Wikipedia:Teahouse

Dbfirs, 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.)

Did I just use the About template improperly?

Hi! I searched "NVSS" on Google with the intention of finding NRAO VLA Sky Survey on the wiki, but National Vital Statistics System came up instead in the results. So I added about templates to both the articles, linking to the other article, for easier access due to the identical acronym. Then I found the NVSS disambig page, and read that there were some guidelines for adding the About template, so... was what I did fine, or should I have done something else? —Undead Shambles (talk) 02:05, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

@Undead Shambles: Looks good to me. I added two more entries to the dab page, but they are titles containing NVSS instead of something for which NVSS is the complete initialism, so they don't need to be additionally mentioned at the other two pages IMO. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 03:01, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

@AlanM1: Alright, thank you! :) —Undead Shambles (talk) 03:10, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

@Undead Shambles and AlanM1: I disagree. The article titles of NRAO VLA Sky Survey and National Vital Statistics System cannot be confused. We don't use hatnotes just because an alternative title could refer to something else, unless the alternative title is a redirect to the page. NVSS is not a redirect but a disambiguation page so nothing had to be done. We cannot predict how people use Google, and then organize the whole encyclopedia after whatever is currently the first result on a Google search for a given user (it can vary by country and maybe other factors). People who enter NVSS in our own search box get the disambiguation page as they should. And for me, it is also the fourth result in a Google search, with no other Wikipedia pages in the first 100 results. PrimeHunter (talk) 04:09, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Doh! PH is, of course, correct. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 16:24, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

@PrimeHunter: Ah, okay then. In that case, would even a hatnote linking to NVSS be inappropriate, and I should undo those edits? I always thought hatnotes were nice for exploring the similar titles but I guess that's my bias. Even after reading the hatnote guidelines I'm still a little confused, so what about these two cases, just so I have examples to understand?:

1. The hatnote at the top of radio galaxy, linking to a radio network named Galaxy (I thought that one might be a bit of a stretch)
2. The lack of hatnotes for The Goldfinch (painting), The Goldfinch (novel), and The Goldfinch (film)

—Undead Shambles (talk) 07:40, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

@Undead Shambles: Yes, the articles should have no hatnotes according to Wikipedia guidelines. The principle is to only use hatnotes if the full title of the article (including a part in parentheses) or a redirect to the article can be confused with another subject. See Wikipedia:Hatnote#Disambiguating article names that are not ambiguous. If you see the title "National Vital Statistics System" then you should know it's not about something else with the abbrevation NVSS. That's also why articles like The Goldfinch (painting) have no hatnote. When you see "painting" in the title you should know it's about a painting and not a novel or film. There has been suggestions that articles with disambiguated names should link to the corresponding disambiguation page but it has not gained consensus. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:18, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

@PrimeHunter: Okay, thank you for explaining! I'll remove the hatnotes I added. —Undead Shambles (talk) 11:13, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Try this new template!

Hi, I've just made a new template called {{Interlanguage link with draft}} (or {{illd}}). It is based on {{ill}} and made to specifically link also to a draft article, addressing the problems as mentioned in this user essay. If it works well, it might be merged into {{ill}}, as my template is fully compatible with {{ill}}. Please give feedback and suggestions on it, and thanks! tLoM (The Lord of Math) (Message) (Report false positive) 03:59, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi The Lord of Math. I'm not sure about the technical aspects of your template (Primefac does a lot of work with templates so perhaps he can take a look at that), but it seems that you’re suggesting/hoping to use this to add links to drafts in some way. That's probably OK for user pages and other pages outside of the mainspace, but links in Wikipedia articles are not really supposed to link to drafts/userspace drafts as explained in MOS:DRAFTNOLINK. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:44, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. In the Article space we should not be linking to drafts, and while I could potentially see some use in the non-Article spaces, I'm not sure it's necessary. I think the best place to garner opinions would be at the talk page of {{ill}} itself, since editors interested in that template will be more likely to see and comment on the new template and any potential merger. Primefac (talk) 11:02, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

@The Lord of Math: Yes- I'm in agreement with these concerns. It seems highly likely to encourage editors to include links to all sorts of ill-formed drafts (against our guidelines) and be used as a shortcut to avoid having to create a properly formed article. Used within mainspace articles, it would open up a Pandora's Box of links to all sorts of drivel, with absolutely no editorial control or oversight over what that content might subsequently change to within those drafts. For use in a non, mainspace page, I see no reason for not simply including a hyperlink to any draft. Although I can see its theoretical usefulness, I believe any small benefit it might bring is far, far outweighed by the risks it opens up. As such (and unless you can advance a very strong argument for its deployment) I would argue for its deletion - sorry. Nick Moyes (talk) 12:17, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes, Marchjuly, and Primefac: I see an obvious place of using this template: in Request article pages, as in WP:RA/NS. Would it be a good idea to use it there? tLoM (The Lord of Math) (Message) (Report false positive) 13:39, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Would it be a good idea to test it, say, in a section in a WikiProject RA and see its effects? Thanks. tLoM (The Lord of Math) (Message) (Report false positive) 14:45, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Just an addendum, I agree that mainspace isn't where this template would be used, and when creating an article users are notified of a draft version (so when I try to create Newman's conjecture I see a notice linking to Draft:Newman's conjecture, but I figure if the article appeared both as articles in different language(s) and as a draft, users may be notified of both. Anyway comparing the code, it is pretty much identical to the {{ill}} template. Thanks. tLoM (The Lord of Math) (Message) (Report false positive) 14:58, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

