Wikipedia:Teahouse

Stormy clouds, a Teahouse host

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

Ask a question

Question forumMeet your hostsArticles to improveBecome a host

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

Help Wikipedia

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

Not ethical behavior of Korean users How can I act if he ignores this warning?

In the article Balhae, the user User talk: Koraskadi tries to organize a revision war to block the balanced position of all three parties to the conflict in the article. I warned him about the inadmissibility of such behavior. and about that, he should improve the text if it is really poorly written and put patterns about the lack of sources if they really are not enough and not delete the text. How can I act if he ignores this warning? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Balhae&action=history Aek973 (talk) 18:36, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

That editor has previously been warned for this behavior and will be reported again.--Quisqualis (talk) 18:47, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

I notice that you may be editing as an IP:185.17.129.116. If so, Aek973, this creates confusion, especially in cases like this. Do try for consistency in using one or the other (it's vastly preferred that you log in).

Also, please try to engage diplomatically with the other editor on the article's Talk page. Not being a Korea subject expert, I cannot tell what the contention is about.--Quisqualis (talk) 19:00, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, it’s me - sometimes authorization flies, I don’t notice it, I’m editing it. And then I see that authorization has flown. But then I correct my signature. Making authorization Aek973 (talk) 19:15, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, and I just registered? I was wondering if this project was worth my time at all. And part of the edits made before.Aek973 (talk) 19:33, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

But I looked at the history of edits and read the edit page - this user does not accept any diplomacy - he tries to bring people to the conflict and then looks for a way to blame them for this conflict. He is overly motivated to uphold the position of his country. Instead of an equal and balanced approach.

I am not against the fact that the Korean position would be fully presented in the article, I support this. But I want the position of China and Russia to be fully presented as well. I want the article to finally become balanced and neutral in 12 years. Since there is no common position, the views of all three sides should be equally represented. I suppose it's neutral. Or do I don’t understand something about the concept of neutrality of this project? Aek973 (talk) 19:22, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

This is a discussion which should take place on the talk page of the article of the article. Just post your concerns there for all to see, and note that English speakers may have difficulty understanding what the problem is.--Quisqualis (talk) 01:44, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

User:Theroadislong joined to user User talk: Koraskadi in the same behavior - organizing a war of edits by unreasonably rolling back an entire section with added links instead of setting the template that additional links are required, or the template to check the authenticity of the source. He clearly acts in conjunction with the user User:Theroadislong. One year ago users User:Gnomsovet and User:Hatchiko They were blocked for joint actions. Obviously, that users User talk: Koraskadi and User:Theroadislong must be blocked for the same reason. Where do I go for this? Aek973 (talk) 05:25, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

The user User:Jungguk has joined these actions. In raticle Balhae controversies He provokes a war of edits to remove the positions of three parties in order to seek information in favor of the ideology of his countries - South Korea. Help take action against this. He also did it in the Balhae article - the face is clearly coordinated work that violates the rules of sock-puppet. After that, the article was blocked on a completely incomprehensible version with a distortion in favor of South Korean state ideology - Korean ethnic nationalism. Please Help Aek973 (talk) 05:46, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Aek973, Howdy hello Aek973! As a note of caution, I would not accuse random folks of being sockpuppets, or of collusion without evidence. Doing so may be considered casting aspersions and is looked down on strongly. Before making such accusations, please look into them thoroughly, and if you think there is an actual issue you could report it at the appropriate noticeboard. But in this case, it is quite clear that Theroadislong is nobody's sockpuppet, and isn't using any sockpuppets. Just because more than one editor agrees to something doesn't make them socks, it means that they are forming consensus: the foundation of Wikipedia. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:16, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

@CaptainEek: As far as I can see, the most recent entry to which you apparently reply, is about User:Jungguk, not User:Theroadislong. --CiaPan (talk) 20:35, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

CiaPan, Two entries above Aek973 writes that Koraskadi and Theroadislong must be blocked, and then writes about Jungguk. Regardless, unless one has evidence of socking, you shouldn't just bandy around accusations of such. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:48, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Joint co-operation is not proof? On the face of double morality against Russian users because of Russophobia. Russian users were blocked for joint actions without any evidence. And Korean joint action is encouraged. Do you hate us so much? Then what kind of objectivity can we talk about?Aek973 (talk) 20:46, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Pinging User:Koraskadi. The author of the thread, User:Aek973 tried to ping you, Koraskadi, three times. Alas they used a link to your talk page instead of the User page, so you probably hasn't been notified on this talk. So now I'm notifying you on behalf of OP, and on their request (User talk:Aek973#Pinging other users). --CiaPan (talk) 11:33, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

As uninvolved user I reverted article to the state before edit war. admin protected article for few days so that people can work on solution i suggest that we not let emotions cloud judgement and use state of article before edit war which staied like that for a long time before edit dispute. last, as a Korean I remind you south korea is a democratic country without any state ideology. sorry for my bad grammar i normally use grammar checker app but i changed computers and now i cannot get app for some reason.

i also urge everyone not to edit war and follow wikipedia policy. Jungguk (talk) 17:48, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

The ability to choose from three parties constantly changing the name of the ideology of two of which is almost the same is not a guarantee of the lack of bias and state ideology. Korean ethnic nationalism The phenomenon is obvious. Attacks on US Ambassador Harris because of his racial identity (his mother is Japanese) are a reality. These are the attacks of the whole of Korean society, like #nonojapan similar Nazi boycott of Jewish businesses Mass anti-Japanese hysteria and hatred support for this hatred at the state level and support from 92% of society is all a reality and problem. The racial murder of a boy just because he is half Russian and half Korein is a reality, as is the impunity of his killers.[1] A UN warning on racism in Korea is a reality.[2] [3]The censorship of historical textbooks and a single textbook approved by the state is a reality.[4]. And the most important thing Korean nationalist historiography - this is a very standard phenomenon in South Korea and this phenomenon has not stopped and continues. Korea, as a small country with a population density in the habitable zone (outside the high mountains) of 1000 people per kilometer, needs land, and is actively justifying land grabbing from neighboring countries by rewriting history.

In addition, the Balhae controversies article did not have a edit war, or even attempted to organize it before yours. You rolled back the version that had both links and an equal weighted position to the distorted Korean version. Excluding Russia from the conflict. And distorting the position of Russia. This is a typical action of Korean users - organizing a war of edits and blocking users who take out a balanced position in an article. Which is greatly distorted in favor of Korean state ideology. But why does such an administration support it? Is that a question? Russophobia or money? Aek973 (talk) 21:06, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

• • • I ask a qualified administrator to intervene in the situation and understand the essence of the problem. Those who drew attention to the situation claim that they do not know anything about the essence of the 12-year conflict and the behavior of Korean users. And also, in all likelihood, they have no desire to delve into the essence of conflict.

I want to achieve two things

1. Equality of representation in articles without distortion of the position of all three parties. Moreover, there is every reason for this. And speaking in favor of one of the parties is not permissible.

2. Equal punishment for equal violations - since Russian and Chinese users were blocked for participating in this conflict - then Korean users should be blocked in the same way. Exaplple judging by the discussion pages of the mentioned users, these are different people. Nevertheless they were told User_talk:Gnomsovet "Even assuming that you are two people, joining a dispute for the sole reason of supporting your acquaintance is meatpuppetry and is not permitted. Personal attacks of course are not permitted either. You'll appreciate that the admins have enforced "the execution of project rules" by blocking you. Huon (talk) 01:47, 10 February 2019 (UTC)" Korean users are doing the same, but this remains without sanctions. Anyone can see the history of edits and posts of conflicting articles. See that articles are always and methodically blocked on a distorted version in favor of one point of view - the Korean State Ideology. Moreover, all attempts to present in the articles equally all three points of view are blocked. Articles are rolled back to pro-Korean distorted versions. Always blocked are users who just want to present the position of all three parties equally. Do not remove Korean. And just imagine equally Korean and Chinese and Russian. This is not correct even from an ethical point of view.Aek973 (talk) 04:14, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Username Struggle

Hello. I am having trouble with username customization, as you can see by my mess of a signature. My current code is [[User: Shrekxy6|ShrekxyShrekxy64. Any ideas? [[User: Shrekxy6|ShrekxyShrekxy64 " 00:41, 30 January 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shrekxy64 (talk • contribs)

Hi Shrekxy64. I'm not sure what you want the code to do but every opening [[ needs a closing ]]. Is this OK: Shrekxy64. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:47, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes. Thank you. Shrekxy64. 19:40, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

nl:Anne Marie Hoogland w/o any sources

this article does not have any source Leela52452 (talk) 02:01, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Leela52452. You will have to ask that question on the Dutch Wikipedia. The Teahouse can only provide advice about editing the English Wikipedia. Each language version of Wikipedia is run separately. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:23, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

are Kiandieri and Kianderi same ?

hello, i am confused after reading both articles description. Leela52452 (talk) 03:17, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Leela52452, Howdy hello, and welcome to the Teahouse! It does seem that they were about the same place, with slightly different spelling. I have redirected the longer article into the article with the infobox, as the infobox version at least had location data. The non-infobox version was in essence entirely unsourced, and thus its prose was not very useful. Its page history could be used to expand the main article, but I somewhat doubt its utility. Regrettably another African place article that exists, but is very hard to write about because the lack of good sources. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 04:24, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Link edits/deletion

There is a person listed on a page whose name links to another similarly-named person who is not the same individual. What is the best way to undo the link or have it removed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidlow47 (talk • contribs) 07:20, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

The page is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_U.S._Figure_Skating_Championships ...and the person linked is Colleen McGuire, which links to Colleen L. McGuire, who is not the same person.

The 1983 US Figure SKating Championships page should not redirect to Colleen L. McGuire, US Army, who served beginning in 1979. The Colleen McGuire who competed in the 1983 US Figure Skating Championships in the Junior Dance division did so while she was still in high school in Branford, CT, and so could not have been serving in the US Military four years earlier, in 1979. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidlow47 (talk • contribs) 07:24, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi Davidlow47. What you're describing is the main reason why articles with similar titles are disambiguated. How such a problem is resolved depends upon whether a Wikipedia article about Colleen McGuire the figure skater already exists or whether you intend to try and create such an article about her if it doesn't.

If the article already exists, then the way to fix the problem is to change the link so that it links to the correct article. If such an article article doesn't already exist, but you'd like to create one because you feel she's Wikipedia notable per either WP:BIO or WP:ATHLETE, then you should first create the article and then change the link as necessary. Since Colleen McGuire is what Wikipedia refers to as a WP:REDIRECT page, an assessment will need to be made as to whether one of the women is considered the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC or whether the articles about both women should be disambiguated. This can be a bit tricky so it might be better for you to work on a draft for an article about the figure skater as Draft:Colleen McGuire and then submit it to Wikipedia:Articles for creation for review; if the draft is accepted, then the AfC reviewer who does so will see that a redirect page already exists for that name and therefore the reviewer will sort things out with respect to disambiguation.

Finally, if no such article exists and you've got no intention of trying to create one, then the easiest thing to do would be to remove the link syntax so that her name is displayed as simple text and not a link. The way to do that would be to edit the article and look for [[Colleen McGuire]] and just remove the brackets around her name. Click "Show preview" to check that you've done it correctly, and then click "Publish changes" when you're ready to make the edit. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:48, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

I've removed the incorrect link and added an internal comment about it at Special:Diff/938346896. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 17:08, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

@Davidlow47: Extremely gud catch, this should be on your highlight reel! I've lost count of the number of times I've seen e.g. Krishna appearing in a Bollywood film (I wonder how they can afford him). Earlier today, I came across James Mason as a writer for a kids' TV series aired in 2011 (somehow, I doubt it).

I agree with what has been said above. Two other things you can do. (1) Turn the bad link into a redlink by adding a parenthetical qualifier - if you're sure what the qualifier should be. (2) Perhaps better still: tag the bad link as {{disambiguation needed}}. You will have done all you need to flag the problem up, and friendly expert WikiGnomes will sooner or later solve it one way or another. In the meantime, readers can see there is a problem of some sort, and shouldn't be misled. Narky Blert (talk) 00:15, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Looking for Wikipedia writers

Hi I am part of a Saas company looking for wikipedia writers to write about our products. Anyone with writing experience in the IT field would be prefered. Looking forward to connecting on this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anonymous4993 (talk • contribs) 07:41, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi Anonymous4993. The first thing you probably should do is carefully read through Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) (in particular Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Products and services), Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, Wikipedia:The answer to life, the universe, and everything and then Wikipedia:Ownership of content to figure out if Wikipedia is the best place to try and have your company or its products written about, or if you'd be better off trying some other outlet. You will also need to understand and accept that your company will not have any direct editorial control over what's written and it will not be able use Wikipedia for any type of promotion. So, if you read through those pages and still want to try and find some who might be willing to create such an article, then you can try Wikipedia:Requested articles or perhaps asking at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Companies or at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Internet. If your company or its products are deemed Wikipedia notable, you might get lucky and find someone willing to create an article about it. It's also just possible that you may simply have to wait until someone decides to create an article on their own because they think the subject is something worth writing about. That probably sounds like a bit of a slam against your company, but it's really not intended to be. It's just that all editors are volunteers and thus tend to create content about subjects that interest them as opposed to literally being tasked by someone to create an article. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:08, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

A note on your website describes the restrictions if you or any other employee of the company decide to attempt to create the article(s) yourselves. David notMD (talk) 11:12, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

I meant on your User page. David notMD (talk) 13:01, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

@David notMD: You meant on their User talk page → User talk:Anonymous4993#Managing a conflict of interest.
Pinging Anonymous4993 as well.
--CiaPan (talk)

More Source references in media player entry for "Comparison of audio player software"

Good morning Ladies and Gentlemen,

the entry Draft:Sayonara Player has received enhancement with lots of new sources for getting released. The german entry is also being updated.

Could somebody please check it?

The final target is to get this player included for listing it in Comparison of audio player software

Thank you very much for your help in advance.

