not notable, then the other issue is avoided. Second, if the draft should be accepted, either as is or with minor changes, how should the two people be disambiguated? Robert McClenon (talk) 00:24, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm collapsing my post below to this effect. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:24, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Should the draft be accepted? What should be done to the article if anything? Robert McClenon (talk) 00:27, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Robert McClenon: See my question to the contributor, above. It's very relevant. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:54, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Robert McClenon: Putting aside for one moment my possible COI / PAID editing concerns: If I encountered these two articles, and assuming both met our WP:GNG/WP:NBIO criteria for notabilty, I would do the following:

Add an entry for John B. Shields (chef) at the DAB page, John Shields;
Add a WP:HATNOTE to John Shields (chef) as below:

Robert McClenon, the best option would be to rename both articles as "John Shields (chef, born [Insert year here])". Usedtobecool ☎️ 08:30, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

and then a mirror one for John B. Shields (chef):

I've only glanced at the article and at the titles of the references cited, but I do actually question whether Draft:John B. Shields (chef) is really more about the restaurant, Smyth (Chicago restaurant), than about a notable person. Are the sources really in-depth about the person? If not, then I might decline the article on notability grounds, possibly creating a redirect to one of the two restaurants he appears to co-own. Hope this helps, Nick Moyes (talk) 01:14, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Robert McClenon: Another question for you: I think there's an error in your decline rationale of 15 December. You said: This draft contains information that is not in the article. Please review the article and add any additional information to the article Surely you meant something like: "This draft contains information that is not in the references. Please review the article and add any additional citations to support the article"? Nick Moyes (talk) 02:01, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, User:Nick Moyes, what I wrote was what I meant to write. I meant that the draft contained information that was not in the article. The draft was the page in draft space, with Draft before its title. The article was the page in article space. As an AFC reviewer, I often read a draft that has the same subject as an existing article. Often the two are the same or almost the same, typically because they are both by the same editor. In that case, the article can be left unchanged. In this case, the draft contained different information than the article, so that I thought that they should be compared and merged into a more complete article. However, it turns out that the draft and the article were different because they were about different people with the same name in the same line of work. I understand that you thought I had miswritten. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:20, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Robert McClenon: Ah, silly me. The dis-benefit of hindsight, I guess. I'm glad I didn't unilaterally try to change it! Nick Moyes (talk) 02:24, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sri Lankan film and actor articles

There is a prolific Sri Lankan Wikipedian who is seemingly creating an article for every single Sri Lankan film, TV show and actor (Special:Contributions/Gihan_Jayaweera). Is every Sri Lankan film, etc. notable enough to be included on Wikipedia? Should they just be limited to the more noteworthy ones? Should the user be encouraged to add more than a cast list and the release date? Obviously we don't want to discourage this user from contributing to Wikipedia, but perhaps their efforts could be refined into higher value work? --Danielklein (talk) 23:06, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Danielklein, I have not reviewed their contributions but only briefly scrolled through their talk page. Another Sri Lankan seems to have granted the user "Sri Lankan Wikipedian of the year" for 2019. So, I am guessing that at least from the Sri Lankan perspective, they are already doing a high value work. You are correct that not all such things are notable, but from my own experience, only a small fraction of such things that are notable in my country and offline can be shown to be notable using online sources alone. (And of course, there is no way to know if they are creating articles indiscriminately. Perhaps they are already picking the more notable ones of the bunch. After all, South Asia can churn out movies like no other region.) So, third world topics get a bit of a leeway when interpreting notability on the basis of available sources. There is nothing wrong with creating stubs per se. The article needs to make clear why the subject is notable either by showing that the subject meets one of the special notability guidelines or the general notability guideline. Other than that, creating short articles is fine. In fact, that is how Wikipedia began: with thousands and thousands of stubs. There are users who value article quality over article quantity, but for the developing world, I would say stubs on notable topics are just as valuable as in-depth coverage of high priority topics. If nothing else, this allows unregistered editors from those countries who are just getting acquainted with the internet or the Wikipedia to get into editing. Finally, since the editor in question is a trusted WP:AUTOPATROLLED user, they are expected to meet minimum quality and notability standards in their creations. After considering the above points, if you are still concerned that many of their articles might not, you could politely raise it with the user at their talk page. Note that I am not pinging the user in question here and therefore kept my response as general as possible, but if we continue to further discuss them, we should ping them to this discussion, or it would be talking behind their backs. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 09:09, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gihan_Jayaweera I believe many of your articles are in violation of WP:PLOT. I think overall you are doing fine work on Wikipedia. I would just like to see articles that establish their notability. A list of every Sri Lankan film, TV show, and actor belongs on IMDB, e.g. https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1172522/?ref_=nv_sr_srsg_0, but not every film is automatically notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia. --Danielklein (talk) 00:45, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Danielklein, Thank you all for comments. I need to remind you that, I made those articles on the behalf of Cinema of Sri Lanka, but nothing else. Because, when compare with highly fan based Bollywood, Kollywood and Tollywood movies in my neighbor country, Sri Lanka is starting to develop as one of the critically acclaimed movies in past decade or so. Many Sri Lankan films won international awards and some of them were even included in Top 100 Asian Films. Eg. Gaadi. I also should note you everyone that, I cannot included every bit of sections for an article such as plot, production, reception, awards, etc. I just started it and other Sri Lankan Wikipedians should contribute that article with their efforts by adding a plot or production sections. So I leave this in here. Without criticizing a work, I think it is better to fill those gaps in my articles. That will be a great help for my lovable small island in South Asia. Cheers!!! Gihan Jayaweera talk 06:35, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Let's continue this conversation at your talk page. --Danielklein (talk) 06:26, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How can I get this person to stop editing me out?