@The Lord of Math: Could you show me how your templated link might look both in a mainspace article, and in another draft, each linking with a draft of a notable UK topic (called: National Pollinator Strategy) that I have been slowly working on over the last two years, but never finished? It's at Draft:National Pollinator Strategy. Unless there is a sureproof and technical way of preventing your new template ever being deployed in mainspace, I'm not sure there is much use in testing it out, as I think it's too open to being misused. (I really am sorry to have poured cold water on your idea like this - I feel awful in so doing, and am hoping I might be missing something really obvious in its benefits.) Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 15:04, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes: I don't know much about the strategy, so I'll have to assume that this topic has a page in Spanish called es:Patrick Zachmann and a page in French called fr:Évolution du collège épiscopal français en 2013 (both are random pages in those wikis). Then it would look something like this: National Pollinator Strategy . It looks the same everywhere, but I'm still trying to improve it, and there are certainly ways to disallow a link to drafts in mainspace (using template coding and magic words). Thanks! tLoM (The Lord of Math) (Message) (Report false positive) 15:52, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

@The Lord of Math: OK, thanks. Well, if there are foolproof ways of preventing deployment in mainspace articles, then I guess there might be some useful functionality in highlighting the existence of a draft. So, as was suggested - it'd be best to discuss on the 'ill' template talk page or at WP:VPP, perhaps. Good luck with it, Nick Moyes (talk) 21:48, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes: I've added a way to stop the Draft link being displayed in mainspace. (The other language links work fine). Thanks. tLoM (The Lord of Math) (Message) (Report false positive) 01:16, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes: Would it be safe to test it in WP:RA's, such as a section in that for math? tLoM (The Lord of Math) (Message) (Report false positive) 03:44, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

@The Lord of Math: I'm not really sure how best to answer that. I suspect the original advice to post first at the ill template talk page is sensible, and maybe also WP:VPT, but so would be including a demo, as you suggest. One thing you very definitely ought to do is to update the documentation to very clearly and obviously define its restriction on deployment in mainspace. I'm still not sure it's needed, but see what others feel. Nick Moyes (talk) 09:23, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Submission got declined for Articles for Creation

Hi, I'm writing a page on a book called 'A Place for Us'. My submission got declined for not having reliable and independent sources. I think that may sources were reliable for this topic. I was wondering how I can improve my sources to get my submission approved. Kind regards, Gawande9Gawande9 (talk) 05:46, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

@Gawande9: I added some more sources; the book does appear to be notable but the article was missing good sources in independent publications. I trimmed some material that was not sourced. Other editors will read your question above and likely respond in more detail.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 06:27, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

@ThatMontrealIP: Wow, thank you so much for your help! I really appreciate it!! Gawande9 (talk) 06:54, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

@Gawande9: - I've just re-reviewed and accepted the draft. It's been slightly renamed, so you can now find it at A Place for Us - well done! Nosebagbear (talk) 10:48, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

@Nosebagbear: Thank you so much for your help! :) Gawande9 (talk) 09:25, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Proxy

Hello I am writing a Wikipedia page and including some old newspaper articles that I found on ProQuest. These are from the 1950s and taken from The Wall Street Journal. I used my school account to get the articles but when I go to publish the page it says I am unable to publish it because the url includes my schools address(wiki refers to it as a proxy). Is there a way I could get the links without the school address in it (or proxy)? Please let me know because the way it is explained on this website I dont understand. Fmanheim1 (talk) 21:57, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Fmanheim1. You do not need to include those full articles. Just cite them. Give the full title, the author(s), the newspaper, and the date of publication. If the article is available on the newspaper's website, then link to that. Copies of newspaper articles on other websites may well be copyright violations, which are never allowed on Wikipedia. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it`

Copies on ProQuest won't be copyright violations, Cullen328 - it's a legitimate service, which many libraries subscribe to. I agree with the rest though, Fmanheim1. You don't need to include a URL in the citations, just the details of the newspaper articles. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:49, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes, this change has been done all over Wikipedia by certain uncaring editors who don't realize how disruptive it has been. By eliminating "proxies," as these links are called, now nobody can follow the original links to, say, a public library site or, in your case, a school's account. "You can't get there from here" is a big problem which I have complained about elsewhere and about which I have been either scoffed at or ignored. Nevertheless, Cullen328 is correct, you don't need actually need the link any more, even though it would be nice to have it so that anybody with the proper credentials (like a library card) can follow it to the source. Sincerely, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 22:27, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Page I created for an individual still in "Draft" status

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

Hello,

The above referenced page I contributed is in Draft still. I would just like to know about how long it usually takes to be approved and be published in this process. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by MissMelina (talk • contribs) 22:39, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

@MissMelina: You haven't put it up for review. Before you try that, though, IMBD is not a reliable source, so it's going to be rejected. You need at least three professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources that are specifically and primarily about McIntosh but not affiliated with, dependent upon, nor connected with him. You might want to try these instructions on how to write an article that won't be rejected. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:46, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Ian.thomson, I think you meant IMDB? King of Scorpions 00:19, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you very much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MissMelina (talk • contribs) 14:27, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Youtube Views written in Article

Dear All,

I am young wikipedia editor and I am encouraged to see this page help editors improve their articles. My question to this forum is that when we are writing about a person youtube views which is around 50 millions, do need a secondary source for that also. Or would it work by just adding a link to his youtube channel where his views are written directly.

Thank You Terminatorwil (talk) 00:35, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

see answer below :) --Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 03:02, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Thegooduser, Thanks I have got a reply below. One my article has been moved to a Draft space and I want someone to help me in improving it. Is possible to help me out.Terminatorwil (talk) 10:06, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Youtube Views written in Article

Dear All,

I am young wikipedia editor and I am encouraged to see this page help editors improve their articles. My question to this forum is that when we are writing about a person youtube views which is around 50 millions, do need a secondary source for that also. Or would it work by just adding a link to his youtube channel where his views are written directly.