Kind regards from Kassel in the middle of Germany

Dominic

Edited links acc. Nick Moyes comment below (Thanks to David notMD :)) Dominic2105 (talk) 12:53, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dominic2105 (talk • contribs) 09:29, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

@Dominic2105V: please check you links. The page doesn't exist under that url. Just supply a working (blue) wikilink and we can look at it. Nick Moyes (talk) 11:13, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Courtesy: here is a working link to the draft: Draft:Sayonara Player. David notMD (talk) 11:15, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

How do you cite a segment from a news network?

This is a super credible, news segment from CTV news that I'd like to use for a Wikipedia article I'm writing: https://winnipeg.ctvnews.ca/video?clipId=1775334 I'm using that reference for this statement. DJ Blitz is a Manitoban radio host and DJ. He is currently a host on Virgin Radio Winnipeg. Do you use this template with curly brackets?: cite web |url= |title= |last= |first= |date= |website= |publisher= |access-date= |quote=

Also, can someone take a look at this real quick before I submit it for review? It's a short one: User:Krisrobertson/DJ Blitz Just want to make sure it's solid. It's a non biased article yet still demonstrates importance of notable person. Also, a link to their social media page http://www.facebook.com/djblitzwpg shows that they are currently verified on Facebook. This is a major indicator of notability. Is verification on social media considered as a factor for notability? I'm assuming so. Very few people are able to obtain the blue check

Krisrobertson (talk) 11:39, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi Krisrobertson. You seem to be asking two questions which are somewhat related, but are slightly different; so I will respond to them separately.

Sources cited in Wikipedia articles are bascially required to meet two criteria: (1) be reliable and (2) be published/reasonably accessible. Sources don't need to be available online so it's possible to cite things like news broadcasts, TV shows, etc. as long as the source itself is considered reliable. You have to be a bit careful with WP:INTERVIEWs, however, in that they sometimes are just promotional types of fluff pieces and you also need to be careful with editorial types of converage because it may be a bit undue or original research; in general, a news report appearing on a major TV network with a reputation for editorial control should be OK to cite. There are different ways this can be done, but a template like Template:Cite news or Template:Cite AV media would probably work.

Your other question seems to be related to Wikipedia:Notability which can be a bit trickier to answer. Generally, a person is considered to be Wikipedia notable if they meet Wikipedia:Notability (people); in other words, they have received significant coverage in independent reliable sources. There are various other guidelines that also can be applied, but receiving significant coverage is the most basic one. I'm not sure whether a person having their FB account officially verifed makes much of a difference, particularly if that's going to be their only claim to Wikipedia notability, but it might be given consideration if it's one of many things being used to show a person is Wikipedia notable. You might want to ask about this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography/Arts and entertainment to see what some others may think. Draft:DJ Blitz has already been submitted to Wikipedia:Articles for creation for review, but was declined. My personal opinion is that it might be WP:TOOSOON to write an article about this person since most of the sources you're citing are really just "trivial" types of coverage and not really anything which would be considered significant coverage. Please note that not having a Wikipedia article doesn't mean Blitz isn't a cool guy or a great DJ, and perhaps his career will really take off sometime in the future and he will start receiving more significant coverage as either a radio host or as a DJ. Even if that never happens, however, it still would mean he isn't a cool guy or a great DJ. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:13, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Draft Review

Hello. I submitted this draft more than 3 months ago and it is still under review. I read somewhere to contact users on the related WikiProject page but no one there seems to focus on Turkish art or art galleries in general so, I didn't know who to contact. Please help! :)) Kilicsultan (talk) 13:52, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

As it says in the brown box on Draft:Yahşi Baraz, "Review waiting, please be patient. This may take 4 months or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 4,112 pending submissions waiting for review." Category:AfC pending submissions by age/3 months ago has 466 drafts at present. The number of reviewers who can read Turkish is limited, so it might help if you were to provide English translations of the relevant parts of your references. WP:There is no deadline. --David Biddulph (talk) 14:05, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. The article is already in English. So, I will wait a little more :) --Kilicsultan (talk) 09:04, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Although the article is in English, most of the references are in Turkish. You are therefore waiting for a reviewer who can read Turkish to be able to confirm that the references support the text. You may, therefore, have a long wait. --David Biddulph (talk) 12:57, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

WP:LANGCITE may be of some value. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:44, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

How to redirect?

Hello! I am in a dilemma about redirecting an article. It's showing me the following information's:

Symbol redirect arrow with gradient.svg This page is a redirect: From a page move: This is a redirect from a page that has been moved (renamed). This page was kept as a redirect to avoid breaking links, both internal and external, that may have been made to the old page name. When appropriate, protection levels are automatically sensed, described and categorized.

Name of the article given by me: Anjan Chowdhury (Square Group)

Can someone suggest me how to solve this issue. SSR1989 (talk) 16:38, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

There isn't an issue. That is created automatically when a page is moved. What question are you trying to ask? Do you want to use your sandbox for something else? If yes, just edit it and delete the redirect. - X201 (talk)

Help with Pending Changes

Hello. The article Mahavir Karna has 1 pending revision (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mahavir_Karna&oldid=937860521&diff=cur&diffonly=0), but for some reason, the pending changes review bar does not show up for me. Please help quickly, I do not know what to do. ωικιωαrrιorᑫᑫ1ᑫ 16:57, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

What do you for me! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaif wani (talk • contribs) 16:58, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

@Kaif wani: Sorry, your input is not helpful. I need help from someone who is actually willing to help me. ωικιωαrrιorᑫᑫ1ᑫ 17:02, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

@WikiWarrior9919: the page log says that page protection expired earlier today at 13:30 UTC, which explains why we see no pending changes to be reviewed. Both the change you linked above and a newer one show in the history. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 17:16, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

My Opinion!

give me advantage of some brief discourse — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaif wani (talk • contribs) 17:27, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

@Kaif wani: Please do not make disruptive edits like these on Wikipedia. Doing so could very likely result in the loss of editing privileges. ωικιωαrrιorᑫᑫ1ᑫ 17:50, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Random observation, better keep the nukes such as SPI for serious offenders with more than ten edits, and suggest a second account or IP for a SPI, the CUs are elite but not psychic. –84.46.52.25 (talk) 10:07, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

reviving entry on political party in Georgia

Hi,

I tried to create the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Lelo_for_Georgia -- yes, it is a stump but previously similar beginnings went through, so that other people can enrich it. The party has been created by one of the most prominent businesspeople in the country. It has been covered in various outlets, including Al-Jazeera, and I added more references.

What can I do to revive the submission? It will not be perfect for sure, but wasn't the idea that one collaborates at Wikipedia, rather than a single person having to develop a fully fledged article?

And yes, I do not yet know how to tag lots of things, but I kind of feel Wikipedia should make it possible for people like me to contribute, too.

Thanks Hundnase (talk) 18:16, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Hundnase, and welcome to the Teahouse. Yes, Wikipedia does make it possible for people like you to contribute. But creating a new article is very difficult - not primarily for technical reasons, but because a) it takes a lot of work locating resources and summarising them; and b) because it is a way of working that many people are not used to. (That's why I always advise new users to spend a few weeks or months improving existing articles before they try it).

Many of English Wikipedia's six million articles were created a long time ago, when we were less careful about their quality than we are today. In an ideal world, all these inferior articles would have been improved or deleted by now. But Wikipedia is created by volunteers, who work on what they choose; so we end up with many many inferior articles. But we no longer accept articles that do not meet our current standards. Your draft can remain a draft, and you can edit it and invite other people to do so; but until it has adequate independent sources it will not get accepted as an article. --ColinFine (talk) 20:41, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

What makes a reference "independent"?

I have submitted an article about a company which has been declined because the subject was not considered notable. That submission had three references, and I have now found a fourth, to newspapers that published feature articles reporting exclusively on the company and its involvement in some newsworthy activity, and which included interviews with company executives, photos and details about the company. These were not press releases. They were not paid for by the company. Independent newspaper editors sent reporters to get a story. I have been told that these newspaper articles are not considered independent by Wiki editors. Is this true?DriverSafety (talk) 18:24, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi DriverSafety, and welcome to the Teahouse! You may want to read this short policy, which should give you an idea of what an independent source is! If this doesn't help, please feel free to tell me here and we can help you further! Thanks again! Puddleglum ^2.0 19:22, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

For the record: discussion continued on askers TP. Puddleglum ^2.0 21:04, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

reliable sources

Which of the following are reliable sources that can be used for satisfying notability:

legacy.com

prabook.com

encyclopedia.com

amazon.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.175.106.246 (talk • contribs) 19:22, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Well, Legacy.com is an online publisher of obituaries, prabook.com is a crowdsourced information site "about any person who ever lived" (from their FAQ), Encyclopedia.com is simply an aggregator of already-published information, and Amazon.com is a commercial website selling books and other things. So none of those can be used to show notability. If information is found in Encyclopedia.com, it can be tracked back to the original publisher – and that could very well be a source that indicates notability, but encyclopedia.com itself is not a source (just like Google, which has no content, only indices of content exising elsewhere). The others are either crowdsourced or commercial. --bonadea contributions talk 19:50, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

So if there is an obituary in legacy.com published in a local newspaper, which I cite, and another obituary that I found, can those 2 be used to create a notable article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.175.106.246 (talk) 19:55, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

I think that an obituary would depend on several factors- obituaries are sometimes written by the deceased person prior to their death, or (more often) a family member. I don't think that would establish notability. 331dot (talk) 20:00, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

An obituary is sometimes written by a journalist at the newspaper, pretty equal to other articles from that paper. Recent discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Obituary. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:42, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

New York Times has obituaries written by newspaper staff and others paid-submitted. I have seen Wikipedia editors cite a NYTimes obit and not distinguish type. I would consider only the former as reliable sources. David notMD (talk) 22:01, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Obits might be suitable for citing basic facts, like dates and places of birth/death, but as to the original question, I don't think they are not typically usable for notability. It seems that an obit that is more in-depth, written by a neutral party, is generally about someone about whom there is significant coverage anyway, so there should be better sources out there for such a person. Who is the subject? —[AlanM1(talk)]— 00:10, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Recently I wrote that enwiki has at least one rule + at least one template for everything. Of course it also has at least one essay + at least one shortcut for everything, e.g., WP:NOTOBITUARY. –84.46.52.25 (talk) 10:19, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

How to make a Good Article.

I'm trying to make a good article by providing facts and more things. I cite things and currently it is a Work In Progress in my sandbox. I'm asking this to see if anyone has good tips on how to make it aesthetically pleasing, please message me back! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tsunami307 (talk • contribs) 19:51, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

You don't have anything in your sandbox. You can find advice at WP:Your first article. When you have experience on editing Wikipedia, you can also read about good articles. --David Biddulph (talk) 19:59, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

As DB noted, "Good article" has a specific meaning within the rating system. My assumption is that you want to create a draft that will be accepted. Be aware that your User page is not a place to work on a draft. Use either your Sandbox or start a draft. David notMD (talk) 22:04, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

<style>

How does <style> work? Does it have to be like this or can <style> stand on its own? Helloimahumanbeing (talk) 20:52, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi, Helloimahumanbeing. 'style' is an HTML attribute that takes as values one or more CSS declarations. You can use it in many HTML tags. For general use, <span></span> tags don't do much of anything by themselves; so, to produce green 15 point serif text, one might use <span style="color: green; font-size: 15pt; font-family: serif;"></span>, producing this. w3schools might be of interest. Eman235/talk 06:03, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

<style></style> tags also exist: see w3schools' reference. They don't, however, appear to work on Wikipedia, which allows only a subset of HTML. Eman235/talk 06:07, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

@Helloimahumanbeing: Your example: <b style="color:white"> Date</b>, while functional, is not recommended. Generally, if there is a way to do something using Wiki Markup Language (WML; Wikitext; Wikicode), that is preferred. In this case, '''Foo''', which renders Foo, is the preferred way to bold text, and there are templates used to change foreground and background colors, e.g., {{Font color|white|green|Foo}}, which renders: Foo. AFAICT, the <style> tag is not supported (only the style attribute of other tags (like <div style="foo:bar; bak:baz;">). (I apparently didn't save this earlier) —[AlanM1(talk)]— 06:22, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

+1 at style element (tag) not allowed, same idea as link, meta, and script elements in the head. The rendered wiki markup ends up in a div as part of the body (below the head). To get a better idea add ?action=raw to any enwiki URL without a ? —84.46.52.25 (talk) 10:28, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Waiting for the other article editors to take their turn answering

How many days should I wait for the other editors to take their turn in a dialogue I started on the talk page of Jabberwocky about putting a reference to the Muppet Show production of Jabberwocky? --AlainV (talk) 22:05, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

AlainV, Anytime you are having a discussion, you will have better participation if you use the Template:ping to let them know that you have replied. Most folks don't watch the pages where discussions are happening. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 22:49, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

AlainV, it depends on what you're waiting for. For instance, in the discussion at Talk:Jabberwocky, you don't need to wait for Anna to chime in before replying to David. However, if you were to form an agreement with David without input from Anna, you should probably ping her and wait a few days before going ahead and implementing it, unless the agreement is something that Anna would clearly not find controversial. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:27, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Is there a visual editor version of this ping? --AlainV (talk) 23:30, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

If you want to use the Insert menu option, the template's name is {{Ping}}, and then the parameter is the editor's username (without the User: prefix). _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:33, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

You mean that I should type two of those curly brackets to the left, write the editor's name (as many times as there are editors in the talk page?) then type a pipe, then type ping and then type two more curly brackets?--AlainV (talk) 18:50, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

AlainV, if you want to use the insert menu which is at the top of the edit window in both source and visual editing, you should choose "template" and in the window that appears, supply "ping" as the name of the template and usernames of users you want to ping as the parameters of the template. In visual editing, you can trigger the insert template option by typing two opening curly braces. In source editing, you type {{ping|user1|user2}} to ping two editors named "user1" and "user2". That is, use pipes between usernames if you are pinging more than one. Note that what you type is what you see here, not what I have typed to generate what you need to see. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 11:09, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

That was a very clear answer! Thanks!--AlainV (talk) 13:38, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Citing Archival Sources

Can public archives be cited on Wikipedia and what is the correct format for citation? Stirpicult (talk) 23:23, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi Stirpicult. I'm not sure what you mean by "public archives". Do you mean archived versions of old webistes/webpages found by using things such as the Wayback Machine, etc. or do you mean national archives/repositories like National Archives and Records Administration.