There is a person who is editing me out from the Amber Heard page, because I put that she is bisexual, with a HuffPost cite as evidence. And this person is saying that there will be an edit war if I try to undo it. Even though my edit is accurate and based on facts.MannyPC (talk) 02:14, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, MannyPC, and welcome to the Teahouse. With biographies of living people it's important that good sources are used that support any statement you add. To be frank, I think you are right in your edit attempt, and I would have added this source and this one too, and I note there are multiple other sources that seem to indicate her bisexuality. I haven't read the AH article to assess whether her sexuality is relevant to it, though I note there is a source to confirm her religious views there. When you seem to be in some sort of disagreement of editing, you should either have gone to Flyer22 Reborn's talk page and discussed your different perspectives on sources and relevance, or raised your good faith wish to change the article on its talk page. As I've now pinged FlyerReborn, they may wish to comment here, or on your talk page. Nick Moyes (talk) 02:38, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how to reach this person to have a constructive discussion. And I am afraid of getting blocked. I am new here.MannyPC (talk) 03:05, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, MannyPC. Our friend Nick Moyes lives in the United Kingdom so he might be asleep by now since it is in the middle of the night there. I live in California so I am still staring at the chicken bones on my dinner plate. If you tell the other editor that Nick advised you here, then I think that the risk of you being blocked is negligible, unless you consciously break some policy. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:45, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rather not discuss this in two different places. I already took this matter to the talk page: Talk:Amber Heard#Bisexual categorization redux. Permalink here. And I pointed MannyPC to that talk page. And I pinged Asarelah there because Asarelah started a discussion about this matter first years ago. The matter was taken to the WP:BLP noticeboard and resolved. Like I recently stated, "I just reverted these edits by MannyPC per the #Bisexual label discussion from years ago and how that was resolved. If, in the source that MannyPC added, it had Heard identifying as bisexual, MannyPC's edit would be fine. But once again, it is instead the source calling Heard bisexual. In cases like these, we follow WP:BLPCAT; we go by self-identity. In a similar case, with regard to Jodie Foster, per WP:BLPCAT, we also don't call Foster a lesbian or categorize her that way. This was decided after much discussion. But we do note that many media outlets described Foster as lesbian or gay after her 2013 speech at the 70th Golden Globe Awards." Yes, sources (including ones listed by Nick Moyes above) have called Heard bisexual. Sources have also called her a lesbian. In The Independent source that Nick Moyes cited, it even states, "The Aquaman star went on to describe herself as an 'outspoken, militant feminist, lesbian, atheist, vegetarian'." But where has she called herself bisexual? She has explicitly stated that she rejects sexual orientation labels. Sources have also called Foster a lesbian or gay. And in the case of Foster, the following is just one example of editors noting the importance of self-identity: Talk:Jodie Foster/Archive 4#RfC 2 - Should "lesbian" be used to describe Foster in categories?. The importance of self-identity is not different for Heard. Cullen328, MannyPC absolutely should not revert. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:49, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MannyPC, the experienced editor above has given you some excellent advice. Read those links and think carefully before editing against consensus. I remember those debates about Jodie Foster. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:22, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, but if she comes out explicitly as bisexual when she said "I'm Bisexual" or something around that, then it should be referrence in Amber's article. And I don't want no edit wars, I want edit in peace, if you know what I mean.MannyPC (talk) 04:31, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MannyPC, instead of saying "when" you should say "if". Please remember that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:46, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, thank you for giving me advice on how to be an excellent Wikipedia editor. Now I feel welcome in the Wikipedia community. I will try my best to be as accurate as possible, and this experience will help me. And I also want to thank Flyer22 Reborn for having the patience of explaining me why this is not accurate.MannyPC (talk) 04:53, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cullen328 and MannyPC, thanks. We can see in this HuffPost source and this Us Weekly source that she was reported as having come out as a lesbian in 2010. This was because she revealed her romantic relationship with Tasya van Ree. Media sources labeled her lesbian even though she didn't state "I'm a lesbian." In the AfterEllen interview the sources are referring to, she doesn't state that she's a lesbian. And in a 2011 interview, she clearly states, "I don't label myself one way or another—I have had successful relationships with men and now a woman. I love who I love; it's the person that matters." In this 2017 People magazine source that reports her as having come out as bisexual, she's quoted as stating, "I saw I was attached to a label ... I never have myself defined by the person I'm with. I never saw myself defined as one particular thing or not. So, I watched as I quickly became not actress Amber Heard, but out lesbian Amber Heard." The "never have myself defined by the person I'm with" aspect is also noted in the aforementioned The Independent source, which also says she came out as bisexual. Any time Heard says she's dated men and women or has implied that she's open to dating men and women, a source labels her bisexual, just like sources initially labeled her lesbian because of her relationship with Tasya van Ree. So regarding MannyPC stating, "And why Amber Heard hasn't sue each and every publication last year calling her bisexual or ask the publication to edit this out? She dated both men and women.", I'm sure Heard understands that bisexual is the term people are going to use for her. But this obviously doesn't mean that she has to use the term for herself. I think it's best to be on the safe side and not state in Wikipedia's voice that she's bisexual or categorize her that way. Maybe we should state in her article the following: "Heard publicly came out at GLAAD's 25th anniversary event in 2010. Although media outlets have labeled her lesbian or bisexual, she has stated, "I don't label myself one way or another—I have had successful relationships with men and now a woman. I love who I love; it's the person that matters." This would replace the beginning of the second paragraph in the "Personal life" section. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:47, 10 January 2020 (UTC) Updated post. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:08, 11 January 2020 (UTC) [reply]

Flyer22 Reborn, I forgot to remind you that the Amber Heard's page names her as agnostic in the "Personal Life" section on her page. But on the "Categories" section below, she appears in the "American atheists" Category. Atheism and agnosticism have differences. Can you also take a look at that?MannyPC (talk) 02:29, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, there is a reference for "atheist" in Amber Heard#Early life. There's a red entry for Huffpost on WP:RS/P. Good luck with your good WP:BLPCAT fight, it took me about a year to get that right on Talk:Sasha Grey#Adult and atheist categories and obscure "blpo" lists. If you need expert input try WP:BLP/N. –84.46.52.190 (talk) 06:45, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, thanks, but I think Flyer22 Reborn is right on this argument. There was no specific case of her saying her sexuality. I was kind of stubborn at first, but I now agree with Flyer22 Reborn, you must have 100% specific evidence. The only thing that needs to be solved about Amber's page is to write her religious beliefs. There is no doubt that she is irreligious, but of what kind? Once again thanks for your support. MannyPC (talk) 07:58, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick "thank you" to Flyer22 Reborn for your helpful reply, explaining the subtleties of this issue, and to MannyPC and others for their consideration and input. Clearly, with this person, certain things were not as cut and dried as I and MannyPC had assumed.Nick Moyes (talk) 13:42, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MannyPC, as noted in the Atheism article, atheism can be defined broadly. But we do have both Category:American atheists and Category:American agnostics. In the source in the Personal life section, she states, "No, I'm not a practicing atheist. I'm a practicing human and I know how that sounds but I'm learning everything I can about being human. I was raised in a strict Catholic environment but the only thing I feel comfortable saying that I know is that I can't know. I will never prescribe to an organization that claims to tell me how to do anything. I'm not anti 'higher power' so you could call me agnostic. Whatever, call me anything but I will never be a 'religious' person." Given all of this and the aforementioned "Early life" mention by the IP above, I don't know what is the best route to take in this case. Maybe she is okay with being called an atheist or agnostic. Not sure that she should be in both categories. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:56, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