Thank You Terminatorwil (talk) 00:35, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

I think if it's just the view count you're trying to report on, then the channel itself would be a valid primary source. It would be the same when we allow a company's official website to report on facts and figures like number of employees, sales, key personnel, etc. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 00:45, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Hello Terminatorwil! AFAICT there is nothing directly about this in the "rules", but see Wikipedia:WikiProject_YouTube/Notability#Subscriber_count_published_in_secondary_source. Personally I'm inclined to the view that if you can't find the number in a decent secondary source it's not generally worth mentioning. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:40, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

You all seem to be really nice people in helping me out. Gråbergs Gråa Sång, Drm310. One of my articles has been moved to a Draft space and I needed your help in improving it so that I could move it back to the Article space again. Is it possible to have your input. Terminatorwil (talk) 10:02, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

feedback from an editing newbie

Just wanted to voice somewhere that I'm super disappointed to discover that Wikipedia is not what I thought it was. Since the start, Wikipedia is touted as this open source, neutral, anybody-can-edit, just-dive-in kind of platform. After many years as a user, I came across a page that was in dire need of some editing. (References to Christopher Columbus "discovering" the Americas. I recognize that this is a politically charged topic but regardless of people's political ideas, it's just factually incorrect.) I spent some time editing a bunch of spots in the article to include more neutral terminology and within minutes or hours, all of my edits were reverted. I received heaps of angry sounding messages and comments about how my edits were pointless, that I was doing it all wrong, and that I needed to read eighteen pages of Wikipedia style guidelines on scare quotes and various things before doing any more editing. I also added a page on a group of people that aren't covered elsewhere and my suggestion was turned down because I didn't cite enough encyclopedia entries or something. Dang, I will not be making any more improvements or edits. What a waste of time. I get that it's hard to manage the whole internet and to keep things consistent and legible but if you need to long complex articles on style and grammar before making a contribution or having an edit approved, what's the point? Yeesh. Plus, Wikipedia is an important source of information and if it's heavily policed by editors who are angrily defending their political ideas, how neutral is that? Probably venting to the void here but figured I'd say my piece. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lashask (talk • contribs) 03:57, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi, Lashask! I am sorry to hear of what you're experiencing here at Wikipedia. I took a quick look at your talk page, and an editor had left a note about why your edit were reverted on the Christopher Columbus page, Tarl N. asked you to discuss your changes you wanted to make on the talk page of the article, so other editors can take a look at them too. I know you are frustrated and I am sorry to hear that your edits have been reverted. Please don't feel discouraged, You can also check out The Wikipedia Adventure, a fun game on editing Wikipedia! Cheers --Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 04:04, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Lashask It is true that there is a learning curve with Wikipedia, but as long as you heed the helpful advice given to you by others, and are willing to adjust what you do accordingly or at least be willing to civilly discuss your actions, you shouldn't have too many problems participating. You don't need to read a single guideline before contributing, just be willing to hear the advice of others who are trying to help you. Keep in mind that Wikipedia is a collaborative project where people of differing viewpoints must work together to arrive at a consensus as to what an article should say. You are welcome to start a discussion on the article talk page(Talk:Christopher Columbus) and explain your concerns and what you feel needs to be done about them. I suspect that you are not the first person to have your concerns with regards to that article, and you may find it worthwhile to review the talk page archives to see if they offer insight as to why the article is the way it is. Please understand that Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources say about subjects- including the language used to describe a historical event or person. If the vast majority of them use the word 'discovery' in reference to Columbus, it would generally be used here. Wikipedia does not claim to be free of bias, but we do present the sources for readers to evaluate and judge for themselves as to their validity or biases. 331dot (talk) 11:09, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

It won't accept the new temporary password

So how do I login? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1015:B02F:6E9F:2C9A:19A9:3906:73FA (talk) 05:27, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Make sure you are typing the password in exactly correct. If it still does not work, you may need to request another, and if that doesn't work, you may need to create a new account(and identify it as a successor to your old account). 331dot (talk) 11:02, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Second Account

I have a second account, Rodrigo Valequez 2. I've created it because I can't use my normal account while I don't have access to my normal computer. My normal account (this one) has a really complex password (I also use this password for most of my other passwords on other websites) so I don't log into this account from other devices. Is that a problem? Thanks, Rodrigo Valequez (talk) 09:15, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Rodrigo Valequez. That's not a problem, as long as you don't use the two accounts in forbidden ways (like supporting each other in discussions). See WP:VALIDALT. --ColinFine (talk) 09:48, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Not specific to your question, just a bit of advice: it's generally bad security practice to re-use passwords. Many high-profile sites have been hacked, in some cases (incredibly) allowing the hackers access to plaintext passwords, which are then tried on other sites. Using strong, unique passwords will limit your damage when (no longer if) such a breach occurs. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 10:00, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

All right, thanks for the information and advice. I came up with this password a few years ago and I’m to lazy to change it one by one, maybe I’ll do it in a few days.. Thanks again, Rodrigo Valequez (talk) 10:21, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Greetings Rodrigo Valequez, and welcome to the Teahouse. Have you considered using a password manager? There are several good ones out there that are free, and they allow you to have extremely strong and unique passwords on every site you visit (and even use gibberish for those “secret questions” that social engineering can often discover if you answer truthfully) while all you have to remember is a single strong password/passphrase that you never use anywhere else. A number of them also sync to your mobile device and can be used to log into apps as well as websites. Even if it weren’t more secure I’d use one simply for the convenience, as now I can use my facial recognition to log into many sites/apps even if the app doesn’t directly support it! CThomas³ (talk) 16:27, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice @Cthomas3:, maybe I’ll give it a try. Could you tell me the name of the one you’re using? Thanks, Rodrigo Valequez (talk) 16:31, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Certainly! I personally use LastPass, but there are many others worth considering as well. CThomas³ (talk) 16:39, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks a lot @Cthomas3:, I’ll have a look into it. Also, do you think you could help me with getting a deleted article restored? Thanks again, Rodrigo Valequez (talk) 16:45, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Apologies, Rodrigo Valequez, I had some errands to run today but now I am back. I am not an administrator and therefore can't restore any deleted articles for you, but I would suggest you visit either WP:REFUND (if the article was soft-deleted, for instance via proposed deletion) or to WP:DRV (if the article was deleted as a result of a deletion discussion). I hope this helps! CThomas³ (talk) 00:20, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Hello again @Cthomas3:,I was thinking that you could help me to convince an admin to restore the deleted article. Thanks, Rodrigo Valequez (talk) 11:08, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Are there any exceptions to WP:NOR?