In the former case, as long as the original source material meets Wikipedia's definition of a reliable source and you're fairly sure that the archived version is a true representation of the original source (i.e. it's hasn't been changed in any way), then it should be OK and even help to cite the archived version as explained in Wikipedia:Citing sources#Preventing and repairing dead links. in this case, you're still really just citing the original source and simply providing a convenience link to an archived version of it.

In tha latter case, it depends upon the nature of the source you're trying to cite. If the content is something being generated by the public archives, then you will have to assess the archives's reliability as a source based upon the context of how you want to use it as a source. Public archives, however, generally host content generated by others; so, you're going to need to assess if what's being hosted is a reliable source for Wikipedia's purposes. Official documents, etc. are generally considered to be primary sources which can be used in some limited ways, but secondary sources are generally required when it comes to trying to add interpretations of such sources to Wikipedia article. So, once again, whether a "source" can be used depends upon whether it's considered to be reliable and the context of how it's going to be used. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:39, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi Marchjuly.

Thank you for the follow up and information. I was referring to historical archives belonging to historical societies, museums, universities, libraries, etc. If the source is indeed reliable, what is the preferred citation for archival collections?Stirpicult (talk) 02:16, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

You wouldn't really cite the archive is such a case unless it is the original generator of the source content; what you would need to do, at least in my opinion, is assess the nature of the content you want to cite and then cite it. For example, the Library of Congress is sort of a library/historical archive, but it hosts a wide variety of content, right? So, you wouldn't assess the individual content the LOC hosts as a reliable source per se simply based upon your assessment of the LOC. Similarly, if you wanted to cite a book you borrowed from your local library or bought at a book store, you would cite the book itself and not the library or store. The most important thing is that the source be reliable and published; personal/private documents which haven't been vetted or aren't otherwise subject to some form of editorial control might not be considered reliable per WP:NOR/WP:SPS, content to which only very limited access is granted may have problems being verified, primary sources may only be able to be used in certain contexts, etc. So, if you're not sure about the reliability/nature of a particular source, then you can start a more detailed discussion about it at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard to see what others think.

Anyway, once you assess a source and decide it's OK to cite, you've got a little flexibility with how you format the citation. There a variety of ways to cite a source, and there examples of some of these ways given in Wikipedia:Citing sources. There are also various Wikipedia:Citation templates which can be used as well if you like; some people find citation templates helpful, but others prefer not to use them. The only real thing you should try and keep in mind is WP:CITEVAR because Wikipedia doesn't really have one particular citation format it prefers above all others; in other words, you shouldn't just try to unilaterally change the citation style currently be used in an already existing article to one you personally prefer without a good reason for doing so. If you're starting a new article, then you can pick a citation style that you think works best for the article as long as it's not something that is not allowed by Wikipedia in general per WP:CITESTYLE. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:23, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Headings

I’m newly signed on here. I’m having difficulties finding info re adding a “Notable People” heading to an existing page. I would greatly appreciate assistance specific to that and also, direction to info for learning more about creating/editing pages. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1HJHJ (talk • contribs) 00:31, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi 1HJHJ. You can find out a little more about how to add a section heading to an article in Wikipedia:Manual of style#Section headings and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout#Body sections. Please note though that adding a new section to an already existing article is sometimes a contentious thing to do; so, while it's OK to be WP:BOLD in doing so, you should follow Wikipedia:Dispute resolution if you're WP:REVERTed by another editor. Moreover, on Wikipedia the word "notable" often is used to refer to Wikipedia:Notability which takes a slightly different meaning thant perhaps how the word may typically be used out in the real world; so, a "Notable people" section generally is assumed to mean a "Wikipedia notable people" section; in other words, often the most basic criterion for inclusion is that person in question already have a Wikipedia article written about them.

As for some more general information about creating articles or editing pages, you might find Wikipedia:Adventure, Wikipedia:Your first article, Wikipedia:Everything you need to know and Wikipedia:Contributing to Wikipedia helpful. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:19, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Corporate Notability

To Whom It May Concern,

In order to establish Corporate Notability about a company (Akasa) that makes PC components, I have submitted an article for review, but it did not pass the review by the editor due to lack of reliable sources among other reasons. I have seen some similar companies use the same sources I have used in order to establish credibility. Can you tell me, do the below articles count as significant coverage?

https://www.anandtech.com/show/13943/akasa-turing-passively-cooled-chassis-for-intel-bean-canyon-nuc https://www.anandtech.com/show/14259/he-asrock-a320tm-itx-motherboard-thin-itx-for-amd-apus

The Wikipedia article in question is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Akasa_Group#cite_note-3. Thanks.

Best Regards, Nick Lenczewski — Preceding unsigned comment added by NickL1771 (talk • contribs) 02:01, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

NickL1771 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. It generally is not a good idea to cite other articles to justify your own; as this is a volunteer project where people do what they can when they can, it is possible for inappropriate articles to go undetected, even for years. Please see other stuff exists.

The sources you cite seem to be just basic product descriptions, and are not significant coverage of the subject which in this case is a company. The company itself must have significant coverage in independent reliable sources, not just its products. For example, Microsoft merits an article because many sources write about it as a company, not just its products like Microsoft Windows.

I would ask if you have an association with Akasa Group? If you do, you are required to read and formally comply with the conflict of interest and paid editing policies(the latter is a Terms of Use requirement if you are paid or editing as part of your job duties). 331dot (talk) 02:11, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi NickL1771. Just want to add that having a Wikipedia article written about your company might seem like a totally great thing, but there can be a serious downside in that neither you nor your company will have any final editorial control over the article content. You won't be able to use it to promote the company and you won't be able to automatically keep out any negative content/press about the company. What to leave in and what to leave out will be determined through consensus established in accordance with relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines. You might want to take a look at Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not to make sure Wikipedia is actually the best option for you and your company, and that there aren't perhaps better ways to get your name out there. "Wikipedia notablilty" is not really the same as credibility and your company shouldn't really need to have a Wikipedia article written about it for it to be considered credible by others. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:25, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Getting My Article submitted

Salutations people of Teahouse,

I am working on an article and submitted it for review. Sadly this article was declined. I would like to get this article accepted, do you guys have any tips or suggestions on how I can make my article better, and worthy of submission? I really want this article to be on Wikipedia and want to make it a great one!

Sincerely, 8miceinabox --8miceinabox (talk) 02:57, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

8miceinabox Greetings. If Draft:The Irisian Republic was the draft article you referred to then you would read the texts on the pink panel where it stated what is needed to improve the draft. Also there is a personal message from the reviewer below the pink panel. Basically, the content of the draft article need to be supported by significant coverage of independent, reliable sources for verification. Kindly read WP:42. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 03:22, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Hello, 8miceinabox. This has to do with Draft:The Irisian Republic which seems to be some kind of game that you and your buddies made up recently. Your game is not eligible for a Wikipedia article unless it receives significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Unless you can produce those sources, you should stop trying to write this article, because you cannot be successful. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:28, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

The article was previously created by the blocked user SkippytheElf and deleted as promotional. You're probably aware of these facts as you said as much in your initial edit summary.

The article has been deleted again. --kingboyk (talk) 08:46, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Are user created imaginative illustrations Original Research?

I have just found this image: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tikbalang#/media/File:Tikbalang_The_Philippine_Demon_Horse_Commons.jpg being used on Tikbalang. Wikipedia:No original research#Original images says: Original images created by a Wikipedian are not considered original research, so long as they do not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments. It is not verifiable or a notable image. It illustrates or introduces the artist's own ideas of what a Tikbalang should look like. I believe it should be removed as Original Research. --Danielklein (talk) 04:54, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Do the math. user inactive since 2011, image used on 4 enwiki articles and on 8 other wikipedias, almost 13 years since 2007. –84.46.53.231 (talk) 07:04, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

I don't see how that's relevant. But as far as I can see, the very poor image does illustrate what is described in the lede. It would be good to have a better one, but I don't think it misrepresents or reinterprets the concept as described.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 07:21, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Shantavira I don't know what a Tikbalang is supposed to look like apart from having legs so long that when it squats its knees are above its head. The image is certainly not like that. How can I be certain that anything else in the image is representative? --Danielklein (talk) 12:47, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

You can't, but you can check the related talk pages (articles + image) for older discussions in the last 12 years, or start a new discussion with the "experts" (editors) on these talk pages. IIRC there's an offline book source, maybe the artist used more than their own imagination for this work. –84.46.53.117 (talk) 19:57, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

This image from DeviantArt https://www.deviantart.com/frigga/art/Tikbalang-55001764 fits the description better. Of course it is a copyrighted image so we can't use it here, and also it's that artist's interpretation. What would be good would be to find an old image that has no copyright. --Danielklein (talk) 04:04, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

From another PoV, if the art is used in 4 articles + 7 other wikipedias on the say-so of only one editor, it could be spam. Otherwise it could be what it often is, "only me", and better than no illustration.
It is not more usual to create own illustrations, and on commons folks tend to delete fantasy works, unless they are COM:INUSE. –84.46.53.137 (talk) 15:15, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

detective novels info database?

I am looking for better sources for an article on a "Golden Age" detective novel. Does anyone know of anything comparable to the Internet Speculative Fiction Database for sf, but for detective fiction, especially early 20th cent. (1910s-1930s)? This is a particular area of interest for me. I've done some Googling and browsed articles for a few well-known novels in the genre without finding anything.

Goodreads often has some of the info, but I'm not sure it's a WP:RS; any comments? The eBook editions of these vintage novels which I get from Gutenberg or Faded Page usually include at least a copyright date and publisher name, but that's a little skimpy, and also a primary source—moreover, it may (& should) be the edition scanned, not necessarily the first edition.

At the very least I'm looking for an authoritative source that gives publication dates, genre, basic info like that. --D Anthony Patriarche (talk) 21:18, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

BTW, is there somewhere else more topic-oriented (e.g. a WP Project) where I should be asking this question? --D Anthony Patriarche (talk) 21:29, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Goodreads is user generated content, same idea as Amazon reviews (maybe excl. their special "editorial reviews"). And Goodreads belongs to Amazon.
IOW, don't. If there is a project you find it in a project banner shell on talk pages of related books, and you could check out "how dead" a given project is on its project talk page. –84.46.53.117 (talk) 23:18, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Right, re Goodreads, I think the publication data can be considered reliable, and the editorial plot summary medium-reliable, but what I'm really after is a database that lists publishing history and all the info that should go into a good encyclopedia article. There is some database out there, like the one(s) for music CDs: When I take an eBook and update the meta-data (e.g. from Calibre) it pulls in info from somewhere, but only for one edition; probably also only medium-reliable in WP terms. I'll continue browsing WP articles to see what I can find. --D Anthony Patriarche (talk) 23:47, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Would WorldCat be of any help? John from Idegon (talk) 07:24, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

That looks helpful, assuming it's WP:RS. Thank you! --D Anthony Patriarche (talk) 19:52, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

WorldCat is something you see in a {{authority control}} for authors (untested: books) based on WikiData, and unlike IMDb or Discogs it's no UGC. –84.46.52.96 (talk) 02:16, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Tech problem: cite menu invisible

When I'm editing an article, the Advanced>Cite pull-down menu doesn't show properly. It's hidden behind the edit area instead of on top as it shoud be. This has been going on for some months. I thought originally it was my clunky old Windows 7 machine that was at fault, but now I have a new computer running Windows 10 and same problem.

The Cite menu seems to have changed recently, it now says Templates, but same problem--I can see the word 'Templates' with the triangle pointing up or down as I click, but no menu. Same problem with the Headings menu.

I'm using a desktop PC, Windows 10, Intel graphics, browser is Chrome. I haven't tried other browsers yet. --D Anthony Patriarche (talk) 22:51, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Have you tried updating chrome? It works for me when I do it in opera browser... --Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 22:55, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Interesting. My Chrome says it is up to date. MS Edge browser works OK, Internet Explorer has the same problem. It's evidently browser-dependent, not a WP problem. I'll try downloading FireFox — I don't particularly like Opera. Thanks! --D Anthony Patriarche (talk) 23:10, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Firefox has same problem! This is really very strange, and frustrating as I use the Cite templates a lot. Maybe there's something subtle in the browser settings? --D Anthony Patriarche (talk) 23:25, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

More tests: Thought maybe Java problem—Edge (which works) apparently doesn't use Java—updated my Java, didn't help. Tuned ClearTyoe (Win OS), changed my Chrome fonts, no joy. --D Anthony Patriarche (talk) 00:20, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

============================

Going into my old programmer debug mode, for you fellow OOP techies, what we have is a combobox on a form immediately above a textbox; the combobox when opened is behind the textbox area instead of on top as it should be. Even tho I can't see the menu, if I click just below Templates▲ where it should say Cite web I get the Cite web form. Can't get to the Cite book etc. options however. I tried this on Wiktionary, roughly same editing layout, and the Headings combobox works fine. So there's some problem specific to Wikipedia/Javascript. Can't believe nobody else is having same problem though!

Is there somewhere else I should be raising this problem as an internal workings of WP issue?

D A Patriarche. The place to go for technical discussions is WP:VPT - you might search the archives to see if anybody has already discussed it. If not, you can either post there, or go straight to reporting it as a bug: see WP:PHAB. --ColinFine (talk) 21:58, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Colin! --D Anthony Patriarche (talk) 19:36, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Help with what I feel is right

Please read this and add what I am asking to be added. Thanks!—Spasiba5 (talk) 02:07, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Spasiba5 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. This isn't really the forum to bring a dispute to; you may wish to make use of dispute resolution procedures if you find the advice you are being given unsatisfactory. 331dot (talk) 02:14, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

It's not a dispute. I am asking someone to add the matter or at least explain why it is not acceptable.—Spasiba5 (talk) 04:42, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

It is, indeed, a dispute. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 17:50, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Spasiba5 Your initial post here asked other users to do what others involved in your dispute will not do. You didn't just ask for an explanation of the dispute- which you have already been given. As I stated, if you find the discussion result unsatisfactory, you should use dispute resolution. 331dot (talk) 17:53, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Administrative Misconduct

How do we report, or otherwise handle or deal with or bring attention to individuals who leverage administrative powers and refuse to review matters beyond cursory considerations?