s' vs. s's

Is James' correct, or James's? Just to check. Thanks, Thatone~~weird~~wikier Say hi 06:12, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Thatoneweirdwikier: See MOS:POSS. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 07:29, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And to pull out the relevant bit. Nouns and names should be made possessive with the addition of 's even if they end in S already. So, James's is correct. If that makes them difficult to pronounce (which I don't think James's is) you can try to reorder the phrase. James' is never right except in the unlikely scenario that you are taking about several people called Jame... Hug^syrup 09:43, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hugsyrup, both are correct. See https://english.stackexchange.com/a/130960/73636 --Danielklein (talk) 05:30, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am referring to Wikipedia’s guidance. See MOS:POSS as mentioned above. Hug^syrup 07:08, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's not as clear cut as "Wikipedia says". Does Wikipedia use British English or American English? It depends. Is James's or James' correct? It depends. See Apostrophe#Singular nouns ending with an "s" or "z" sound. If an article already used one spelling predominantly I wouldn't edit it to use the other, but I would edit it for internal consistency, making them all the same as the majority. Which should you use on Wikipedia? Lacking any other clear direction, James's is preferred for new articles. That doesn't make James' wrong as you asserted. It's not Wikipedia's place to dictate what correct English is. --Danielklein (talk) 06:20, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone explain me why my personal user sandbox was rejected?

They told me to ask here in the Teahouse for help in my personal user sandbox, since I found it hard to ask the "Article of creation help desk". Please help me improve on it.MannyPC (talk) 06:51, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You tried to submit it as a Wikipedia article, but it is nothing but a bit of personal info about yourself. As the reviewer wrote, "This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia." Meters (talk) 06:55, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Articles are written about notable subjects and must be supported by verifiable independent sources. The post on your talk page said to ask about the submission at Articles for creation help desk. The Teahouse link was for "any other questions about your editing experience". Meters (talk) 06:58, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there's nothing wrong with your user page (sandbox). It tells us a bit about yourself, and that's fine. I wonder if you accidentally submitted it to be converted into a Wikipedia article? Happy editing. Dbfirs 07:15, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@MannyPC: I'd suggest just cut/pasting the content (without the {{AFC submission}} line) from your sandbox (User:MannyPC/sandbox) to your "user page" (User:MannyPC), which is the appropriate place for it. Note that if you were trying to make it appear in a Google search, there is no way to do this, since Wikipedia is not a webhost or social media platform. User pages are not "profiles"; they are for use only in identifying yourself to other Wikipedians. I hope this helps. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 07:42, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

article got declined every time.

Hello, i'm trying to make an article on the name of "Sunil prem vyas". he is indian film director but this article continuously got declined. i had made some changes as well. last month i had received a notification i can merge this article with another article name "Take it easy (movie 2015)" this movie was directed by sunil prem vyas. so i want to know how do i merge this two articles & how do both articles will appear on the internet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jay1Rudra1 (talk • contribs) 06:59, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jay1Rudra1. You can find out how to merge one article into another at WP:MERGE; however, since you actually talking about merging content from a draft into an article, you don't really need to perform a merge. You should be able to just be WP:BOLD and add content from the draft to the other article. What you shouldn't really try to do, however, is simply copy-and-paste all of the content in the draft into the other article; in other words, you shouldn't try to create a mini-article about this particular person within the article about the film. You can probably mention him by name if properly supported by reliable sources, but you shouldn't try to add a biography about him to the film's article unless it actually make encyclopedic sense to do so and doesn't disrupt the overall balance of the film's article, particularly since Draft:Sunil Prem Vyas has been declined multiple times by AfC reveiwers. You might want to first propose what you want to add to the article first at Take It Easy (2015 film) or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Indian cinema task force just to see what some others think. Perhaps some other editors might be able to suggest a way to incorporate some content about the director into the article about the film. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:17, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File removal: Declaration, Constitution & Common Sense

Hi, I have provided a translation to Polish, for USA civics. There is a problem with some of the files. I need these deleted, but I have been refused.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Deklaracja_Konstytucja_Karta_i_dalej.pdf
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Thomas_Paine_-_Zdrowy_rozs%C4%85dek.pdf

The admin has advised to use the Superseded template, but I actually have not endorsed the files I want removed.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Racconish#File_removal%3A_Declaration%2C_Constitution_%26_Common_Sense

Over the Polish Wikisource I've been treated like a bout of vanity, but there was need for a good translation.
I'll stay to the necessary minimum, on Wiki links and pages.
Links
■ The preamble for the US Constitution would be saying that freedom is to be for the select or kin.
https://photos.state.gov/libraries/adana/30145/publications-other-lang/The_US_Constitution_Polish.pdf
dla zapewnienia nam i naszych potomnym dobrodziejstwa wolności...
Nasi potomni means our children, family or kin. Nam potomni is posterity.
■ Amendment VII
"Once the jury pick and choose as they like about facts, no other legal authority can, except by common law."
fakty ustalone przez ławę przysięgłych nie mogą być ponownie rozstrzygnięte...
Rozstrzygać fakty does not exist in standard Polish use. With a preposition, rozstrzygać means to decide, on when or what is to happen.
■ Washington D.C. should be no bigger than 10 square miles.
http://biblioteka.sejm.gov.pl/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/USA-pol.pdf
■ Amendment XII would "require sheets of paper" in Presidential elections.
http://www.kolousa.wssm.edu.pl/res/konstytucja.pdf
Elektorzy zbierają się w swoich Stanach i głosują za pomocą kartek na Prezydenta i Wiceprezydenta...
Pages
■ McHenry would have been "enemy fort" (USA anthem)
https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hymn_Stan%C3%B3w_Zjednoczonych_Ameryki
Gdzie wroga wyniosły fort w złowrogiej ciszy tkwi...
■ American nation would have been "begotten" by the Founders (Polish Wikiquote)
https://pl.wikiquote.org/wiki/Abraham_Lincoln
narodowi, poczętemu z wolności...
(not likely to occur about Piłsudski for example, that he "begot" the people).
I hope this shows that vanity is not the matter. I'll be grateful for help or advice. The files I want removed are damaged, which makes them inferior quality and redundant as well, as I have provided the proper files, worked with their proofreading, and they have been approved, all green.--TeresaPelka (talk) 07:08, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi TeresaPelka. Wikimedia Commons and English Wikipedia are part of the same Wikimedia Foundation family so to speak, but they are independent projects with their own respective policies and guidelines. So, there's not really anything that anyone here, even a Wikipedia administrator, can do to delete those two files. In other words, you're going to have to establish a consensus on Wikimedia Commons that they should be deleted. One thing to try and understand is that anytime you upload a file to Commons under one of the licenses it accepts, you're basically agreeing to release that file forever under that license; in other words, you cannot change your mind at later date per c:COM:LRV. So, even though you might not want to use the file any more, others might find it useful and can continue to do so under the specified license, even if the file is deleted from Commons. So, if there's a mistake in the translation you uploaded, then maybe you can upload a new corrected version of it using the "Upload a new version of this file" link found on each file's page. Another option would be to upload the corrected translation as a completely separate file under a different file name, and then replace the wrong version with the correct version in all the articles where the file is used.