It seems to me that there is a lot of original research that flies under the radar. The example that comes to mind is episodes of popular tv shows that explain the entire plot-line of the episode without citing one decent secondary source. Just curious if there are different rules for these cases? Thanks! Mistipolis (talk) 09:34, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Hello Mistipolis! Yes there is, MOS:PLOTSOURCE. It goes for tv-series, films, novels etc. Basically you are meant to describe, not interpret when writing a plot-section on WP. This often works fairly well, sometimes editors disagree on plot elements a little (Talk:The_Mandalorian#Keeping_Star_Wars_lore_and_fancruft_out). Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:47, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Pinging Mistipolis correctly. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:47, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Okay thank you for clarifying, Gråbergs Gråa Sång! Mistipolis (talk) 22:20, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

What are some good article names

hi i would like to know what are some good artcle names — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmy1948 (talk • contribs) 11:33, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Dmy1948 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm not entirely sure what you are asking, but if you want to know which articles are classified as "good articles", you may go to Category:Good articles. 331dot (talk) 11:39, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

See also Category:Featured articles. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:52, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Blanking sandbox

I asked a few weeks ago how to get rid of content from my user sandbox. I was very kindly advised the following:

"If it’s your user sandbox your referring to, you should be able to just WP:BLANK it and then save it. You could also just set |afc= in Template:User sandbox to “no” or the |plain= parameter to “yes” as well."

Now, my problem is that I have no idea where to apply WP:Blank (or the other suggestions). I have gone into my sandbox and typed WP:Blank. It hasn't removed the content, just added WP:Blank to it.

What/where is this Template:User sandbox in which I'm supposed to set |afc=no, or |plain=yes?

Grateful for any light anyone can throw on the subject, thanks. Maryanne Cunningham (talk) 14:55, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

"WP:BLANK" is a link to a page on page blanking. It recommends "use {{db-user}} if you want to have [your own] page permanently deleted". So add that tag, complete with double braces, to your own page if you want your it permanently deleted. Or just blank its contents, deleting everything in it, and leave it existing but blank. Maproom (talk) 15:18, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

The explanation was at WP:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1048#Clearing sandbox content.

If you want to blank the sandbox, just delete all the content, then save it.

As far as the template is concerned, if you edit your sandbox you'll see that the first line is {{User sandbox|afc=no}}. --David Biddulph (talk) 15:23, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Huggle

Not sure if this is the right place to ask help for huggle, but when I use huggle and press good edit it sends a welcome message to the Ip or new edtior that edited the page. How do you make it so it does not do this. Thanks. The4lines (talk) 17:07, 22 February 2020 (UTC)The4lines

Hello The4lines. The best place to ask this kind of question is at WP:Huggle/Feedback. Interstellarity (talk) 19:34, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Ok The4lines (talk) 02:40, 23 February 2020 (UTC)The4lines

Duplicate Articles

So a couple weeks ago, I wrote an article and published it. Recently, I went back to it, thinking I had made a mistake in the submissions process; after making a couple edits, I tried to resubmit it.

Within a day, the newer version had been rejected for being a duplicate. At the same time, I'm still not sure I properly submitted the original...

Can I unsubmit the first copy and resubmit the second one? (how would I go about doing so?)

articles in question: new: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Anna%27sAccount/sandbox

original: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Agreement_Concerning_Cooperation_in_the_Exploration_and_Use_of_Outer_Space_for_Peaceful_Purposes

Thanks

~anna (talk) 18:14, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm a little surprised that User:Anna'sAccount/sandbox was declined, as Draft:Agreement Concerning Cooperation in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space for Peaceful Purposes had not been submitted for review. User:Theroadislong may be able to explain, & may be able to recommend what you should do. --David Biddulph (talk) 18:22, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Apologies I hadn't noticed that the other draft had not been submitted, I have now accepted the sandbox version. Theroadislong (talk) 18:33, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Url / Name issues

Hello,

I've just made a page for The Night With... (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Night_With...) when I linked a friend to it on whatsapp whatsapp only saw https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Night_With as the link, the elipsis was just seen as grammer.

The elipsis is part of the charity's name but I can't see a way to remove the elipsis from the url without also changing the page's title.

When I hit 'save' on this question Wikipedia drops the ... from the url as well in the same way...

Any ideas?

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Everyoneneedscheese (talk • contribs) 20:13, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Browsers do tend to get confused by trailing period marks. You might try percent encoding in the url, so https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Night_With%2E%2E%2E might work for you; it will point to the article The Night With.... --David Biddulph (talk) 20:25, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, that works as a link but how do you make that the standard format for the url on wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Everyoneneedscheese (talk • contribs) 20:33, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

I can't see a way to do that. I'll note that The Night With has been created as a redirect to the article, which seems like a reasonable solution. Firefox and Chrome handle the correct link correctly. The problem seems to be in how various apps try to auto-link something that looks like a URL when you send it to someone. I tried Google Hangouts, which linked to the title with no dots at all. gMail's sent link ended up with one dot, but I was able to send the correct link by using the link button, which lets you manually format a link and avoids any of its internal guessing. Please sign your posts at the end of the last line by adding a space and four tildes: ~~~~. This translates to your linked username and a correctly formatted timestamp that helps organize discussions. Thanks. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 22:30, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

@Everyoneneedscheese: That is not possible. I don't know WhatsApp but many sites and programs have a way for a user to explicitly say where a url starts and ends instead of letting a program guess. The Wikipedia method is shown at Help:Link#External links but that method should not be used when Wikipedia articles link to other Wikipedia pages. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Night_With...] produces [1], and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Night_With... The Night With...] produces The Night With.... Those links work but we don't use them. We just write [[The Night With...]] to produce The Night With... when we make internal links. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:33, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

@AlanM1: yea I was trying a few options to see if I could do what I needed it to. Was just wondering if there was another way to make it do what I wanted but doesn't seem so frustratingly. As you say it is how different apps deal with auto-linking and each seems to do it differently. Hopefully I've signed this post, still new to Wikipedia so thanks for the heads up.