What ensures that DRN's are not arbitrarily closed by administrators supporting each other? — Preceding unsigned comment added by PhanChavez (talk • contribs) 04:15, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Please help us to help you. What is the issue? Where can we find it (URL)?

Administrators often agree with one another due to the fact that, after a certain amount of time on Wikipedia, certain patterns emerge. Policies are put in place to deal with the downside of these patterns, with which most administrators would concur, or else, perhaps, "give up the mop".--Quisqualis (talk) 04:38, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

The proper place to report administrator misconduct is WP:ARB. This isn't the place to talk about it. John from Idegon (talk) 04:45, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

@John from Idegon: Thanks for the suggestion. I've seen it before. I've reviewed it again. I don't think WP:ARB is the place to handle this issue unless or until it gets way too far out of hand; and based upon what I've encountered thus far, not sure if any such measures would do any good. If another admin gets involved and persists, then I might consider appealing to the arbitration committee. But, for now, I don't think the ignorance, malfeasance and/or corruption has gone that far. (But, maybe. If administrative meat-puppetry gets out of hand, it deserves a shot. Not to say that other administrators won't support their own, per the citation of Quis Custodient. There's never much you can do about Blue Shields. And even that doesn't matter too much. Eventually, enough people with bad attitudes along this front will help Wikipedia screw itself over; and, again, far outside of the average contributors' control at whatever point in time that takes shape. Be funny looking back over the long term, though.) PhanChavez (talk) 07:13, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

I think that the Teahouse is an appropriate place to discuss the general concept of administrator misconduct, especially since two well known administrators have been desysopped by ArbCom in recent days. The phrase "Who will watch the watchmen?" goes back to the Romans and is highly related in my mind to Karl Marx's later question "Who will educate the educators?" and today, it also has to do with questions of police brutality and prosecutorial misconduct. These are very valid questions. I was always tempted to answer Marx's question with teacher's colleges, but I guess that would be a superficial answer. A century later, bumper sticker slogans demanded Question Authority! as formulated by Timothy Leary. My response was "Question those who question authority" because those young activists sometimes end up exercising state power themselves after a decade or two in opposition. Ideally, administrators reflect the values and mores of the productive and highly active Wikipedia editors who show up to "vote" at Request for administratorship, who in theory are the people most familiar with the wide range of qualifications that administrative candidates ought to meet. That overlap may not be 100% but it is hard for me to imagine a process of self-selection that would be more fair than the current system of RfA bot notification of active editors. If you think a particular administrator is misbehaving, approach that person with specific, neutrally worded questions about their conduct. Consider their answer carefully. If the response is insufficient, gather further evidence and discuss the matter with other administrators who you perceive as fairer. You may decide to present a case at WP:ANI but it should be very carefully researched and you should provide diffs showing the specific misconduct. Other steps may follow. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:43, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

I support Cullen328 on this. --Sm8900 (talk) 07:15, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

@Cullen328: Thank you for the in-depth reply. The WP:ANI headlines with "This page is for discussion of urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems." -- And that is not my issue. Except for the fact that maybe it is the exact issue. But trying to get the point across in this manner, especially being a new user, is likely to go unnoticed or disregarded. IMO: The problem seems more systemic than immediate or urgent. For example: I've just encountered a situation where one administrator took over from another to subvert the three revision rule. Specifically: User:Ad Orientem took-over several revisions of a page from User:RoySmith, and then warned me about it. On the other hand, I've read about, and I'm aware of 3RR. My last attempt (revering a revision) was done in direct violation of 3RR (knowingly and intentionally) to intentionally bring attention to this specific issue and matter. It is documented on my talk page. I have also tried using Twinkle to post informational notices to their respective talk pages along these same lines. My talk page also includes my own history with another, very similar situation. And this is exactly why I took-up this specific issue and mantle. The issue(s) in play are both recent, and both started by the same user, User:Robert McClenon. On the other hand, I'm told to "talk" about things, and the specific page in question, I wrote specific details. It seems to me that before review of relevant history, and articulating the reasons for decisions, administrators are taking actions, and then pegging me as a new user as doing something wrong. (I admit I'm wrong for violating the 3RR rule in this case; now I need someone to come along and WP:TROUT the admins and users who are neglecting their responsibilities toward review and objectivity.) Here's the Talk page. Why aren't User:RoySmith and User:Ad Orientem anywhere on that page, but crawling all over my talk page? PhanChavez (talk) 06:34, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

@Cullen328: And, here is the history behind the article's talk page, a disputed redirect. But for the fact I've already cited Be Bold! from redirect for discussion on the Talk page, per previous issues I went through while learning. In other words: Admins don't seem to care about new users citing, logging, documenting, or articulating details behind actions taken, so much as performing administrative actions without adequate or proper review. That's my issue. Any attempt to take the time to point this out, that I've taken the time, reviewed things, understand how things work, and it's just as easily disregarded! New user? BAH! Not trustworthy. Review? BAH! Not worth the time or effort, but equally flippant administrative actions: "Well justified." PhanChavez (talk) 06:56, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

* If I'm wrong... Where is the "talk" or explanation from so-called experienced users and administrators? Did I not explain actions taken on the talk page? Did I not talk about it? Why am I getting pinged and hammered on my talk page without regard for efforts I've already undertaken? Or is that too much to ask? Why bother? Unless you just so happen to know an admin who recruits you and supports your actions? PhanChavez (talk) 07:01, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

PhanChavez, editors who deliberately engage in edit warring to make a point will be blocked and those who persist in this kind of disruptive editing will be blocked indefinitely. There is plenty of room for newcomers to engage positively but little tolerance for chronic disruptors. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:06, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

@Cullen328: I appreciated your initial comments. Repeating what I already know, and where I admitted fault, knowingly, to draw-out a point, not so much. Especially since the repetitious nature fails to address the concern at hand: Administrators engaging in sock/meat-puppetry. I notice you didn't address that issue. Is there an issue? Have you engaged in such yourself? PhanChavez (talk) 08:43, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

PhanChavez, from looking over Aid Worker Security Database, the core issue seems to be as follows

1. Regardless of whether Aid Worker Security Database is an article that should be created, copy-pasting a draft into a mainspace article is not the way to publish it, if for no other reason than this is a WP:CUTPASTE move that erases the article's edit history, which is a problem both from an ease-of-editing perspective and from a legal perspective. Reversions of your attempt to create the article this way are correct, and it is part of AdOrientem's role as an administrator to step in in situations like this and revert back to the status quo ante.
2. At Draft:Aid Worker Security Database, it appears that two different reviewers have explicitly declined the draft, a third has made a comment that they don't think the draft is in good enough shape yet, and all three have given succinct but satisfactory justifications for their actions. Now, there is a process that you can follow if you want the article to get a wider review before being rejected, and that would be to request that the draft be moved to mainspace and formally challenged for deletion at WP:AfD. That three different AfC reviewers have felt that the article isn't ready to be published, however, is a bad sign for the survival chances of that article at AfD.

As a final note, I'd add that "be bold" is advice for how to make new changes. It is not a license to ignore other editors' objections. Even one editor objecting to a bold edit is enough to justify the enforcement of its removal, pending discussion to conclusively reach a consensus on the matter at a relevant talk page. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 08:10, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

@Rosguill: Thanks again (for the in-depth explanation, it's helpful and appreciated). On a side note, while the AWSD article is not mine, my semi-COI attachment descends from realizing it was impacted in the same time-frame as my stupid football disambiguation, by the same less-than-helpful reviewer, User:Robert McClenon. But, I understand your review, thank you for it, and I'll let it go as of now. PhanChavez (talk) 08:43, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

TL;DR summary: Admins following the policies is no "misconduct" or 3RR-subversion. Expanding redirects to proper articles could be working as designed, but copying a draft—after its submission failed for whatever reason—to an existing redirect is just wrong. The edit histories with the credits (contributors) of the source (draft) and the target (redirect) have to preserved in a "history merge" or similar, and a "history merge" requires admin rights, because it can be tricky to get this right. @PhanChavez: Get the draft in shape for publication in some months. –84.46.53.137 (talk) 18:22, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Possible Reply to User:PhanChavez

I would like to reply to User:PhanChavez, but I am not entirely sure where to start. I can see that they are angry at me and are unhappy with what I have done. If all that they want to do is to express unhappiness and anger, they have done that. I am getting tired of their scolding of me, but perhaps I should simply ignore them if it makes them feel less bad. I know that PhanChavez is unhappy with my handling of two drafts. I know that PhanChavez wants to tell everyone that they are unhappy with my handling of two drafts. I don't know if they want me to do something. It appears that they are also unhappy with and angry at User:Ad Orientem and User:RoySmith. It isn't clear to me whether they want a wrong righted. Maybe they just want to complain If they want a wrong righted, what is the wrong? Robert McClenon (talk) 21:59, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

• I'm in much the same place. User:PhanChavez, much is obvious. It's obvious that you're angry. It's obvious that you're not really a new user. What's not obvious is what you're angry about. May I suggest that you calm down, say what it is that you are upset about, and what you would like to see done to correct it? I can't promise we can accomodate you, but you'll have a better chance that way than if you just continue to rant. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:23, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Full History

I can't review the pre-history of an article after submission (or, between submissions, for that matter).

How can I review the history of an article once submitted for AfC, before being accepted or declined? (The full history, not just upon submission, but before being submitted.) -- It seems that the full history should be available, but after looking around, I cannot find a way to review any history between any submissions, or before.

I am looking to specifically dig-down to specific dates and details behind a history of actions by (1) the original draft author, and (2) parties causing conflict by creating redirects after the original draft.

What I'm asking: I'd like to see the history behind an article before/during/after the AfC process of submissions, versus the date someone goes in and creates a redirect for WIP drafts which are in the pre-or-post submission process (pending review and acceptance).

I am asking this because there appear to be numerous unhanded issues in this domain. (And this may be less a Wikipedia matter, so much as a WikiMedia Foundation matter: A problem with the core software and logging the history behind an article and/or its title.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by PhanChavez (talk • contribs) 04:15, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Every page has its own History tab. There is usually no more history available than what is found there. What can you not find?--Quisqualis (talk) 04:41, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

@PhanChavez: Can you give an example of a page that you can't see the history for? You can see the history of a draft the same as for an article by looking at the "View History" link. RudolfRed (talk) 04:46, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Is this about your draft? Note that reviews of drafts are done by non-admins too. If you read "The proposed article does not have sufficient content to require an article of its own, but it could be merged into the existing article at Attacks on humanitarian workers. Since anyone can edit Wikipedia, you are welcome to add that information yourself. Thank you."and "If there were one or two more references of the quality of the NY Times piece, I'd say this is clearly something we should accept into mainspace. As it is, however, I have my doubts that it would survive WP:AfD.", please take the suggestions to heart. The sources you need do not exist. Pushing harder is famously ineffective on Wikipedia.

Based on" A problem with the core software and logging the history behind an article and/or its title", I would suggest you report a suspected bug to the WP:Village pump/Technical--Quisqualis (talk) 04:53, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

I don't think that the Original Poster has identified a bug in the software or logging function. At least, they haven't provided what appears to me to be a case that there is a bug. It appears that they are saying that multiple administrators and the software are engaged in a conspiracy against them. Maybe they are only saying that if multiple administrators revert their edits, the administrators are engaged in meatpuppetry in order to defeat the three-revert rule. Maybe what we have is an editor who thinks that everyone is conspiring against them. Or maybe they haven't explained what their issues are. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:41, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Example

I'm going to try my best to provide an example, round-about.

This is old news, back-history... Draft:Group of Five conferences -- There is a history behind this. Not sure if it is fully available. I edited a map and list from Power Five conferences with the complimentary information for the other 5 conferences in NCAA Division I Football Bowl Subdivision to provide a complimentary page; listing conferences, teams, map, etc.

The first submission was declined, due to lack of notability. No big deal. First time, need to revise, etc.

The second submission was declined. The reason was WP:SPLIT or WP:SPINOUT. At first I couldn't understand why. The "Group of Five" and "Power Five" were two distinct entities within NCAA Division I College Football.

After digging deeper, it appeared that someone created a Redirect using "Group of Five conferences" to a lesser-used or dissimilar term, Mid-major. This caused some conflict.

I went about things the wrong way. But, the reviewer who declined, due to WP:SPLIT or WP:SPINOUT, cited redirect for deletion on the AfD suggestion page, with a Procedural Close. (Why did I try an AfD for a Redirect? Because I'm new and dumb and learning.) I also received the same response here on the Teahouse, that this was likely a redirect for deletion issue.

Long story short, the WP:RFD page suggests/recommends, right at the top: Be Bold! -- That a redirect should be converted, transformed or merged to an existing article.

In any case, the above example is my own, but I've since run across it in duplicate (same decline, by the same user). First noticed when I was reading through the Teahouse, trying to get a grasp of my own issue.

In the process of reviewing things, when I first looked at the edit history behind my draft of Group of Five conferences, I could not see edits I'd saved before the first time I submitted my new AfC. And, again, after I submitted for consideration a second time, upon being declined, I could not see the history between the two submissions. ← (this is the reason for this question, right here)

I've mentioned coming across a second issue, very similar to and related to my own (same user, same reason for declining). And that is Draft:Aid_Worker_Security_Database. There is also a redirect for this term, which points to Attacks on humanitarian workers.

The first revision I can see of Draft:Aid_Worker_Security_Database is on 27-June-2019. The redirect itself was created on 11-May-2019.

These dates are close enough that I'd like to perform a FULL INVESTIGATION of what is going on behind the scenes. Is this a coincidence? Or are people creating redirects and causing or inciting conflict in the article creation process.

NOTE: I have no conflict of interest with the counter point, or secondary example, so much as, I saw the same reviewer performing the same action against similar circumstances. It is only after the dust-up over my own concern that I'm coming here, saying: "Hey, WTF with these redirects screwing with article creation?"

I did my thing in a day, and it was something like several days before it was reviewed. I'm not sure when User:HumOutcomes first submitted Draft:Aid_Worker_Security_Database. That's what I want to see. I want to see when the original draft was saved and submitted, versus the date the redirect was created, per the date the draft article was reviewed.