In the same way, English Wikipedia and Polish Wikiquote are also separate projects, which means if you're having you're going to have to try and resolve any problems your having on the Polish Wikiquote latter over there. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:01, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Marchjuly: It wasn't me to upload the files I want removed. --TeresaPelka (talk) 09:55, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you just want the files removed from whatever pages they are currently being used on, then you're going to have discuss that on the corresponding talk pages for those pages and see if you can establish a consensus among concerned editors to remove them. You don't need to have the files deleted from Commons for them to be removed from another Wikimedia Foundation project. Similarly, if you want to add your own versions of the files to certain page, you're going to need to discuss that on those same talk pages. If you can establish a consensus that your versions are more correct or accurate translations, then your versions will be added to pages. There's not much more you can try to do than that since basically most disagreements about content are generally resolved by discussing things on talk pages and establishing a consensus one way or another. Maybe things work differently on Polish Wikiquote, but as I stated earlier there's not much that anyone here on English Wikipedia can about disputes happening on some other Wikimedia Foundation project; you're going to have to try and resolve things on that project with the members of that project's WP:COMMUNITY. If you want some opinions from Polish speakers on your translations and the translations uploaded to Commons by those other editors, you can try asking someone at Wikipedia:Translators available, or checking pages like pl:Pomoc:Spis treści. Maybe someone who can speak Polish and edits on Polish Wikipedia or Polish Wikiquote will be able to help you sort things out. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:54, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Marking something as missing a source

I found an article that presented something as a fact, and didn't list a source for it. (It said that there was oboe in a queen song, and that John Deacon played it). That seemed weird to me, so I googled it and couldn't find anything at all. However, I didn't want to delete it, because I'm assuming that the person who put it there had some reason for it and it's not like there's a lot of other sources either. Is there a way to mark it in some way so that someone else can review it? Mark it as needing a source or something? Thanks. NightSD (talk) 07:45, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi NightSD. You can follow what's written in WP:BURDEN and tag the unsourced content with Template:Citation needed. This will let others know that the content needs a source for verification purposes. Another option would just be to remove the content outright if you think it's possible something too contentious (e.g. content that falls under WP:BLPSOURCES) to leave in the article. Regardless of what you decide to do, you should make sure to leave an edit summary which explains why when you make the edit because this will make it easier for others to understand what you did and why you did it. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:06, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

When this was added to the article back in back in 2006 it said: contains oboe part. This oboe part was bassist John Deacon's idea. Throughout the years this became scrambled into John Deacon being the oboist (this sort of scrambled information is extremely common in our articles). It is possible that at 7:17 the song contains two seconds of an oboe sampler, but I find no realible sources about it so I've removed it from the article. – Thjarkur (talk) 14:56, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese Air Force (CAF) cadets trained in the US during WW2

In the "Development of Chinese National Air Force, 1937 to 1945" article, under the section of "Foreign Aid, United States", it has the following statement:

"In March 1945 the cadets completing primary training in India were sent to America to train further. By that time the number of cadets dispatched had reached 1224, of whom 384 managed to return to China and participate in combat."

I have been doing research on this topic for over 10 years and would like to have the source of the above statement, especially the number of cadets "had reached 1224"! My late father is one of the 1224 and he is a member of the Chinese Detachment #10. Altogether there were 19 detachments of cadets dispatched between October 1941 and July or August of 1945.

Any help would be appreciated!

Jack — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:45E0:1380:5438:1459:15F6:7B60 (talk) 10:17, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello; you should address your concerns about the article to its talk page, Talk:Development of Chinese Nationalist air force (1937–45). 331dot (talk) 10:21, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As is hinted at on that talk page, the article was originally uploaded in 2005 as a single chunk, more than twice as long as the version now existing, by an IP editor thought to be Russian and perhaps using a translation of a Russian text whose identity is unknown to us. Although the article has been extensively edited since, and shortened to about 40% of its original size, nearly all of it remains without any cited references, including the particular passage that Jack is asking about.

The quality and detail of the text does seem high, so it would be really useful if someone could identify the original source, but this would probably need someone bilingual in English and Russian with access to relevant texts, likely in a large Russian library, since the ur-source might well not be online. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.199.208.126 (talk) 21:43, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Help and maybe adoption.

I have trying really hard to write a Draft but it has been declined twice. I really would like a more experienced editor to help me with and/or adopt me. Thanks Flalf (talk) 17:12, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Flalf. I do not have the time to look at the sources right now, but the thing you should strive to do is to demonstrate that this person has been talked/written about at length by multiple reliable independent sources. "At length" means that a short quote by him in a newspaper or a biography in a listing of author biographies will not do; "independent" exclude interviews given by the subject.