@PrimeHunter: Trying to get the URL right is more for other people who might be trying to link to the article from outside of Wikipedia rather than internal linking. Everyoneneedscheese (talk) 23:06, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

@Everyoneneedscheese: Just to summarize, if what you want to do is be able to copy the URL from your browser's address bar and paste it somewhere, there's no way I know of to change that URL. Just save somewhere the text of the link that David Biddulph gave above, which should work everywhere:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Night_With%2E%2E%2E
There's no way to make that appear as the URL in the browser (at least not Firefox or Chrome), which helpfully decodes any URL-encoded characters before displaying them. Giving people the redirect with no dots is fine, too:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Night_With
Lastly, there is now this tinyURL:
https://tinyurl.com/TheNightWith
Cheers. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 04:03, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

@AlanM1: Thanks, for the help. Glad I wasn't missing something obvious! Now to tidy up the page. Everyoneneedscheese (talk) 10:52, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Questions about a proposed new page, "American Contact Dermatitis Society"

I am a member of the American Contact Dermatitis Society (ACDS), a professional medical society, and currently serve as its Vice President. This is a voluntary position with no financial remuneration. The ACDS "Allergen of the Year" already has a Wikipedia page and I believe that patients and professionals would benefit from a more complete understanding of the organization, which is why I am trying to create a new page, "American Contact Dermatitis Society". I have submitted revisions but have not met the standard for notability; there were also questions about conflict of interest, which I hope I have addressed above. I appreciate your help and feedback. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kwatsky (talk • contribs) 20:26, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Your PAID/COI situation should be described on your User page. I agree the references are not sufficient, as either what ACDS says about itself (website and its journal), or casual mentions-in-passing, or about value of patch testing without connecting to ACDS. David notMD (talk) 20:55, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi Kwatsky. Perhaps you should take a look at meta:Terms of use/FAQ on paid contributions without disclosure since it goes into a little more detail and provides some examples of different types of paid editing. In addition, regardless of whether WP:PAID or just WP:COISELF apply to you, you might also want to read Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not here to tell the world about your noble cause, Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Ownership of content for reference as well. The last page about "ownership of content", in particular, is one that many COI editors seem to have a difficult time understanding.

Basically, a Wikipedia article is written about a subject not on behalf of a subject which means that neither the subject nor anyone associated with it has any claim of ownership or final editorial control over anything written about the subject on Wikipedia. Content will be assessed according to relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and anything not considered to comply with these policies and guidelines can be removed or revised accordingly at anytime. Any disagreements over this are going to be expected to be resolved through Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, except when they are deemed to be a serious of clear policy/guideline violation.

Given the fact that ACDS and those associated with it would be considered to have a conflict of interest with respect to the subject matter, it and they would be expected to follow WP:COIADVICE and WP:PSCOI#Steps for engagement regarding the article's content and refrain from directly editing the article, except in some certain specific cases. So, while you can continue to work on Draft:American Contact Dermatitis Society pretty much at your own pace, you won't really be able to do so the same if the draft is someday approved as an article. This is not to discourage you from continuing to work on the draft; only to point out that COI/PAID editors are generally given more leeway when it comes to drafts than they are when it comes to articles. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:18, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Strange references

I recently encountered two articles that have similar items in the "References" section.

• Judy Strangis has "Demetria Fulton previewed Strangis in the first season of Barnaby Jones; episode titled, "Sing a Song of Murder"(04/01/1973)."
• Paul Lambert (actor) has "2. Demetria Fulton previewed Lambert in Barnaby Jones; episode titled, "Sing a Song of Murder" (04/01/1973).

Should those unusual items be left as is, reformatted, or removed? Eddie Blick (talk) 20:31, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

In December 2019, an IP editor made malformatted additions to numerous articles including the two which you mentioned. I have left a message on the user's talk page explaining how the reference should have been added, but that IP hasn't edited since, so he may not see the message. It may not be evident what the published source is which was intended to be cited. If no published reliable sources can be found, then the "reference" and the associated text should perhaps be removed. --David Biddulph (talk) 20:50, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, David Biddulph. I appreciate the feedback. Eddie Blick (talk) 00:57, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Broken formatting

Could someone with more template expertise look at Truckee station? For some reason the refences section is part of the rail track table. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 00:24, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

That sort of symptom is almost invariably because of an unterminated or malformatted table. Does this edit help? --David Biddulph (talk) 00:33, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

@BillHPike: thank you for bringing attention, i have tried my level best to resolve the issue. Leela52452 (talk) 00:45, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

@Leela52452: - I had already cured it. Look at the versions before and after this edit. --David Biddulph (talk) 00:52, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

I post a article but it is rejected several time. I think I already make a lot of changes but they still think I violate the copyright.

I post a article but it is rejected several time. I think I already make a lot of changes but they still think I violate the copyright. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Zzhu8516/sandbox&redirect=no — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zzhu8516 (talk • contribs) 04:59, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Your draft was declined several times, meaning that, in the opinion of the reviewers, it was not acceptable as an article, but might become so if improved. Then it was rejected, meaning that the reviewer believed it its subject did not warrant an article, and any further work on it would be a waste of time. Maproom (talk) 09:44, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

I rejected the draft because it was being resubmitted without any significant improvement, so that the submitter was wasting both their own time and the time of the reviewers.