I want to know what the hell is going on, or I want someone with the ability to do so to sit-down and take the time to review things and start implementing a fix.

Or deal with the meat/sock puppets who are going in and getting these actions approved.

Bottom line is, one way or another, eventually this is going to come to someone else's attention, and the matter is going to have to be dealt with and handled appropriately by someone with a spine and a backbone. (But that's just my IMO, my two-cents. Maybe nobody cares until it comes to bite them in the arse. But, again, day-to-day, nobody cares.)

PhanChavez (talk) 08:19, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

@Rosguill: Hey, sorry to bother you. But you seem to pay attention to detail. IF if you have a more in-depth view of details like original submission or draft dates, revisions between submissions, etc... IF you have a more advanced view, could you look into the two dates/observations above. When I was scanning Teahouse entries on my previous issue, I ran across this, and it bothered me. That's why even though it's not my article, I've taken up the mantle, so-to-speak, in trying to get it pushed through; it's time-frame related to User:Robert McClenon, and I can't help but feel that a similar issue might be in play. If you don't have a more nuanced or in-depth view of things, then, my apologies, no worries, and, again, I'll just drop it. But I'm asking on the off-chance that there's somehow a pattern of illicit actions or behavior in play. Thanks again, P.Chavez PhanChavez (talk) 09:04, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

@PhanChavez: With regard to Draft:Aid Worker Security Database, I don't think that the redirect has anything to do with the draft, except that the redirect's existence may have prompted HumOutcomes to create a draft in the first place. HumOutcomes originally created a draft at User:HumOutcomes/sandbox at 17:29, 19 June 2019. This was declined the same day and tagged for speedy deletion as a copyright violation, and it was deleted by RHaworth at 09:26, 20 June 2019. (Only if you're an admin can you see the revision history of deleted pages.) HumOutcomes then created a new draft at User:HumOutcomes/sandbox at 14:58, 27 June 2019‎, with the edit summary "Re wrote [sic] article to ensure no copyrights were violated". All the subsequent edits to this draft are visible in the revision history of Draft:Aid Worker Security Database (including its move to draft space). Nothing shady was going on; a user submitted a copyvio draft that was deleted as such and then submitted a revised draft that has been declined. I don't see a problem. Deor (talk) 19:15, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

@PanChavez: I don't see any foul play. The article was deleted once the new version was accepted in article space because the old one was no longer necessary. The only edits in that draft's history were you building the draft and then it getting declined by reviewers. I do note that there was an improper CUTPASTE edit carried out to move the article to mainspace, but it wasn't caught by a reviewer so it went unaddressed. I've now merged the history of actually creating the article (i.e. before the reviews) so that we don't lose that. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:33, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Julian Assange page has false information

Please edit the information posted as false when searching Wikipedia about Julian Assange. It states that he sought asylum in Ecuador based on 4 alleged rape accusations. There were 2 not 4 and those charges have been dropped. THIS is particularly important because those charges were false to begin with. I can cite these facts with sources more accurate than whoever wrote the original report. Assange is involved in the most important indictment in history of the fight for free speech and having this misinformation in print when someone who hasn't fully and carefully researched him will only extend the aid in the US government 2008 propaganda smear campaign against him. SHAME on this link for reporting without researching facts which are false.107.77.224.215 (talk) 09:30, 2 February 2020 (UTC)</ref>

References

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. According to the Julian Assange article, there were four charges against him, "two counts of sexual molestation, one count of unlawful coercion and one count of "lesser-degree rape". That line is cited. 331dot (talk) 10:44, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Note that a single act can result in multiple criminal charges. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 20:08, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Is there a problem with Internet Archive?

I've tried to archive some pages and it's not working. I also tried to access some webpages I previously archived and were previously working. They don't seem to be working anymore. When I click on the URL, it says the page isn't archived, even though I was previously able to access it. Can someone help? See the Frontline references on List of chief ministers of Jharkhand for examples for pages I've tried to access. TryKid (talk) 10:28, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

TryKid The same thing happened to me whet I went to the article you suggested. If the issue is on the Internet Archive's end, we can't really do too much about it, you would need to contact them. 331dot (talk) 12:19, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. I think it is working now, the problem on Jharkhand page was from my side, and the other page seems to be working now. TryKid (talk) 13:11, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Just significantly expanded an article--protocol re: stub notice?

Hello: I just significantly expanded the article John Appleton Brown. I do not think that it would still be classified as "stub" but am quite new and do not know protocols about this. Any advice would be appreciated. Thank you Riverbend Trail (talk) 12:15, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Riverbend Trail Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. If you expand a stub article and feel it is no longer a stub, you may remove the stub tag from it. If someone disagrees with you, they will restore it- but I don't think that will happen in this case. 331dot (talk) 12:17, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you 331dot. Will do. Riverbend Trail (talk) 12:21, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Riverbend Trail, please also remember to go to the Talk page of the article and change the rating from Stub there (to Start if you think you've done an okay job, C if you've done good, or B if you think you've done really well!). – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:17, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

I notice that another user, David notMD, has now rated the article as C-Class: I would concur – nice work, Riverbend Trail! {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.205.58.107 (talk) 20:20, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

How to Add My Company in Wikipedia?

Hello Wikipedia Team, We are from the Animation training institute, located in Mumbai, India. The way "Arena Animation" listed in Wikipedia, We want to add our Company "Zee Institute of Creative Art" in Wikipedia. How we can do that. please support. Thank you Ghanshyam Harsh — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harsh.eroz (talk • contribs) 15:12, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Firstly you need to make the mandatory declaration of paid editing as you are editing about your company. After that, read how to make edits where you have a conflict of interest. Finally you refer to "we". You need to be aware that Wikipedia accounts may not be shared; each individual editor needs his/her own account. --David Biddulph (talk) 15:44, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Harsh.eroz. Like many people, you misunderstand what Wikipedia is. It is not a listing site. It does not contain listings. Not one. It is an encyclopaedia, which contains neutral articles about notable subjects. Many articles are about companies: they do not belong to the companies, they do not necessarily say what the company wants to say, and Wikipedia does not care - not even a little bit - whether or not the company in question wants there to be an article or not.

There are two criteria, only, for Wikipedia having an article about a subject: 1) is the subject notable (in Wikipedia's special sense of the word)? 2) has a volunteer chosen to create an article about it, and had the resources and ability to do so? --ColinFine (talk) 16:15, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Problem Article

Article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deweyism A few observations: 1) The article title is the only place I have found the term "Deweyism." It is not used in J. Dewey's works, nor third-party sources such as the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. At a minimum, I think the title needs to be changed, but I do not have permission for this. 2) The content is only a summary of J. Dewey's essay "My Pedagogic Creed." I believe I read somewhere Wikipedia articles need to be more than just a summary of a work, but the current notification only flags references, not the content in the article. I'm not sure how to go about fixing #1, and I would like policy clarification on #2. Thanks! Tacogamer20 (talk) 16:33, 2 February 2020 (UTC)Tacogamer20

@Tacogamer20:, let's take these one at a time. As far as changing the title, any account that is four days old and has 10 edits should be able to change the title of an article. Looking at your contribution history, it looks like you passed that yesterday. Maybe just the first time you tried, you hadn't gotten to 10 edits yet? Try it again and see what happens. If you still have problems, post here again, or on on my talk page if you prefer. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:02, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

I agree, Tacogamer20. It reads like an essay. It needs WP:secondary sources, and should be rewritten to summarise what they say, not what Dewey says. Probably it should be an article about My Pedagogic Creed. --ColinFine (talk) 18:26, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

New article Frank A. VanDersarl

I wrote and published an article as referenced. There is very little written about the subject, in any coherent fashion. I have been trying to correct that and am writing a biography of this individual; much of which comes from my memory from my years of contact. There is a lot of unorganized material in the Frank VanDersarl Collection at the American Heritage Center, University of Wyoming that I have drawn on but there didn't seem to be a way to accurately credit that as a reference. This is my first effort to publish and will probably be my last and was only made for the same reasons that I am writing the biography: this man made significant contributions to aviation and has not been sufficiently recognized and acknowledged for his accomplishments. I have never edited an article but it seems that is a requirement in order to publish an article and I wonder why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Durangofox (talk • contribs) 18:06, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Durangofox Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. It isn't absolutely a requirement to have edited existing articles before creating a new article, but it is a good idea to edit existing articles first, so you get a feel for how Wikipedia operates and what is expected of article content.

I think you might be referring to the need to have ten edits and your account be four days old before being able to directly create an article. This is to ensure that you are not an automated robot and also to deter vandalism. You could just make ten edits somewhere to game that requirement, but it is a good idea for new users to submit drafts for review at Articles for Creation first, even if you don't technically need to. Your article should summarize what independent reliable sources state. If you need help with citations, please read WP:CITE. 331dot (talk) 18:16, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Durangofox. The draft in question is User:Durangofox/sandbox. Content based on your personal recollections is not permitted in Wikipedia articles because of our policy of No original research. Instead, you must summarize what reliable, independent sources say about the person. I found coverage on the Denver Public Library website, on HistoryNet and in Warbird Digest. Those are the type of reliable sources that you should summarize. You can cite published material from the American Heritage Center but cannot use unpublished documents. Please read and study Your first article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:32, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict):Hello, Durangofox. From what you say above, it sounds as if VanDesarl does not currently meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability, in that little has been published about him: if that is the case, then it is a waste of anybody's time trying to write a Wikipedia article about him, as it will not be accepted: see no amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability.

If you are writing a biography, then in the future this might change. If your biography gets published by a reputable publisher, then it can be cited as a reliable source, and contribute to his notability: it will not be enough on its own, but perhaps there are a few other independent reliable sources about him that together can meet the threshold.

However, even once it has been published, there may be a problem: citing your own work is regarded as editing with a conflict of interest: not forbidden, but discouraged; and if you decide to go ahead, you should certainly use the articles for creation process, and get your draft reviewed before moving it into main space. --ColinFine (talk) 18:35, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

ColinFine, I believe that this person is notable. As a teenager in 1911, he built and flew an airplane that is now in the National Air and Space Museum and is now in flying condition. Finding sources about him is easy, and I linked to three more above. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:57, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

This particular airplane is described in Blériot XI and there is a photo of it in that article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:48, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Assistance on a page please

Is this the place where I can share my article and receive suggestions from fellow editors? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JosieJosie (talk • contribs) 2020-02-02T19:19:56 (UTC)

@JosieJosie: No, don't post it here. Post it in your sandbox instead. You can place {{subst:submit}} on it when you are ready for a review RudolfRed (talk) 20:27, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

@JosieJosie: Also, please note that you cannot copy from other websites into Wikipedia. That is a copyright violation which is strictly not allowed. See the note on your current sandbox. RudolfRed (talk) 21:09, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

How do I create a redirect page on Wikipedia?

Attached below is a link to an article I wrote about a Radio Host who is a host on 103.1 Virgin Radio. This is the article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:DJ_Blitz

I would like to create a redirect page to simply send everyone to the current Wikipedia page of the station which has information about the subject. How do I go about doing this? Or could someone do that for me?

I want to page to simply redirect everyone to this one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CKMM-FM

Thanks Krisrobertson (talk) 19:49, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Krisrobertson (talk • contribs) 19:40, 2 February 2020 (UTC) 

Hello, Krisrobertson. To create a redirect page:

• Type the name of the page you want to create into the search box
• Pick the redlink after "You may create the page ".
• Insert #REDIRECT [[CKMM-FM]] into the page.
• Pick "Publish changes"

For more information, see WP:redirect. --ColinFine (talk) 21:53, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Krisrobertson (talk • contribs) 22:06, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Michael Price, Composer

To whom it may concern,

Re: Michael Price, Composer

Hi my name is Zoe and I married Michael Price (the joint Emmy winning Sherlock composer with David Arnold) in 1998. We both worked, at the time, for Michael Kamen (Composer). Michael was one of two (along with James Brett) arranger, producers and I was Michael Kamens private PA.

My maiden name was Zoe Elizabeth Moore and I became that year Zoe Elizabeth Price.

We were very happy for some time but life took us in different directions.

I think it is very important to give all and true facts on your site.

Should you need to confirm these details please contact Michael Price directly via his website.

If possible, please let me know by return that these facts and details have been updated.

Thank you.

With very best wishes.

Yours faithfully,

Zoe (redacted) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.129.38.215 (talk) 20:28, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Your information is appreciated. Please understand, though, that Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources state about article subjects. I believe what you say, but unfortunately cannot use personal recollections or personal information in articles as those are not possible to independently verify. If there are published sources with information such as that, you are welcome to offer them on the article talk page(Talk:Michael Price). It might be a good idea (if you do that) to register an account and then verify your identity with Wikipedia by emailing the address written at WP:REALNAME.

I have removed your phone number for your protection; personal contact information should not be posted in this public forum. In addition, if at all possible, Wikipedia business should be conducted on Wikipedia, for openness and transparency. Only the most sensitive private information should be discussed by email. 331dot (talk) 20:49, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

It's about Michael Price (composer) David notMD (talk) 01:48, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

At present, there is no Personal life section. If your marriage and divorce were reported in a publication that could be considered a reliable source, such a section could be created and that content added. David notMD (talk) 01:52, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Priya Prakash Varrier

Hi! I was looking to move this draft to an article, but was not able to, probably because previous articles with that title have been deleted. I believe that notability criteria are now met: a search for Priya Prakash Varrier on NewsBank returns 942 items since 2018, although not all of them are good sources. I'd be grateful for help with this move or advice about any reasons why this isn't a suitable article. Thanks! BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 21:41, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

No, this should not be moved by some well-meaning editor recruited through the Teahouse. The article has been deleted in an AfD discussion and the title was create protected for very good reasons. The same thing happened to the draft (deleted in MfD and create protected); that create protection expired about a month ago. The appropriate course of action when dealing with AfD deleted articles is to contact the deleting administrator and explain what has changed since Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Priya Prakash Varrier (nothing as far as I can tell...) --bonadea contributions talk 22:05, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:27, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

A single or a promotional one??