Also, a minor point: he was arrested by Paul Biya... (1) is strictly speaking wrong (unless Paul Biya personnaly performed the arrest, which I doubt) and (2) really needs an independent source (it does seem a safe bet that the arrest of a political dissenter was made at the dictator's behest, but it still needs a source other than political pamphlet sympathetic to the dissenter). Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 17:24, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are other sources but most are behind a paywall. Flalf (talk) 20:42, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you are able to access the paywalled sources, you may use them. What the article lacks right now is sources which do more than mention Gorji Dinka in passing. An article about the conflict is not as good a source for your article as an article about the man. Also, what has he been doing since the 1980s?--Quisqualis (talk) 22:54, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tagging

What to use to tag a copyvio page? Because I don’t know. The4lines (talk) 18:11, 10 January 2020 (UTC)The4lines[reply]

@The4lines: - Wikipedia:Text_Copyright_Violations_101 has the details. In case the whole page is a copyvio and no clean revision exists, WP:G12 applies, so {{db-g12}}. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 18:16, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks The4lines (talk) 18:20, 10 January 2020 (UTC)The4lines[reply]

New Content

Hello, My name is Andy Bethea and I would like to begin a page about me. I am an actor/author and can be searched on IMDb and my books are available at amazon and most online book stores. I need help because I don't feel comfortable writing about myself but my agent says having a page will help me in my career, on social media and make me more searchable. So my question is, is there anyone willing to write it for me? I would offer my email address to provide any information that cannot be found or information about projects that are ongoing. Sorry, I can't offer any pay for this at the moment. IMDb will provide previous projects for verification.

Thank you in advance

Andy — Preceding unsigned comment added by Acbethea (talk • contribs) 21:08, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Acbethea, No.

Wikipedia is not your soapbox, no matter what your agent claims; Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and only covers notable subjects. Paying someone to write for you would lean very heavily on the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of service, and would require following all the rules provided in WP:PAID and is generally no-go territory for good reason. MoonyTheDwarf (Braden N.) (talk) 21:15, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

if you are truly a notable subject, an article will be written on you in due time. MoonyTheDwarf (Braden N.) (talk) 21:18, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at WP:NAUTHOR. Do you satisfy the criteria? I did a very quick google search and could not find any significant coverage from reliable sources (IMDb is not a reliable source).--Darth Mike^(talk) 21:17, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

First, thank you for the reply...Second, I asked because I didn't know. Bit much for just a question but again, thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Acbethea (talk • contribs) 21:50, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Acbethea: Just remind your agent that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It is not social media or an avenue for promotion. RudolfRed (talk) 22:11, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect link

On this list

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_places_in_Queensland_by_population

Regarding Cherbourg; this links to the Article about French Cherbourg and not the one in queensland

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherbourg

I just thought I'd try to alert someone to this

K — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:6435:BF00:28EA:86E1:FB2C:B3FF (talk) 00:12, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. You can usually click on the "Edit" button and fix articles. – Thjarkur (talk) 00:51, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can I add a picture of a person from a different website or not?

I just want to add a picture to a page that is outside of Wikipedia.MannyPC (talk) 00:41, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Almost certainly not. Only in rare cases are those images published under an appropriate license. – Thjarkur (talk) 00:48, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Hello, MannyPC and welcome to the Teahouse. Usually not. Yoou can only do this in a few limited cases:

If the other site includes a statement releasing the image under a compatible licnese, most often CC-by-SA or CC-BY.
Very rarely, you write (email) the owner of the site, and they add a license to the page, or email Wikipedia directly releasing it under such a licnse. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for details.
the page is usable unde fair use under Wikipedia's quite strict criteria, see WP:NFCC. An image of a currently living person will almost never qualify.

But 9 times out of 10 or more, images from another site cannot be uploaded to and used on Wikipedia. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 00:52, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Another rare exception is a low-resolution version of a portrait of a dead person, per WP:NFCI #10, but only if free images of that person are not available. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:54, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why?

I wonder why most blocks by new users last for 31 hours. Is this the admins' magic number, Iris there some concealed guidelines as for how long a first block should last?tLoM (The Lord of Math) (Message; contribs) 01:20, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An IP block? Yea I don't know why an IP block is 31 hours either... --Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 01:16, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The options in a drop-down menu on the block form are: ..., 24 hours, 31 hours, 36 hours, ... It's possible to write a time manually but it's easier to select from the list. 31 hours means they cannot come back the same time next day. It's the default for IP's in Twinkle. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:45, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, PrimeHunter is correct. There is nothing that mandates a 31 hour block but it is believed to be a slightly more effective deterrent than a 24 hour block, since it more affects the vandal's daily disruption pattern. It is more of an entrenched custom enshrined in a pull-down menu than an official policy. Any administrator could set a 29 hour block or a 34 hour block, but that is a bit more work. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:04, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Lord of Math You might also want to see User:Magister Mathematicae/31 hours from 2005, which may be the origin of the convention. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 08:45, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

and MediaWiki talk:Ipboptions#31 hour block?, the discussion that lead to 31 hours being a default option. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 13:53, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Posting A Page

I'd like to post a Page. Can anyone assist me on where to start? Lots of info how, but nothing on where to start.

Best,

Steven Trop — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steven Trop (talk • contribs) 10:06, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Steven Trop, welcome to the Teahouse. You might find Your First Article of help. It will avoid disappointment if you prepare a new article as a draft via the Article Wizards, so you can get feedback if it doesnt yet meet all our requirements. Creating a new, acceptable article is the hardest thing you can do here. It is best to learn the basics of editing in small steps, and you might find The Wikipedia Adventure worth doing. Hoping this helps, Nick Moyes (talk) 13:02, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Administrators,

Is it possible to edit some articles on wikipedia ? also can I produce an article myself ? I am beginning to learn as I just recently joined wikipedia.

Regards

Kajmakcalan (talk) 12:37, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia and to the Teahouse, Kajmakcalan. Most of us here are not administrators, just experienced editors keen to help others, like you. Yes, this is "the encyclopaedia that anyone can edit" - see our five core principles. Please see the answer to the same question about article creation immediately above this one. No article whose subject fails to meet our Notability Criteria is accepted, so it is important to find reliable sources to support all that you want to add. Come back if you have any further questions. Nick Moyes (talk) 13:12, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget to add WP:Reliable sources for additional information that you add. Dbfirs 14:42, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:The Masked Singer (American season 3)

Me and my friends need help with this page. The Masked Singer season 3 is less than a month away and there’s no page for it so we created a draft but it keeps getting decline. And now it has just been rejected, and we don’t understand why. Can you help us? Rider0101 (talk) UTC 14:46, January 11, 2020 —Preceding undated comment added 14:55, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rider0101, I see that you have repeatedly tried to create an article on this topic, but each time you have failed to establish that the topic is notable (for what that word means here, click on the blue link). The last time, it was not just declined (as failing that show that the topic is notable), but rejected (meaning that the subject is not notable and you are wasting your time trying to improve it). As the topic is a show which has not yet been broadcast, it's not surprising that its notability can't be established. I suggest you wait until a month or so after it has been broadcast; by then it may be easy to find reviews etc. which establish its notability. Wikipedia has no deadline. Maproom (talk) 15:04, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But how can submit it if the only button is ask for advice? Rider0101 (talk) UTC 15:09, January 11, 2020 —Preceding undated comment added 15:13, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rider0101, a reviewer can resubmit it using the script. I suggest you ask at either wp:AFCHD or here in a few months. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 16:13, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Another of you asked the same question at the AFC Help Desk. Here is my answer from there:

User:Magitroopa, User:Rider0101, User:Heartfox - The draft is being rejected so much now because the draft is being submitted so many times now without addressing the concerns of the reviewers. I and other reviewers said to discuss whether to create a separate article for season 3, which would split the series article]], at the series talk page. There has been no real discussion at the series talk page, only statements that the season is about to start and that there should be an article, but nothing resembling discussion or consensus. I assume that is why User:CatcherStorm Rejected the draft as Not Sufficiently Notable, after repeated requests to discuss notability were ignored with idle resubmissions instead. This does not mean that the topic will not be notable after the season starts. It means that the reviewer did not consider the topic to be notable at this time, and did not think that the draft was likely to be improved by quick editing and resubmission. When the season starts and the season becomes notable, the Rejected draft can be moved out of the way to allow development of a new draft. Until then, continued resubmission is tendentious. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:14, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware that some future TV shows and other unreleased "stuff" have articles. That doesn't mean that they should have articles, possibly only that no one has tagged them for AFD yet. The usual rule in Wikipedia is that unreleased "stuff" that is still in production (or not yet in production), such as future films and unpublished books, is not notable. If you can obtain a local consensus that the third season of The Masked Singer is notable before it is aired, then the local consensus is sufficient, but I haven't seen a local consensus, or even real discussion.

If you think that a particular upcoming season of a TV show is notable before it is aired, discuss on the series talk page. If you think that upcoming seasons of TV shows in general should have their own articles, discuss at the TV notability talk page. Otherwise, future TV shows can be described in series articles. Maybe User:AngusWOOF and User:JadenFolf, who have reviewed, may also comment. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:14, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Someone undo my 24 edits without a clearly purpose.

I'm Giangkiefer, Sorry I have to post this, I add a new columns on the article Paty Cantú, on the section albums, and I also create a new columns for singles, with the intent to gain more recognize to the singer, it took me 24 edits, and then user Magnolia677 undo all my 24 edits (as you can see in the article's view history section), that user say it unsourced...I didn't finish my work yet, I will add source when I finish my work, otherwise, that user can add source by herself, just like anyother users, why undo all my 24 edits like that, It took me a whole afternoon to finish those 24 edits. Giangkiefer — Preceding unsigned comment added by Giangkiefer (talk • contribs) 15:04, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Giangkiefer: if you add a section to an article, it is your responsibility to add supporting references as you do so, not anyone else's. It you add unreferenced content, you should expect it to be removed. Maproom (talk) 15:08, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Giangkiefer If the edit or edits you want to make will take awhile, you may want to try drafting them in your Sandbox first, then when you are finished you can copy/paste them into the article. You can also mark an article as {{inuse}} while you are working on it. 331dot (talk) 16:03, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, your work is not lost. You can undo Magnolia677's deletion and then add the references before hitting publish again. Might be wise to leave a message on M's Talk page, explaining your intent. David notMD (talk) 18:41, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Giangkiefer: You wrote with the intent to gain more recognize to the singer. Just a reminder – that's not what the project is about (per WP:NOTPROMOTION). Please also remember to sign your talk page posts by adding a space and four tildes ( ~~~~). Any other sort of manual signature causes problems. Thanks. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 23:11, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

need help with the 10 required edits to be auto confirmed

As a first step, I really do not understand what or where to find articles that need editing. Thanks for helping — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pouchcove (talk • contribs) 16:58, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Pouchcove: welcome to the Teahouse. Your question is a little difficult to respond to, but the best strategy would be for you to look at articles about subjects that interest you, and work on them. Why do you want to become autoconfirmed? --bonadea contributions talk 17:42, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Click here twice and then click on "Edit suggested article". It will point you to an article that has formatting or spelling issues that you can assist with. – Thjarkur (talk) 19:08, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Pouchcove: There are always typos and other cleanup that needs to be done. Check out WP:TYPO. That's how I started editing. There are links at the bottom of that page to other similar projects such as grammar and fixing common mistakes. RudolfRed (talk) 20:01, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of a page... My contributions just caused someone else's page to be deleted

I just fixed some broken links on the page Padmakara Translation Group, a page that had old links, and added one paragraph, and now a whole page of an award winning institution has been deleted. If the changes were not good, please revert them. But now, I'm to blame for a whole page to be deleted, that had been there for years. I feel terrible. Not only that, the deleted Wikipedia content has been stolen by this website: https://pt.qwe.wiki/wiki/Padmakara_Translation_Group displaying in other languages via automatic translation. I would like to have help on this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amaral Rodrigues (talk • contribs) 19:24, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Amaral Rodrigues: Padmakara_Translation_Group was deleted as copyright violation of another website. Someone watching the Recent Changes list probably saw your edit and then noticed the page was a copyvio. You can ask the deleting admin about it on their talk page: User Talk:Deb. RudolfRed (talk) 20:15, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To make it more clear, Amaral Rodrigues: you did nothing wrong, and you did not cause the article to be deleted, in any way. What your edit did was to bring to somebody's notice an article that was in contravention of Wikipedia's policies, and that should have been deleted long ago. It may be possible to write an acceptable article about the Group, if it meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability; but articles must not contain significant amounts of copyright material copied from elsewhere. --ColinFine (talk) 23:38, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your explanations, in any case, what can be done about this website https://pt.qwe.wiki/wiki/Padmakara_Translation_Group stealing wikipedia material in order to display advertising? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amaral Rodrigues (talk • contribs) 08:40, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tommy Roberts (sports broadcaster) followup

I have tried to make language clarified con the two sentences that were tagged. Would someone take a look to see if it reads more coherently. Thank You. Monmouth1946 (talk) 20:07, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide a courtesy link to articles that you reference here. Like this: Tommy Roberts (sports broadcaster). —[AlanM1(talk)]— 23:20, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Monmouth1946, I've removed the tags, as the prose is now clear.--Quisqualis (talk) 02:07, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong name highlighted by robot