The submitter is in a difficult situation caused by her instructor. She writes on my talk page:

She writes on my talk page:

Maybe i had violated the copyright.But i did not mean to do it. This is my first time to edit a wikipage. For my uni, i am studying a course which asks me to write a wikipage and need to post it. If it is not published or delete or there are any problems with copyright i might get a failure to this unit.So i am so urgent as the assignment is already due. Also, my uni is in a English speaking country and i have to edit in English. I also dont have the right to ask my tutor to ask in the education board. I think i have the ability to do this by my self.What i am trying to do now is that fix all the problems and try my best to let it submit succesfully.That's the reason i resubmitted several time yesterday and i do revised a lot of places .But i am feel worried that i still have not got passed.  

So it appears that the student has a problem with an instructor who doesn't understand Wikipedia. Does anyone have any advice for the student? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:41, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

@Zzhu8516 and Robert McClenon: I am an administrator here on Wikipedia, and I would invite the student to pass on the following comments to their course tutor, pointing out that we have told her that (through no fault of her own) her course tutor's actions have created an upsetting and difficult situation, which we cannot resolve for her:

1. It is highly unprofessional for any course tutor to set any tasks which require any student to create a new article on this encyclopaedia.
2. To tell a student that their success in their assignment depends upon such a task is irresponsible and unfair to the student
3. It shows a complete misunderstanding by the course tutor of what Wikipedia is here for.
4. Wikipedia does encourage educational organisations to work with us, but this is not the way to go about it.
5. Your tutor can learn how to get students to work with Wikipedia by going to [2].
6. They should have made it clear to all student that simply copy/pasting content from published sources into Wikipedia breaches our policies; is intellectual theft, and teaches the student very little. All contributors here must write content in their own words.
7. Overly-technical articles that serve an instructional manual are not accepted on Wikipedia, per WP:NOTMANUAL
8. Creating an article in a student's own sandbox, or as a Draft, should be as far as any course target should ever go. Expecting us to accept every student page into mainspace is unreasonable, unrealistic and unfair on the student.
9. The hand drawn diagrams uploaded by this student are not of sufficient quality for an encyclopaedia, yet expecting any student to be able to create non-copyright, good quality imagery of skeletal structure is also unrealistic.
10. Notwithstanding the obvious breaches of copyright, this student's work clearly shows me that they have grasped enough of Wikipedia's procedures to create a draft, lay it out correctly, and can add suitable citations (though they could have been improved by adding authors and dates, and not citing a private site requiring login authorisation).
11. Had there not been copyright issues and a belief that this is too detailed a page for Wikipedia, I would have said this was not a bad effort by the student.
12. Setting a course target of publishing a paper has caused disruption here, and could have ;led to the student being blocked, yet this would have been the fault of the course tutor, not the student.
13. We already have an article on Hip dysplasia, and a short edit to this section of it might have been more appropriate - and still could be.

If the course tutor wishes to engage with me for further advice, they are welcome to come to my Talk Page and I will clarify any matter for them. I will place a copy of my response on the student's talk page, as she may feel awkward about passing on a link to this page (which will be archived in a few days, anyway, so the link won't then function).Nick Moyes (talk) 02:30, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

There are some points that i want to say: My tutor said very clearly about using your own words to write. It was me that made this mistake and i want to revise the aricle instead of rejecting it and denying all the efforts that i made.For the references, i could delete those private website and add author and dates. This aricle is about a surgery called Triple pelvic osteotomy which is caused by hip dysplasia,so it is not just explaining what hip dysplasia is.I explained some about the hip dysplasia in the aricle to make it more clear about the purpose of the surgery.If u think the part about hip dysplasia is unnecessary,i can delete them and make the text shorter.Everyone will make mistake and i did not mean to violate any policy. It is because it is about a surgery so i feel a little bit difficult to rewrite some of the theory. But now i understand. And can i still edit my article and can it be published if it is good enough? But under such a circumstance, even if i finish writing, i cannot resubmit as it is rejected. As what u said abot pic, i have tried my best to draw.If it is under the wiki standard. I can delete it. So what do u reconmmend to do next for me? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zzhu8516 (talk • contribs) 03:13, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

How to make this edit acceptable?

Newbie here. Made an edit to 3 pages (copy/paste so minor pronoun error) to reflect an important tax tribunal case. They were reverted immediately with accusations of vandalism. I deliberately kept them short in the hope that an experienced wiki editor would expand on them.

What would correct approach have been?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/942209892 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Revertavid (talk • contribs) 08:53, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Revertavid Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I think that your edits were removed because the only source you gave was the tribunal decision itself, which is a primary source. Wikipedia should be summarizing what independent, secondary reliable sources state. Put another way, this decision needs to be covered in the news or other outlet with editorial control and a reputation of fact checking. 331dot (talk) 08:57, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

In Joanna Gosling, you added a sentence that included a direct external link. Such links are not acceptable in Wikipedia articles. If you had instead used a reference, it might have been accepted. (Published primary sources are acceptable in some circumstances – but I suspect that this, a claim of misbehaviour by a living person, is not among them.) Maproom (talk) 09:39, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Revertavid First, I seriously object to your "hopes and dreams" that some experienced wiki editor will expand on your meager efforts. The reality (IMO) is that the existing set of editors cannot match the entropy rate. Anyway, while I am not suggesting by any means that WP is the place to air your view of what facts the public should be more aware of, I would encourage you to make your best efforts. Don't be afraid to do a rewrite and replace your original effort, but it is very likely that you are the best person available to properly present these facts which must not be overlooked!

Primary vs. secondary source: Well, I'm not going to go back and look at the rules on this. A primary source is not inherently unreliable. Actually, for matters of law, there is much to be said for a primary source. Specifically, it's actually authoritative. So I don't think that would be a very good reason to revert your edit.