Hi Guys. I've been in Wikipedia for a while and I have realized I don't really know how to differ a single from a promotional single when it is only released digitally. There are songs that are shown in digital music platforms as "singles" but some of them are consider by wikipedists as "promotional singles". I don't if it has to be recognize by the artist as a single, or it has to be mentioned to be one on a music publication.

For example, a publication on NME [5] refers to "Leave It Alone" by Hayley Williams as a "new single" and the second to be released from her album Petals for Armor. The song has been released digitally (as "Simmer", the first album single and considered as a "single") in most of the digital well-known music platforms. So I don't know how to deem a song as a single or a promotional one. Thanks in advance! --Saviourofthe (talk) 22:40, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Saviourofthe. I have no idea about that question specifically, But when a question arises of how to refer to something , the answer is usually "what do the reliable sources say?". If those sources call it a "single", then that is what the article should call it - unless other reliable sources call it something else, in which case there may be a need for some judgment. --ColinFine (talk) 00:15, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks!!--Saviourofthe (talk) 01:47, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

@Saviourofthe: I'd suggest posting at WT:SONGS, since they seem to be the Wikiproject focused on individual songs. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 01:32, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank You!--Saviourofthe (talk) 01:47, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

I have edited 10 articles. Does that mean I can submit my article and it will be published automatically? Thanks

I have edited 10 articles. Does that mean I can submit my article and it will be published automatically? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kristine70 (talk • contribs) 00:54, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Kristine70 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. You can move an article draft into the main encyclopedia once you have 10 edits(it can be to a single article, not 10 separate ones) and your account is four days old. However, it is strongly advised that you submit a draft using Articles for creation, even if you don't technically need to, until you build up experience. It's better for you to find out issues with your work before it gets into the encyclopedia, instead of afterwards. 331dot (talk) 01:12, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

As an autoconfirmed user you would be able to create an article directly in mainspace or move a draft into mainspace instead of submitting it for AFC review, but as a new user it would be advisable for you to go through the draft review process as an article in mainspace would be more liable to deletion. You can find advice at WP:Your first article. --David Biddulph (talk) 01:15, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Kristine70, If you refer to User:Kristine70/sandbox, then I strongly suggest you use the articles for creation process. The article has numerous issues, which would likely lead to its deletion if it were immediaty moved to the mainspace. Among those issues: lacks suffucient inline references, has unreliable sources like ancestry.com, and it isn't written in a formal encyclopedic tone. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 01:21, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Against all advice, you went ahead and created Ace Hudkins. Now, you will see if it remains an article or goes to Article for Deletion (AfD). Most of the content has no references. I suggest you either delete all that or add references. David notMD (talk) 01:57, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

• Update: Back at Draft:Ace Hudkins. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 04:14, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Writing about film - Plot

Hello, so I just finished writing the plot section for The Last Faust (will do formatting later on this text) and am wondering if there's a wiki page where I can post the article for the plot to be reviewed? I sort of remember reading about a page like this in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Film but cannot find it anymore. Woul be great if someone could link this page to me or review the 'Plot' part themselves. Thanks! Zeeshka (talk) 02:38, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

@Zeeshka: You can post it on the article's talk page for interested editors to comment on. RudolfRed (talk) 04:23, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Wikiprojects

I'm confused, what are wikiprojects — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eliegot (talk • contribs) 03:24, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

To learn about WikiProjects, read WikiProject and WP:WikiProject. --David Biddulph (talk) 03:29, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

New Entry Inquiry Edit Review

Hello! I could sure use an extra pair of eyes after the changes made as per a reviewer's suggestions. Many thanks in advance. EMETIB MAILLIW (talk) 04:19, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

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

Looks good. I made a few edits. Do you have access to WWD? That would be a "bonus" source, as I'm sure they have covered her.--Quisqualis (talk) 06:58, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Many thanks! I am going to continue digging. Question: She has been covered by the Austin Statesman and Hispanic Business Magazine (for example). Can you direct me to a Wiki link so I can learn to reference an offline archive? EMETIB MAILLIW (talk) 10:20, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Kindly help resolve this issue

Thank you everyone for the work you do here. I created an article NECLive that has been flagged for lack of notability and advert contents. I wish to humbly state that the subject of this article is notable to be on Wikipedia. The subject, "NECLive" enjoys wide media coverage and is mentioned in several headlines and should not be described as "trivial mention". This article cites several independent and veritable secondary sources as can be seen in the references section. Many of the secondary sources are leading national media organizations such as Punch, The Guardian (Nigeria), The Sun (Nigeria) Premium Times, The Nation, Vanguard, Channel Television among several other secondary sources. I am a beginner editor and may not be conversant with all the rules of Wikipedia but before I contribute any article I spend time conducting research to ensure I obtain enough facts and secondary sources to back it up. I urge senior editors to have a look at this article, help put it in good, lift the notability tag and review it to go live.

This article is also flagged for being written like an advert but I can't understand the nature of advert contents therein so I could do a clean up of those contents. As I said earlier, I am a junior editor learning how to edit and contribute to Wikipedia but I wish to kindly say that there are no intentional advert contents inputted in the article. Gideens (talk) 08:06, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

I've removed a lot of material from the lead, as both promotional and not directly about the subject. Maproom (talk) 09:36, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

O.N.Sundaram Ex.MLA

Hi,

I have quoted reliable references for the the wiki page 'https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:O.N.Sundaram'. Why is not accepted? What reliable sources are needed? The sources provided are reliable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shan snk (talk • contribs) 08:59, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Shan snk, Draft:O.N.Sundaram was declined as there are no sources. You had a source to another Wikipedia article, but this isn't permitted (we can't say something is correct because we said it was correct).

For an article, we need sourcing, from independent, reliable sources, in order so that users can verify what you have written.

wp:42 is a shorter overview of what reliable sources are, or you could read the full policy at Wikipedia:Reliable sources ~~ Alex Noble - talk 09:10, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Also, they are probably presumed notable, which means that if you can find sources just to support what you've written, rather than having also demonstrate they are notable. ~~ Alex Noble - talk 09:12, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

B-sides by other artists

In the case of a recording artist releasing a single with another artist's track as the B-side, should this be noted in the info box, i.e. next to the listed B-side should the alternate artist be listed? I believe they should, another editor does not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by YouCanDoBetter (talk • contribs)

I would say not, in the article in question (Stay (Faraway, So Close!)) credit is discussed in the main text. Cheers, Polyamorph (talk) 12:58, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

I would say definitely yes, otherwise it gives a false impression about who recorded the B side. Current revision looks good to me.

You might want to take this up with one of the WikiProjects and/or look to see if this is already covered in any style guides. --kingboyk (talk) 08:58, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

BLP & alleged gossip

On Marianne Githens page, there is a statement which is seemingly true, but also seems like gossip.

"In 1986, Githen's widowed mother, Anita, married her deceased husband's younger brother William French Githens." Oiona (talk) 09:29, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Marianne Githens

It's not really related to the subject of this particular page?

So, is it against the rules to delete it?

many thanks for any help — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oiona (talk • contribs) 09:43, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

An editor agreed with you and deleted the content for reasons of not being about the subject of the article. David notMD (talk) 10:33, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

PROD notice removed without due diligence - what now?

I gave reasons to support deletion on Talk:Bindu (2009 film). It looks like the user who removed the PROD notice did not read the talk page as the notability concern was mistaken for a verifiability concern in their edit comment. The article is still not on a notable film. Does this mean that the next option is AfD or can the PROD removal be undone? I know it says an article can't be PROD'd more than once. --Danielklein (talk) 11:23, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

@Danielklein: Next step is AFD. PRODs can be removed by anyone in good faith and removal can only be undone if it's clearly vandalism and not a disagreement with the proposed deletion. Whether the reasons for removal are sufficient is not relevant though. Regards SoWhy 11:36, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

@Danielklein: I've added the {{old PROD}} info on the talk page, perfectly unnecessary after you already picked AFD. Otherwise it could be helpful if folks consider a new PROD years later, missing an old PROD in the edit history. –84.46.52.96 (talk) 00:08, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Michael John Treanor. How to create a visible Wikipedia page on Google?

Hello my name is Michael John Treanor and I am a British actor.I was wondering if anyone could help me create a Wikipedia page as I have done some great work and worked alongside many A list actors and have appeared in many TV series and feature films and I would like to expand my business with a visible Wikipedia page.

I was also part of the cast of "The World Is Yours" which has a Wikipedia page and my role was Glasgow Ranger.Can you add me please?

I really don't understand how to do this but I was wondering if anyone could help and point me in the right direction?

Thank you.

Here are links to my IMDb page and website which shows my CV.

https://www.imdb.me/7842996 https://www.michaeljohntreanor.com

Here is a newspaper article from Spanish paper 'El Pais' in which I have a great write up in the 7th paragraph down and a picture and also 2 other articles. https://elpais.com/cultura/2019/08/09/television/1565351638_290898.html http://www.firstshowing.net/2018/first-teaser-for-romain-gavras-the-world-is-yours-playing-at-cannes/

https://pro.imdb.com/news/article/ni62326418/nm7842996?ref_=news_nm — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael John Treanor (talk • contribs) 13:15, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

@Michael John Treanor: In short: Don't. Wikipedia is not for promoting yourself and you would have no editorial control over anything in that article. You might want to read Wikipedia:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing. If you are really notable, someone else will sooner or later create an article anyway but we do not accept requests from people who want an article written about themselves. Regards SoWhy 13:22, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@Michael John Treanor: Welcome to Wikipedia and to the Teahouse. To begin with, it's important to understand that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a place to promote yourself or, as you put it, 'expand your business with a visible Wikipedia page'. We also have policies that advise against autobiographies or editing with a conflict of interest so it would be worth reading those before doing too much more. Finally, IMDB and your personal website would not be a suitable source as they are not reliable or independent. Newspapers are better, but a single article that only dedicates one paragraph to you, half way down, and a web page that mentions you in the context of a list of actors, isn't really enough to meet our notability guidelines. I'm sorry if that comes across as blunt - it's not in any way to diminish your acting achievements, it's just that we have strict guidelines on who qualifies for an article and, on the basis of what you've provided, I don't think you do. Hug^syrup 13:27, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

The Vogue Theater how to modify hyperlink ?

hyperlink "Early San Diego theaters, Theatre History in the Nineteenth Century" has new location [ within same website ], [ old : http://www.sandiegohistory.org/collections/theaters/theaters.htm, new: https://sandiegohistory.org/collection/photographs/theaters/ ] should i just modify with new hyperlink ? Leela52452 (talk) 13:30, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

hyperlink ""World Cinema History" in references, seems to be not fit in any manner. should i go ahead and move it to external links or delete it ? Leela52452 (talk) 13:37, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

i have gone ahead converted hyperlinks to references. how do i fix reference section ? Leela52452 (talk) 13:50, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

@Leela52452: Just to note that you do not need to (and indeed, should not) start a new section for each follow-up point to the same question. You can simply edit the existing section and post any follow-ups below it. I have merged all three of your questions into one section as it will be easier for editors to respond to in this way. Hug^syrup 13:54, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

@Leela52452: I could see a few issues with how this was structured. You seemed to have listed all of the references directly in the references section, rather than inline, but still referenced them using <ref name=""/>in the main body, and then added the {{reflist}} tag within a separate section called 'notes'. I'm not entirely clear on what you were trying to achieve with this, but I think I have resolved some of the issues by embedding the references inline in the body the first time each was used, and putting the reflist under the references subhead, then removing 'notes'. The final step is that each of the three references that still have a bullet point rather than a number needs to be cut and pasted into the body at a relevant point. I am not sure what those points are so I haven't done it, but if I have time later I'll have another look. Hug^syrup 14:39, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

How to add info to an existing article

Hi everyone,

I would like to know if it's possible to add information to an existing article and what path should I follow to do so? I have reliable sources for the info that I want to add.

Thanks for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MikeBurkeee (talk • contribs) 14:30, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Hello MikeBurkeee! Wikipedia:Tutorial may help. Most articles are open for everybody to edit, some are WP:PROTECTed, shown by a padlock in the upper right corner. As a newcomer, there's probably lots of "rules" (policies and guidelines) you don't know about, so don't be too surprised if you get reverted. If it's unclear why, ask. Be WP:BOLD and get into it, learning by doing (and asking) is the way. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:21, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Easy Timeline

Hello, I was wondering if anyone can help figure out why the timeline chart in this article Super Junior#Timeline which was built using Wikipedia:EasyTimeline does not show up on mobile? Lulusword (talk) 16:23, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

@Lulusword: The problem is that the <img> element of the image has width and height attributes set to 0. As to why that's happening, I don't know, but I'll guess that it might be because they are set to 1000x300, which seems kind of big for a mobile view, so maybe try reducing them and the other size parms and see if that helps. I'll also note that this is a really old feature, and there may be a newer way to do it that is more mobile-friendly. WP:VPT would be your next stop for more technical help. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 17:46, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. :) Lulusword (talk) 18:35, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

How do I respond?

Hi!

I recently submitted a page for approval, and it got denied. The message said I had to respond before proceeding, but I can't find where to respond.

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Annacappelli (talk • contribs) 16:35, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

@Annacappelli: I think there are three separate (but linked) things going on here.

• Firstly, your draft, Draft:JetBlue Vacations was declined due to a lack of references and being written too much like an advertisement. You don't need to respond to that, but you would need to resolve those issues if you were to resubmit. However...
• Secondly, your draft was then deleted under criteria WP:G11, meaning that it was purely promotional and therefore contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia. I am unable to see the deleted draft so I cannot assess if this was fair, but some of the admins who comment here might be able to advise more. You could try asking the deleting admin Cryptic on their talk page and they may be willing to restore it as a draft for you to improve, but they may not.
• Finally, someone has also warned you about our policy on paid editing as they believe you may be a paid editor. This is the one you need to respond to. Either you must confirm that you are a paid editor, and do so with a statement on your user page stating who is paying you and which articles you are paid to edit. Or, you must confirm that you do not meet the definition of a paid editor by responding to the warning - you can do that at your talk page by clicking 'edit' or 'edit source' and then posting directly under the message.