I entered a name in my page and it was automatically highlighted in blue to another wiki person of the same name. How do I block this? Kenpj (talk) 21:38, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Kenpj: Which page did this happen on? RudolfRed (talk) 21:45, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks RudolfRed. Outwood Academy Adwick, section Percy Jackson Grammar School, notable former pupils, David Dunn. Kenpj (talk) 22:16, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Kenpj: Please provide courtesy links to articles that you mention here, like this: Outwood Academy Adwick. Thanks. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 23:34, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kenpj, Please find the David Dunn you are looking for at David Dunn (disambiguation) and use the corresponding title when you try to mention them on other articles. Usedtobecool ☎️ 23:42, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Kenpj, and welcome to the Teahouse. Thank you for wanting to help you improve Wikipedia. But there is a lot to learn, and a few things that I think you don't understand yet. The link to the wrong David Dunn was not "highlighted by a robot": you put the name in double square brackets so [[David Dunn]], and that is an explicit instruction to the Wikipedia software that you want it to put in a link to the article called "David Dunn". As it happens, that article (David Dunn) is about the cricketer, so you told Wikipedia to link to the article about the cricketer. If there was already an article about your David Dunn, (suppose it was called David Dunn (industrialist) - which doesn't currently exist) then you could have linked to it using a WP:piped link thus: [[David Dunn (industrialist)|David Dunn]].

But secondly, since there isn't currently an article about that David Dunn, he shouldn't appear in the list of alumni: see Write the article first. That is why Theroadislong removed him.

Thirdly, please remember that it is not "your page": it is one of Wikipedia's articles that you had a large part in creating (and your role in creating it is visible to anybody that looks at the "View History" tab); but it does not belong to you in any sense. --ColinFine (talk) 23:58, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ColinFine: The article is about a footballer, rather than a cricketer... Moaz786 (talk to me or see what I've been doing) 00:02, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I am just an amateur, but colleagues wanted to publish an entry for the old school. I fully accept it is not 'my page'. That was just shorthand. One of our teachers was awarded the Military Cross in WW2. Is it not sufficient to ref the London Gazette entry? Does he need more notability? Are individuals only notable if they already have a separate Wiki entry? Would appreciate advice. Kenpj (talk) 00:50, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

YES, individuals are only notable if they already have a separate Wikipedia article. Further, you should be aware that if your editing Wikipedia has anything to do with your employment, then you have a conflict of interest, and need to read about and declare your WP:COI on your Talk page.--Quisqualis (talk) 01:54, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pauline Quirke DOB

Can any one help me?..administrarors?,I put in her dob and was quickly deleted by ~~ Ninjarobotpirate ~~ ,its her correct dob and it has always been on here,if this is going to happen all dobs should therefore be deleted?Its rather petty as everywhere on the net her dob is this same and always has been,it a few mnths later than my dob why i know its correct,Maybe i should write to Pauline herself? ~~ Drew270 ~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drew270 (talk • contribs) 22:36, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, Drew270. You added a date of birth, but you didn't add a source that readers can check to see that it's correct, which is why you were reverted. If you want to add a date of birth to the article, you'll need a reliable source you can cite. See WP:VERIFY for more information on this. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:40, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou Cordless Larry but the/her dob has always been on here from 2001 since i joined the internet — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drew270 (talk • contribs) 22:46, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's not an excuse to add it back without a source, Drew270. Once something has been removed from an article, it shouldn't be added again without a reliable source. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:50, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Drew270: Also see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS – there are 6 million articles here; a lot of them have bad information in them that has never been challenged. That doesn't mean we shouldn't try to improve it. Also, Wikipedia is one of the most used sites on the internet. Lots of other sites copy directly from us (some without attribution), while many thousands of others may "borrow" information. A piece of data that's been "here since 2001" has now been copied in thousands of places on the net. That doesn't make it correct. That's why we need a reliable source that has used some kind of human editorial control to verify the information. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 23:42, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And see also our guideline on dates of birth for living people, Drew270. An artilce about a living person should not contain an exact date of birth, only a year, unles the DOB has already been widely published elsewhere, or published wiuth the apparent consent of the subject, such a son the subject's ,own web site. Franky, ther is in most cases little enecylopedic value to the exact DOB --m the year gives sufficient context to tell hoe the person fints into history, and how old the person was at particular events. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 03:46, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Research Lab

Hi All,

I am a grad student working in a lab and our PI has requested that I make a wikipedia page for an upcoming conference we will be hosting and I was wondering if anyone had some guidance on how to go about creating an article about the project without referencing the project's main page too often. Unfortunately, the research lab has not had an expose about their staff and methods, but do in depth describe these on their internal website. I am a relatively new editor, so any guidance anyone has or suggestions, would be much appreciated. Thanks all and hope you all have a good day!

-Joe — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jspajka (talk • contribs) 22:42, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, Jspajka. Unfortunately, if the conference hasn't been written about in some depth in independent sources such as newspapers or journals, it won't meet Wikipedia's notability criteria and therefore isn't eligible for an article. I know of very few articles about individual academic conferences - probably for this reason. Please also have a read of WP:COI if you are editing Wikipedia as part of your job or about your employer. There is a declaration you need to make to comply with the site's terms of use (see WP:PAID). Cordless Larry (talk) 22:48, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, Jspajka - I now see that you've already made the required declaration on your user page. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:43, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) @Jspajka: I have a guide on how to write articles that won't be deleted here.

In short, you need to find three or more professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources that are specifically and primarily about the conference but not affiliated with, dependent upon, nor connected with the conference, the research lab, or your school. As you admit there has not been an expose, that's a problem. Without three such sources, the article is not supposed to exist, period.

But, if you can find three such sources, you just need to summarize them and then paraphrase the summaries. Once that's done and the article is approved, you can expand the article using affiliated sources. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:49, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Jspajka: Process aside, there may be a misunderstanding of Wikipedia's purpose. It's not a place you should be looking to get the word out about the conference to encourage attendance or attention to your lab and research. Please see WP:NOTPROMO and the rest of that page. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 23:47, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Format of Responding in "Request for Comments"

Please refer to this link: Talk:Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019#Request for Comments: Should second line of lead of this article be modified ?

There, you can see the instruction is that the survey should have the vote and the reasons should be given in the Discussion section. One editor has responded in this way, but others have put both the votes and their reasons in the Survey section.

Which is correct ?

Thanks.

Kmoksha (talk) 23:24, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, Kmoksha. The "Survey" section is for editors to express their opinion on the specific question and their policy-based reasons for thinking so. The "Threaded discussion" section is for discussion about relevant matters broader than the specific question posed in the RFC. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:07, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cullen328 Thanks for your response. Can I ask you another question which I asked earlier here but noone answered that. What exactly is a "Mainstream Source" ? Is it strictly according to what the wiki policy WP:Wikipedia is a mainstream encyclopedia says or is it flexible as per what is agreed by means of Consensus in a particular context ?