I have two reasons I might have reverted this:

1. "She lost against HMRC in a tax tribunal case in reference to his BBC employment status under IR35 legislation."
   Is "she" a "he"? That's news. We all want to know if that's the case. I know it shouldn't matter. Now I apologize if English is not your native tongue, but this is just very distracting. Maybe you're talking about her husband? This might make me think it's vandalism (notwithstanding WP:AGF).
2. The more pertinent point is relevance. The subject is a newscaster and author, not some kind of tax law advocate or adviser, or someone who is particularly known for purveying extreme theories about tax avoidance. Will this ruling have a major effect on her career?
   Being from the U.S., I know nothing about the IR35 legislation, but merely the fact that she was a party to this case does not in itself make it noteworthy, nor does the fact that the subject lost a case with the HMRC make it noteworthy. In other words, although this case may be noteworthy, I do not believe it is relevant to this article. Based on that, I would be inclined to revert your edit.

BTW, note how different editors offer differing opinions and the explanations are not really aligned. If the explanations seem like a stretch, that may be true. This puts into doubt the idea that there is really objective judgement about what is proper for WP. Fabrickator (talk) 10:06, 23 February 2020 (UTC) Fabrickator (talk) 10:12, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Closing Discussions as a Novice User

Hi there,

Discussion on a move discussion for Royal and noble styles has petered out, without a consensus in favour of a move. I have read the relevant documentation on the procedure for non-admins, but I don't want to jump too far into doing such tasks without being confident in my judgement being correct.

So, my question is: When a discussion on a page move has not had any comments for well over 7 days, indeed over a month, should I close the discussion and place the relevant templates?
Are there any procedures or norms I may not be aware of?

Thanks! Balag12 (talk) 10:16, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Actually non-admin closures are a prerogative of experienced users and as you stated above you are a novice. So, it is better to a ask another user. Ruslik_Zero 12:12, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Image Deletion Warning

RE: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direk_Freddie_Santos

I recently updated the page of Direk Freddie Santos at his own request, specifically to upload his own photo from his Facebook page. So the request to upload the photo was made by the subject of this Wikipedia article/biography himself. I received a warning that the photo is in danger of being deleted. I'm confused because I didn't think I was violating any copyright laws, since the photo was given by the owner himself. How do I address this issue to prevent the photo from being deleted?

Thank you!

Note: I work using the Visual Editor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JenTat (talk • contribs) 15:29, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi and welcome to the Teahouse. See Wikimedia Commons image licensing policy at c:Commons:Licensing; the copyright owner needs to send a permission notice to Wikimedia OTRS for verification. Also see our policy about conflicts of interest since you seem to have one. Majavah ^(t/c) 17:07, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Hello, JenTat. Majavah has pointed you at pages that are relevant, but I thought I'd give you a more user-friendly explanation.

Many people misunderstand the purpose of Wikipedia, and think it is like Social media, or a place to promote yourself or your concerns. It is neither: it is an encyclopaedia. Wikipedia's article about Santos does not belong to Santos, and he and his associates are discouraged from editing it directly, because they have a conflict of interest. (COI explains how they should proceed if they want to suggest changes to the article.)

Secondly, the question of pictures. Adding a picture to an article is usually a desirable thing to do; but it can be difficult because of copyright. Part of Wikipedia's mission is as far as possible to make all of its content freely available to anybody in the world. Every time we insert text in Wikipedia, we are licensing it under CC-BY-SA, so that anybody in the world can freely reuse our text, in any way, for any purpose, without payment, as long as they attribute it correctly. Similarly with images: with certain exceptions which are not relevant here, we require that every picture uploaded be free for reuse in that way, either by being the public domain by reasons such as age, or having been explicitly released under a suitable licence by the copyright holder (who is usually the photographer or artist, not the subject). If the copyright holder of the picture you want to add is willing to license it in this way, they (not you) need to follow the procedure in donating copyright materials. --ColinFine (talk) 19:15, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Need assistance in writing a Draft.

To all member,

Is there anyone from the team that would be interested in helping me improve my article which was moved to a Draft. I have some confusion in it and I would be prefer if someone could help me develop it.

Thank YouTerminatorwil (talk) 15:45, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi Terminatorwil and welcome to the Teahouse! I looked at your talk page and found Draft:Ahmed Emara. This is the draft that you're referring to, right? If not, can you let me know which one? It would be helpful if you could elaborate on what exactly you're confused with as well. Clovermoss (talk) 16:09, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi, Clovermoss

Draft:Ahmed Emara Is the article that I need help in improving it. I had created this article with citations and one of the editor moved the article to the Draft space saying it was too promotional. The confusion is how to make it neutral so that It can be moved back again.

Thank YouTerminatorwil (talk) 16:34, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

@Terminatorwil: Taking a cursory glance at the draft his early life is completely uncited and one line in particular (Those were the initial days were [sic] his training for his career had begun.) doesn't sound encyclopedic and sounds like it was taken from a promotional piece. --Tenryuu (🐲 • 💬 • 🌟) 16:49, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Tenryuu If that is not cited, writing nothing about this early life would look too bland. Can we atleast add 1 line in it without being citedTerminatorwil (talk) 17:47, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

@Terminatorwil: The issue is that it's likely to be challenged, and Wikipedia has a stricter demand for sources when the subject is still alive. Where are you getting this information from? Has he been interviewed about his life? For further reading I suggest taking a look at WP:Citing sources, particularly the section When and why to cite sources.

As a side note I also have a draft on standby right now. I can't add any additional information to it for the time being because there are no sources reporting on it, meaning that it doesn't meet Wikipedia's notability standards (for now). --Tenryuu (🐲 • 💬 • 🌟) 18:15, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Tenryuu Let me find any article that cite his early life and update it. What else do you suggest on improving the article. Since I have mentioned its a Stub.Terminatorwil (talk) 19:08, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

@Terminatorwil: Honestly? Finding more sources, citing them and expanding the article. If you're referring to tone, I would refrain from using words like "good" or "bad" to describe events and or people, but this is a very basic suggestion; nuances in wording can make sentences charged even though it may not seem so at first glance.