I hope that helps. Hug^syrup 16:42, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest help / Promotional content

Hi! I work for a communications company and was asked by a client to update their Wikipedia page with some basic information. So far, my proposed changes (with my conflict of interest noted) have been declined, and the page itself has been subsequently chopped down to a bare minimum. I've attempted to remove any/all promotional tone from the changes and add additional sources, but those revised changes have been declined as well.

The page in question is here: CorePower_Yoga

As it appears now, the page doesn't provide users with much useful information. Is there any way that I can make it so that this Wikipedia page contains basic information about the company?

Thank you!

50.78.86.177 (talk) 16:36, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Hello. Since you made edit requests on the article talk page, I assume you are familiar with the conflict of interest and paid editing policies; you will need to formally comply with the paid editing policy and formally declare your paid status; this is a Wikipedia Terms of Use requirement. Second, you seem to have a common misconception about what Wikipedia is. Wikipedia is not a business directory that provides "basic information"; it is an encyclopedia that summarizes what independent reliable sources state. Press releases and similar announcements are not independent sources. Most of the text you wanted to add was very promotional in nature. Wikipedia has no interest in enhancing search results for a business or aiding its customers; we're here to build an encyclopedia of human knowledge for the benefit of humanity as a whole. Wikipedia is only interested in what third parties have chosen to say on their own about article subjects, not in what the company wants to say about itself. The company is free to tell the world about itself as it wishes on its own website. 331dot (talk) 16:48, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

@331dot Thank you for your response! A couple of follow-up questions:

- Did I improperly disclose my conflict of interest on the Talk page? If so, I apologize, and would love some guidance on how to fix this.

- Are the sources I provided in my latest "Proposed Changes" (January 30, 2020) not sufficiently independent? They include Forbes, LA Times and MSN.com. Please advise!

- Are there any next steps we can take to provide factual information for the CorePower page? The company's aim in these changes was to update out-of-date information.

Thank you again for your time.

50.78.86.177 (talk) 18:06, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

The only formal disclosure on the article talk page that I see is by an account called Tyler Wilcox. If that's you, then you just need to remember to log in before editing. I do see where you state under your IP address that you work for the PR firm. Regarding the sources, I would urge you to review the notability criteria for businesses as well as what a reliable source is to get a better idea of why the sources you have offered are not acceptable. In short, routine business announcements, staff interviews, and press releases are not acceptable. The MSN.com source you mention is basically an instructional advertisement; the Forbes source is an interview with CorePower Yoga's CEO, and while I cannot read the LA Times piece due to a paywall I get the sense it is much like the MSN source. Wikipedia wants independent reliable sources that have chosen on their own to give significant coverage to the subject- not fluff pieces about the company, staff interviews, or anything that just tells about the company or its offerings. The company is free to tell about its offerings on the company website and offer any comments by its CEO.

I will add that PR people like yourself usually have a difficult time editing on Wikipedia, as the goal of PR and the goal of working on Wikipedia are fundamentally different. Wikipedia articles strive to be accurate, but are not meant to provide up-to-date current information especially when it is the subject itself(or its representative) that wants to do the telling. I get that the company probably has an interest in the Wikipedia article about it, as it will show up highly in search results and Google Knowledge graphs, but those are not concerns of Wikipedia. We're only interested in how others describe the company, not in what it wants to say about itself or what it considers to be its own history. If outside sources have studied and written about the history of this company on their own without direct involvement of the company(as many other high profile companies like Microsoft, Apple, Sears, etc. have, that's different, but I don't think that's the case here. I regret that this is likely disappointing to hear, but I must be honest with you. Feel free to show representative of your client this discussion. 331dot (talk) 20:21, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Joining a WikiProject

Hello, I am trying to join a wikiproject, but I am not quite sure how to do it. The help page mostly talks about how to find a project, but not specifically how do you join it. Do I sign up anywhere? Thanks in advance! MGatta (talk) 17:13, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi MGatta, and welcome to the Teahouse! Usually wikiprojects will have pretty specific instructions of how to join in the main page. Was there a specific one you wanted to join? If si, I can show you where to join. Thanks! Puddleglum ^2.0 17:26, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I am trying to join the WikiProject Africa.MGatta (talk) 17:37, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

@MGatta: On the main page for that project, in the section "Project Members", it gives instructions on how to join. RudolfRed (talk) 18:42, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Note that you don't have to join a WikiProject to edit articles or make posts to the project. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:13, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Great, thanks!MGatta (talk) 09:29, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

wayback archives of youtube videos

Should we expect wayback archives of youtube videos to work?

I've tried several from existing articles, with no success. Here's one example:

• http://web.archive.org/web/20200108163203/https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MMA3eDNS0jw

The archived youtube page will display, but the video only displays

• Sorry, the Wayback Machine does not have this video (MMA3eDNS0jw) archived (or not indexed yet).

That of course suggests that Wayback knows how to play the videos. What is the next step? Is there somebody who can officially contact the Wayback folks to get a resolution, i.e. if Wayback has decided not to archive any more Youtube videos or if there is some other reason they aren't working?

I'll note that this problem was previously observed in 2016. See Wikipedia Talk:Link rot#Archiving youtube videos.

If this has already been established as a long-term or indefinite-length problem, does IAbot take appropriate action based on this limitation? Fabrickator (talk) 20:08, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Dunno, but I recall a case where I found an old FLV on WayBack (VP6 converted to VP9 uploaded on my YT channel), and another case, where the video was archived separately (SG/A2/B2#19) –84.46.52.96 (talk) 03:06, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

I've found some archived youtubes from a couple of years ago which are working properly. It seems that wayback queues a request to archive the youtube video when it archives the youtube page, so the youtube archive page exists, but there can be an extended period of time before the video becomes available. This is really an anomaly in how wayback works, in that wayback shows a web page has been archived, when critical components of the archived page are missing. If wayback won't agree to fix this (e.g. "hide" archived pages which are missing critical content), then our bots should ignore archived pages that are missing critical content. Anybody have some constructive suggestions for moving forward on one of these solutions? Fabrickator (talk) 07:40, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

For the purposes of a License reviewed by YouTubeReviewBot on commons that's a good question: Archived meta-data without the video is not completely useless, if all you want to check is the licence or anything else in the video description. I can't tell if the relatively new YT LR bot does something smart about the video. –84.46.52.96 (talk) 08:14, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

There is also the case of older youtube entries that are not working, and even if the youtube page had many captures, it appears that if the video is not available for one capture, then it is not available for any capture. Anyway, the general problem with youtube pages existing without the video being available is apparently a known problem (or at least, a previously-reported problem). See https://archive.org/post/1102732/many-youtube-videos-which-used-to-work-on-the-wayback-machine-dont-work-anymore ... Fabrickator (talk) 10:12, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Post an article

I wish to post an article in Wikipedia, ho to do it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr. Gang-Ming Zou (talk • contribs) 20:40, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Dr. Gang-Ming Zou Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Successfully creating a new article is the hardest task on Wikipedia, it takes much time and practice. New users who dive right in to creating articles without an understanding of the process often end up disappointed and with hurt feelings as their work that they spend hours on is mercilessly edited and removed by others. I don't want you to have bad feelings here- so I would suggest that before you attempt to create an article, that you first spend time editing existing articles in areas that interest you, so you can understand how Wikipedia works and what is expected of article content. Using the new user tutorial is also a good idea.

However, if you still want to attempt to create a new article, you should read Your First Article and go to Articles for Creation to submit a draft for review before it is formally placed in the encyclopedia- so you get feedback on it beforehand, instead of afterwards. 331dot (talk) 20:51, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Israel or Palestine?

Hi, I recently came across this edit. Which brings up an interesting question: Do we use the name Israel or Palestine in our articles? In this case I think that "Israel" should be used for consistency with both the rest of the article, and the source that said it was #1. Also, what WP policy can I cite for this and future edits? Thanks DarthFlappy (talk) 21:06, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, DarthFlappy. In that instance, Israel appears to be correct as it's referring to an Israeli chart. But more broadly, the two names aren't necessarily interchangeable, are they? So it would depend on context which should be used. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:20, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Ok, thanks DarthFlappy (talk) 23:57, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Well, in Christian churches, it is referred to as the Holy Land, both because that is the historical Christian nomenclature, and to avoid the issue, but that doesn't answer the question. Is the place in 1948-1967 Israel, or in 1948-1967 Jordan, in which case the term can be West Bank? Robert McClenon (talk) 00:00, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Robert McClenon, the issue is whether a specific song, Out of the Woods by Taylor Swift, was a #1 hit in Israel or in Palestine instead. The song was certified #1 by Media Forest, which is an Israeli company that started out by monitoring the music business in Israel, though they have since branched out to other countries. The company is based in Netanya, a city on the Mediterranean coast which has been part of Israel since its founding in 1947, and which has a 99% Jewish Israeli population. So, "Palestine" is incorrect in this context. The song was not a #1 hit in the West Bank and Gaza. It was a big hit in the State of Israel, as verified by the Israeli music chart. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:19, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Andrew Naimanye

I would appreciate the comments of other experienced editors on Draft:Andrew Naimanye. I was reviewing AFC submissions that were in user space but tagged for AFC review, and they included User:Fsmatovu/sandbox16. I tried to copy it to Draft:Andrew Naimanye, and was told that that title already existed. In looking at it, I saw that the draft in draft space had been submitted by User:Wkigenyi, and had been declined four times, most recently in November, and had been resubmitted. I saw that the version in the sandbox of User:Fsmatovu was a copy-paste from draft space into their sandbox, followed by resubmission. I declined it as a duplicate of Draft:Andrew Naimanye and as not establishing biographical notability. I asked User:Fsmatovu why they had done a copy-paste without attribution, which violates the terms of Wikipedia's copyleft. They replied that they had been asked by Wkigenyi to help them, and were concerned that the draft would be erased or deleted, and so copied it into their sandbox. Fsmatovu expressed concern that Wkigenvi is becoming frustrated and may be giving up on editing Wikipedia. It appears to me that Wkigenvi was only editing in order to publish one article, on Andrew Naimanye, and there may be a conflict of interest (and Wkigenvi may be Andrew Naimanye). So I have at least two questions. First, what should Fsmatovu do at this point? Second, what comments do other editors have on the draft? Robert McClenon (talk) 00:13, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

I deleted content from the draft that in my opinion was either redundant or did not contribute to notability or did not belong (college scholarships, memberships). David notMD (talk) 00:55, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: The draft won't be deleted under (under G13 at least) for 6 months as the clock has been reset by David's edits, which gives both users plenty of time to resume work on it. The help that you are told is forthcoming can happen in draft space, and that too will, as you know, delay deletion. Therefore, I don't see much merit in the argument that the text needs to be in user space because it might get deleted.

You could legitimise the copy and paste (not my preferred option for obvious reasons) or, ultimately, take the sandbox, the draft or both to WP:MFD.

It seems to me the path with the least friction is to take Fsmatovu up on their offer on your talk page to delete the sandbox themselves.

With regards to the potential COI; some hallmarks are there but no firm evidence, and we should assume good faith. Template:Uw-coi could be used as it is informational in tone and has the "i" icon. WP:COIN likely wouldn't be interested at this stage.

Summary: If the sandbox is deleted and only the draft stays, the draft will at some point be deleted for the last time, or promoted to mainspace, and that would be the end of the matter. --kingboyk (talk) 07:34, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

With regards to the draft itself, my gut feeling is that the subject is not notable independently of the organisation he works for (Uganda Road Fund - new article) and is a "puff piece" but 1) I have not assessed the quality nor quantity of the references, 2) we should beware of systemic bias, 3) This revision mentions that the subject has some coverage as a chess player. From what I can tell, his chess accomplishments are not at the level where WP:NCHESS presumes a subject to be notable, but it might be worth double checking that if you want to be extremely thorough. --kingboyk (talk) 07:50, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

empire and multiethnic kingdom

what is difference between empire and multiethnic kingdom? Jungguk (talk) 01:25, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

@Jungguk: This is the page for getting help with editing Wikipedia. You can ask your question at WP:RD, but not if it is a homework question. RudolfRed (talk) 01:43, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Where the "Big Bang" occurred in known universe?

An explosion expels matter in all directions. Shouldn't there be a place in our known universe where all matter is moving away from? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.155.26.163 (talk) 02:36, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the teahouse. You will want to post this question at the WP:RD/S. MarnetteD|Talk 02:40, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

[Non-astrophysicist comment] This question fundamentally misunderstands the nature of the Big Bang. It was not an explosion per se, but a beginning limit of expansion of every point in space away from every other point in space. So no, there should not be a place in our known universe where all matter is moving away from. All places are moving away from each other, with some local variability due to gravity. 97.115.240.136 (talk) 04:47, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Flagging edits

Can you please provide me the steps to flag a section that need more information (could be edited) on a page. I do not have rights to edit it myself but should notify the community, the editor of the issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AudreyDufour (talk • contribs) 09:08, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

@AudreyDufour: It might help us to help you better if you tell us which article you are concerned about.

In general terms, you can discuss problems an article might have on it's talk page.

I note from your user page that you have a potential conflict of interest and have read our guidelines; if this query concerns a page where you have a COI you might want to read WP:COIEDIT again as that contains guidance which may be relevant. --kingboyk (talk) 09:17, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Edit to Optical Express Page - Feb2020

Hi,

I am still looking to propose an edit to the opening paragraph of the Optical Express Wikipedia page. After seeking your advice and feedback from the Treehouse I have amended the tone of voice for the edit as well as stated that I am a paid editor. However, the edit has still been rejected due with the feedback being that it is not appropriate for an encyclopaedia article. I have then asked for advice as to how the statement can be amended to be more appropriate however, I have received no further feedback.

Can you please offer advice as to how the following statement can be amended to a more encyclopaedic tone? It is based purely on facts and I have provided multiple references to back up the points.

The statement is as follows:

‘Founded in 1991, Optical Express is the UK’s largest provider of laser and intraocular lens surgery, with almost 130 clinics. As well as providing eye surgery, the company also supplies glasses and contact lenses.’