Kmoksha (talk) 00:48, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, Kmoksha. I have answered this question in the separate section you created below. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:15, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

info

Why I can't edit the pages about Republic of Macedonia? How is possible for bulgaro-tatars to write and edit the page about Republic of Macedonia, Macedonians war heroes, the whole history? The information that they put here on Wikipedia are more then a half lies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soniajovan (talk • contribs) 00:50, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Soniajovan. You didn't read the messages on your Talk page. Your primary mistake, however, is that you are taking your ethnic activism to Wikipedia. What you see in a Wikipedia article is the result of research of reliable sources and, where controversy exists, much discussion (viewable on the article's Talk page). You are not welcome to change Wikipedia content to your preferred picture of the world as it "should be". If you mistake Wikipedia articles for a public forum, you are badly mistaken. Please read the articles in the list posted to your Talk page. They are both relevant and important to your future as a Wikpedia editor.--Quisqualis (talk) 01:45, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification of "Mainstream Sources" and applicability of content of cited sources

I would like to ask these questions -

1. What exactly is a "Mainstream Source" ? Is it strictly according to what the wiki policy WP:Wikipedia is a mainstream encyclopedia says or is it flexible as per what is agreed by means of Consensus in a particular context ?

2. If a source is cited for an article for a particular line or particular words, does the other content written in that source also apply to the article ? Can that content be inserted into the article ?

Kmoksha (talk) 01:57, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, Kmoksha. Please be aware that WP:Wikipedia is a mainstream encyclopedia is only an essay expressing the opinions of one or more Wikipedia editors. It is not a policy or a guideline. What matters is whether a source is reliable. That means in brief that the source has professional editorial control, and a reputation for accuracy, fact checking and correcting errors. Many of those sources might be called "mainstream" but others might be dissident in one way or another. To answer your second question, a single good quality source can be used multiple times in an article. See WP:NAMEDREFS for an explanation of the coding. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:06, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ Cullen328 Thanks for your response. But the "mainstream source" is not clear. It is quite often used by the editors who say "This is a mainstream source" or "This is not a mainstream source and so not acceptable even though I agree with the content of the source article". You can often see Wiki editors rejecting proposals solely on the basis that the referenced source is not mainstream.

So, my first question was that if this link is just an essay and let us say the source suits the given definition of reliability. then can it be rejected saying that "it is not a mainstream source ?"

Also, let me rephrase my second question - Say there is an wiki article A containing a line 1 from a reliable source RS which has the line 1, but the source RS also has a line 2. So, my second question is that since the source RS is referenced in the wiki article and let us say that line 2 also is relevant for wiki article A, then does it mean line 2 also applies to the wiki article ? What if the line 2 contradicts some part of the wiki article ? -- Kmoksha (talk) 02:34, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As I said previously, Kmoksha, what matters most is whether or not a given source is reliable. The article should summarize what the full range of reliable sources say about the matter, paying less attention to sources that present a distinct minority viewpoint. To the extent that "mainstream" in this context indicates the type of source that represents the most broadly held views by most scholars, then that is a good tool for evaluating the usefulness of a source.

If a reliable, independent source is used properly in the article for one factual assertion, then it is probably a good source for other assertions. If one good source contradicts another good source, then all readily available sources on the matter should be consulted, and the article should reflect the preponderance of the sources.Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:56, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Cullen328 In the light of what you said before, can you tell me if these are "mainstream sources" or not - http://www.radicalsocialist.in/ and https://www.sabrangindia.in/ -- Kmoksha (talk) 04:50, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kmoksha, I am not an expert on left wing publications in India so I cannot give a definitive answer. The first seems to be a Trostkyist advocacy publication and at first glance, I do not see an editorial team. The second seems to be a site opposed to aggressive Hindu nationalism and at least two co-editors are named. Do other publications frequently cite these publications and praise their journalistic accomplishments? Have they won journalistic awards? Do they correct errors and carefully fact check their assertions? You can ask for a more detailed analysis at the Reliable sources noticeboard. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:17, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Cullen328 Now that you have listed all these parameters, it seems to me that what the editors mean when they say "this is not a mainstream source" is that the source is not widely acclaimed. But the same editors quote the wiki essay link of WP:Wikipedia is a mainstream encyclopedia . That creates confusion since that essay says very different and almost opposite things. In my opinion, the wikipedia community should edit this article and make it more in conformity with the actual practices of Wikipedia editors. Thanks for your responses -- Kmoksha (talk) 07:04, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

At the risk of being repetitive, Kmoksha, let me say again that WP:Wikipedia is a mainstream encyclopedia is not an article, not a guideline and not a policy. It is an essay written over eleven years ago. Any editor can write an essay, good or bad. It is rarely cited and very few pages link to it. Discussion on its talk page ended in 2016. I see no evidence that is is highly regarded by large numbers of editors. I suggest that you forget about it. As for your other point, there is no need that a source is "highly acclaimed". An academic journal published by a respected university will probably be a very reliable source but unknown outside that particular academic discipline. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:21, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism templates

The https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Uw-vandalism1 template says that "one or more of your recent contributions have been undone". How recent does the unconstructive edit have to be to be considered "recent"? 125 Beethoven (talk) 02:50, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, 125 Beethoven and welcome to the Teahouse. There is no hard and fast rule on that. Most often such a template will be placed within a day or so of the act of vandalism, or at least within a day of its discovery. If the vandalism is more than a couple of weeks old, I personally would tend not to use that template, but a different template or hand-compose a message. Or one could "subst" the template and then edit its wording to fit the specific case at hand. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 03:55, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, 125 Beethoven. I am not aware of a formal definition of "recent" in this context but I am inclined to think that hours or even a day or two qualifies. Be aware that use of escalating templates is recommended most of the time, but not mandatory. You can write a custom crafted warning, or you can modify the language in an existing warning template. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:58, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hello, is it possible to start an short Article a little faster? (There are 3,733 pending submissions waiting for review currently) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wname1 (talk • contribs) 08:52, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Wname1! This draft is unlikely to pass review, none of the sources mention the word. Guidance at WP:NOTNEO. As to your question, see WP:AUTO and WP:MOVE. But as I said, if you move this article as-is to mainspace, I think it will be moved back or deleted. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:04, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you should consider a title more like "Greek withdrawal from the eurozone"? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:09, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]