The independent sources to reference this can be found here:

Optical Express is predominantly a refractive surgery brand and Europe's leading provider in laser and intraocular lens surgery. Please refer to the <ref>https://www.which.co.uk/reviews/laser-eye-surgery/article/laser-eye-surgery-best-and-worst-companies/laser-eye-surgery-companies-compared<ref> which states 'The biggest chain is Optical Express: it is said to do 6 out of 10 laser eye procedures in the UK, and has over 100 clinics.'

More information to back up the point that Optical Express is the UK's largest provider of laser and intraocular lens surgery can be found in the following Mintel Reports:

<ref>https://reports.mintel.com/display/715750/#<ref> <ref>https://reports.mintel.com/display/792411/# <ref>

Optical Express also has almost 130 clinics in the UK. The list of these can be found here: <ref>https://www.opticalexpress.co.uk/clinic-finder <ref>

Your feedback is much appreciated.

Thanks,

Trees88 (talk) 09:18, 4 February 2020 (UTC) .

On the talk page of Optical Express, you proposed adding the claim "Optical Express is ... Europe's leading provider in laser and intraocular lens surgery", citing a source which states "Optical Express ... is said to do 6 out of 10 laser eye procedures in the UK". Europe is not the same as the UK, and "is" is not the same as "is said to be". You are, understandably in view of your CoI, finding it impossible to take the neutral stance which is expected of Wikipedia contributors. Maproom (talk) 09:38, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Note: I've blocked Trees88 as a single purpose account not here to build an encyclopedia --kingboyk (talk) 10:08, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

I consider the blocking an over-reaction. Trees88 registered last fall, and has complied with declaring COI and PAID, and has been asking for advice at Treehouse. Yes, to date only editing the article in question, but could expand to other topics (not paid) in time. David notMD (talk) 11:24, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

I would concur with David. I would ask kingboyk to please reconsider. 331dot (talk) 11:29, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

I have great respect for your judgement 331dot, so as you believe a block is not warranted at this time I will of course unblock. --kingboyk (talk) 11:37, 4 February 2020 (UTC) (e/c)

+1, as the OP shows willingness to discuss things. Lectonar (talk) 11:33, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Done. --kingboyk (talk) 11:40, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank your for your feedback. In order to get the opening statement amended, I am still keen to understand how I can amend my proposed statement to make it an acceptable encyclopaedic update. From the feedback given from Maproom, would the following wording now be acceptable?

‘Founded in 1991, Optical Express is said to be the UK’s largest provider of laser and intraocular lens surgery, with almost 130 clinics. As well as providing eye surgery, the company also supplied glasses and contact lenses.’

If this is still not deemed to be the correct tone of voice, I would appreciate any feedback on how this can be amended to be more acceptable? Trees88 (talk) 17:03, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Arbitrary edits to Wikipedia article on Higher Education Commission (Pakistan)

A couple of days ago, I worked hard to edit the article on Pakistan's Higher Education Commission (HEC). I did it at the request of the institution. It involved major pruning. A little while ago, I was shocked to see that Flyer22 Frozen undid my edits without any justification. Now the article mentions two figures for the HEC's budget, i.e., 102 billion rupees and 57.8 billion rupees.

When I checked the history of Flyer22 Frozen's edits, it emerged that he is in the habit of reverting edits. This person left a message for me on Wikipedia. How do I respond to him?

Editors should not be allowed to hide behind pseudonyms. I think people who don't give their real names should not be allowed to edit Wikipedia articles. It will greatly improve Wikipedia's credibility.

In conclusion, let me say a few words by way of introduction. I studied international relations in Islamabad and media in London. I have worked for several English-language newspapers, mostly as a copy editor. I have written a critically acclaimed book on the English language. Entitled "Handbook of Functional English", it has been published by Ferozsons, one of the most prestigious publishers in Pakistan. I have edited dozens of Wikipedia articles with the utmost sense of responsibility. I never used a pseudonym. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shakil Chaudhary (talk • contribs) 09:47, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Shakil Chaudhary: you removed a lot of content, including seven references, from the article, explaining it merely as "a major pruning". Flyer22 Frozen then restored what you had removed. He has as much right (in fact rather more, see below) to restore it as you did to remove it. You should now discuss the changes on the article's talk page. There were changes to many sections, and it may be necessary to discuss each separately.

Above, you state that you acted at the request of the institution. You therefore have a conflict of interest, which you need to declare on your user page; and you should not make any edits to the article which might be contested. Instead, you should detail changes you want made on the article's talk page, preferably with references to reliable sources. Maproom (talk) 12:58, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

I see from your Contributions that you learned how to leave a message on Flyer's Talk page. In answer to your comment about User names, the vast majority of Users choose to not use their real names. Wikipedia's advice: "Consider carefully before creating an account in your real name or a nickname which might be traced to you, as these increase the potential for harassment, especially if you edit in controversial subject areas." David notMD (talk) 14:06, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

publish on wikipedia

Hello,

I need help in knowing the steps in creating a Wikipedia Page. I work at a Social Media Agency and have a client who wants to open their own Wikipedia Page.

Awaiting your assistance.

Thank you, Christine Saifi Communications & Content Manager Mindfield Digital — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.98.143.196 (talk) 10:21, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia has articles, not mere "pages". This is a subtle but important distinction, as I think it is shaping some misconceptions that you might have about what Wikipedia is. Wikipedia is actually an encyclopedia and not a place for people or businesses to tell the world about themselves as social media is. As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources with significant coverage(not just press releases, staff interviews, or routine announcements) state about article subjects that meet Wikipedia's special definition of notability. Wikipedia has no interest in what a subject wants to say about itself, only in what others say about it.

You have what we call a conflict of interest, and meet Wikipedia's definition of a paid editor. You will need to review and comply with those policies(the latter is a Terms of Use requirement and mandatory). If you make those required declarations, you may be able to use Articles for Creation to create and submit a draft for review by an independent editor. This is the only way you could create an article about your client- and I must warn you that most people in your field find it difficult to write in the manner required by Wikipedia, as the goal of your field is very different than the goal of Wikipedia- which is to simply write an encyclopedia of human knowledge for the benefit of humanity.

Also please understand that a Wikipedia article is not necessarily desirable. There are good reasons to not want one. You or your client would not have exclusive control over it. You cannot lock it to the text that you might prefer, or prevent others from editing it(except temporarily in cases of blatant vandalism). Any information, good or bad, can be in an article about your client as long as it appears in an independent reliable source and is not defamatory. Please keep these things in mind. 331dot (talk) 10:30, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Help with understanding conflict of interest specificity

Hiya, I'm back editing and writing after a 7 year hiatus due to severe ill health. User:WendyGrowler It's great to be back but also a steep learning curve!

My question is do I count as having a conflict of interest with the article Draft:Boleskine House Foundation? I am not a member of the board of trustees and I haven't met any of the board. But I have volunteered to help the charity build and develop a library because of previous experience working as a librarian. I'm based in Birmingham but the Foundation is up in Scotland and I haven't met them other than email contact.

I volunteered to make the charity a wiki article because I have written articles in the past (albeit long time ago because of my health) and because I have experience as a researcher and writer as a published postgraduate student and previous job as archivist and research assistant. I have just added this to the draft article's talk page and my own user page. The article is my own research and work.

I'm still editing and improving the draft article because it needs more secondary and tertiary sources but I would really appreciate some clarity on the situation with me writing the article.

Thank you so much for your help (in advance) and taking time to read this

WendyGrowler (talk) 11:34, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

WendlyGrowler Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Thanks for returning and I hope your health is improved. To respond to your question, since you are in contact with the Foundation about writing a Wikipedia article for them(even if not face to face), I believe that counts as a conflict of interest. I believe the notice you have put on your user page is sufficient as a COI declaration. I would note that even if you are just an unpaid volunteer, this may still count as being a paid editing relationship- you don't have to be paid in cash money or anything tangible to be a paid editor- volunteers are compensated with the experience of the volunteer work. I would advise you to read WP:PAID carefully.

Once you feel your draft is ready, you may submit it for review using Articles for Creation. 331dot (talk) 11:40, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@WendyGrowler: welcome back to Wikipedia. I think, as you've identified, COI isn't always a clear line, but a grey area. You probably don't meet the classification of a paid editor, given that you don't seem to be paid, but you do have a COI regardless of whether you have met the trustees or not and, because you have specifically agreed to write an article on their behalf, you come close to the definition of being a paid editor. My personal advice would be to play it safe and act as if you were a paid editor: provide a disclosure on your user page and on the article talk page (as you have already done), only edit the article in draft (as you are currently doing), and when it is ready do not move it direct to main space but submit it through WP:AFC. If you do all this, I don't think anyone can possibly object. Once it is live, you will then have to decide if you edit the article directly or make edit requests on the talk page. Doing the former is 'strongly discouraged' for paid/COI editors, but doing the latter may be frustrating as lower-popularity articles can struggle to get the attention of editors to implement your requests. You are better off playing it safe and going for the latter route, but ultimately that decision is down to you. Hug^syrup 11:45, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Hugsyrup Note that WP:PAID states "Interns, on-loan staff, and unpaid workers, including volunteers, are deemed to be employees." 331dot (talk) 14:10, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Refused page Draft: Sigismund Thalberg International Piano Competition

I am the president of the Sigismund Thalberg international Study Centre The Sigismund Thalberg International Study Centre was founded in Naples in June 1996 by Principessa di Strongoli Francesca Ferrara Pignatelli, grandniece of the great Austrian pianist, and by me. The Study Center organizes a series of initiatives aiming at increasing the knowledge of the figure and the music of Thalberg. In October 1996 it organized the 1st International Congress entirely dedicated to Thalberg. The Study Center organizes too the Sigismund Thalberg International Piano Prize since 1998. Over the past 22 years the Prize has been won by some pianists who have subsequently won other prestigious awards like Sofia Gulyak first prize at Thalberg Competition and then first prize at the Leeds International Piano Competition or Michail Lifits third prize at Thalberg Competition and then first prize at the Busoni Competition in Bolzano and many others. We have done a page for Wikipedia - Draft: Sigismund Thalberg International Piano Competition - but it has been refused for several reasons, some of which are not true; for example "This submission appears to be a news report of a single event and may not be notable enough for an article in Wikipedia". We are talking about a Piano Competition that has been held for 22 years and which is dedicated to one of the greatest pianists who lived in the 19th century. What can we do to get this entry accepted on Wikipedia? Thank you Sigismundthalberg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.251.55.231 (talk) 12:08, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. First, you will need to review conflict of interest and paid editing, as you have some mandatory formal disclosures to make. Regarding your question, your draft has no independent reliable sources with significant coverage about your event. This is why it seemed like a news report or press release. Wikipedia is not interested in what an article subject wants to say about itself; Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources say. Your event certainly sounds like it could be notable if there are a sufficient number of independent sources that have chosen on their own to write about it. You may find it helpful to read Your First Article. 331dot (talk) 12:14, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Deletion of article

Hello there! I created the page at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Theophilos_Priovolos but was rejected with the reasoning that wikipedia is not a resume. Still there are innumerable pages with the same format and are up and running. What was the problem with our approach? — Preceding unsigned comment added by OgilvyAthens (talk • contribs)

@OgilvyAthens: quick questions: when you say 'our approach' who else are you referring to? And does your username suggest that you represent the Athens Office of the marketing agency Ogilvy or is that just coincidence? Hug^syrup 12:22, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

OgilvyAthens (edit conflict) Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Your draft has not been deleted, but it was declined as a potential article. It is not a good idea to cite the existence of other articles as a reason to justify your own; please see other stuff exists. As this is a volunteer project, it is possible for inappropriate articles to go undetected, even for years. If you would care to point out some of these other articles, we can certainly address those issues.

I would ask you who "our" is. If you represent the subject in some way, you must read and comply with the conflict of interest and paid editing policies(the latter is a Terms of Use requirement and mandatory). The draft seems like a resume because it just lists things that Mr. Priovolos has done. Wikipedia articles must do more, they must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage say about an article subject, showing why they meet Wikipedia's special definition of notability(in this case, the more specific definition of a notable person). I might suggest you read some other articles about people(Barack Obama, Boris Johnson just as examples) to get an idea about what is being looked for, and reading Your First Article and using the new user tutorial might help you as well. 331dot (talk) 12:22, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

If your username is that of a company or agency, you must change it immediately. Please make a request to do so at Special:GlobalRenameRequest or WP:CHUS. 331dot (talk) 12:24, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Corrections to Spanish Wikipedia

I’m not very fluent in Spanish, but my grandfather has a Wikipedia page in Spanish. It shows his daughters, but not his sons. I’ve tried to add the latter. There is a record of the attempts, but the corrections don’t appear. Any idea how I can correct this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.250.50.46 (talk) 15:25, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. The Spanish Wikipedia is a separate project with its own editors and policies, so we can't really help you much with that project. Maybe a Spanish speaker will be able to help you- though I can say it sounds like your changes were just reverted, you would need to check the article's edit history. 331dot (talk) 15:27, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Most Wikipedias, including the Spanish one, have an embassy where you can ask questions in English or other languages about their articles. See es:Wikipedia:Embajadas for more details. Regards SoWhy 16:38, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

YouTubers

What requirements do YouTubers need in order to have their own wiki page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by GoldenPioneer150 (talk • contribs) 16:26, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

GoldenPioneer150 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia has articles, not mere "pages". This is a subtle but important distinction. There are no specific requirements for "YouTubers" to merit an article. Any person must have significant coverage in independent reliable sources that shows how they meet Wikipedia's special definition of a notable person. It doesn't matter if they have 5 followers, or 50, or 5 million, or if they have a lot of videos posted- they must be written about by independent reliable sources that have editorial control and fact checking. 331dot (talk) 16:31, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

unable to insert citation using oclc

i am unable to insert citation using oclc 1131999189. i assumed oclc is ok. is this normal ? Leela52452 (talk) 16:38, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Why google and wikis info are different? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bengal Informer (talk • contribs) 16:41, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Info about Wikipedia

Why Wiki and Googles info are always different? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bengal Informer (talk • contribs) 16:43, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Shenayang J-15

For example ,J-15s top speed was 2940 kmph in Wiki,while J-15s top speed is 2551 kmph in Google .Why they are different? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bengal Informer (talk • contribs) 16:45, 4 February 2020 (UTC)