Please use indents when replying, as it makes it easier to follow conversation threads. You can do so by typing : in front of your paragraph. In this case, please type :: when responding to me below.--Tenryuu (🐲 • 💬 • 🌟) 20:01, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi Terminatorwil. I'll try my best to help, although it might be a bit difficult as I do not understand Arabic. Sources don't need to be in English though, so if you have sources in other languages, don't hesitate to use them. Your draft was declined as being too promotional, as articles need to follow a neutral point-of-view. I would recommend removing phrases like "He has an online presence of more than 50 million views on his YouTube channel" unless his YouTube channel is discussed at length in reliable sources. An example of a reliable source would be a newspaper article. Even then, I would remove the "online presence" part and just write something along the lines of "he has a YouTube channel". There are other parts of the draft that could be improved, but maybe we could start with that? There can be a bit of a learning curve when it comes to editing Wikipedia. Note: I had an edit conflict with Tenryuu and I'd like to say that their advice is great. Clovermoss (talk) 17:09, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Clovermoss The first reference is in english and we can use it to gain more details about it. Do you think I should remove the line of the youtube channel and add something of that sort in the career section. What do you suggest?Terminatorwil (talk) 17:42, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi Terminatorwil. Sorry for the delay, I was eating lunch. Tenryuu has offered useful advice, I'd suggest you follow it. As for the YouTube channel, I don't really think it's relevant to include unless there are independant and reliable sources covering it, as already mentioned. I'm also going to ping DGG as they declined your draft and might have more input. Clovermoss (talk) 18:30, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Clovermoss We are in a Teahouse and its ok for us to have lunch breaks. I have removed the youtube views text and i'll wait for further update from your side. DGG seems to have the longest list of people wanted to talk to him. Thanks Terminatorwil (talk) 18:56, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

A thing to remember, Terminatorwil, is that Wikipedia is basically not interested in anything that the subject of an article has said about themselves, or that their associates have said about them: it is only interested in what people who have no connection with the subject have published about them. For every statement in the draft, ask the question, "Where has somebody wholly unconnected Emara said this about them?" If you have an answer, cite that source. If there is no answer, then the statement does not belong anywhere in Wikipedia. --ColinFine (talk) 19:25, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

ColinFine Your advice on the top is something that I need to follow and I feel that this would help me improve my way of writing drastically.Terminatorwil (talk) 19:51, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Another way of saying essentially the same advice: The first thing to do is to remove all adjectives and statements of praise or excellence. Then, you need references providing substantial coverage from third-party independent reliable sources, not press releases or mere announcements. Of the English references, godubai is a press release--it says so right at the top. moderneast.com is a collection of press releases of people in his profession. saudi.com is a slightly disguised press release. .biztransform references the award, but we have no indication of how sigifcant the award is considered . The way to deal with the Arabic references, is to add a translation of the title of the publication, and of the title of the item, and of whatever is the key information very briefly. For example, going by Google Translate, which is often good enough to give a general impression, it's clear that the msn source is a report of a lecture he gave. This doesn't show his notability .

There's another factor: Most published articles about people in his profession are promotional; it is therefore very difficult to establish sufficient good references to establish notability here. We have about 500 articles in the Category:Life coaches and Category:Motivational speakers Some of them are notable because of other aspects of their career. Some are notable as authors for having written best-selling highly-reviewed books. About half are probably not notable. About 3/4 of the articles seem much too promotional. Many of them were written in early years when our standards were lower. At least 1/3 should be removed, and almost all the others rewritten (I've listed a few at AfD, just to get started). DGG ( talk ) 19:56, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Question:

I'm new so don't judge please but how do you "LIKE" the page?Eliza Strutz (talk) 18:02, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Eliza Strutz. Wikipedia does not have a "like" button similar to Facebook or some other social media sites. However, you can "watch" various pages, which means you will be informed when those pages are edited. Please read Help:Watchlist which explains that function. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:08, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Will the ref system reject my reference entry if I put letters instead of numbers?

Hello. I've come across a scholarly reference book (a furniture dictionary) where the pages have letters instead of numbers. More specifically 3 letters for the article starting a page and 3 letters for the article ending the page with a dash in between them, giving something like this: "Bul-Bur" where a page number should be. Will the ref system reject my entry if I put those letters instead of a number in the page field of the ref form?--AlainV (talk) 18:46, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

@AlainV: Hey, just tested the {{cite book}} template in my sandbox and can confirm that letters are allowed. Just be sure to add no-pp=yes to the template.

Example code: {{cite book|last=blah|first=blah|title=Blah|pages=arp-erp|no-pp=yes}}

Result: blah, blah. Blah. arp–erp. --Tenryuu (🐲 • 💬 • 🌟) 19:02, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

You may need to use the page parameter instead. --Tenryuu (🐲 • 💬 • 🌟) 19:02, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm not using that template, I'm using the friendly looking blue citation form that pops up when I click on the choice "Book cite" among the four choices of templates offered to me. Where in that friendly looking blue citation box should I be putting no-pp=yes ?--AlainV (talk) 19:11, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Hello, AlainV. Because page numbers in books often include Roman numerals and people use commas and dashes in page number fields, the software allows a wide range of characters, not just standard numerals. It doesn't make any difference if you use a template manually or use a software tool to simplify the process. The documentation is at Template: Cite book. Test the process in your sandbox. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:49, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I just went ahead and put in the letters as you suggested and it seems like it gave an excellent result. It's ref number 4: Bonheur du jour --AlainV (talk) 20:11, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

AfD for Recently Created Article

Are Wikipedia editors allowed to nominate AfD if the article was just created? I think the article I'm looking at was created a few hours ago, but I can't find that it meets any notability requirements after going through WP:BEFORE. It only has 3 sources on the wiki article itself, 2 of which aren't independent (the own product's website and the Google Play store).

I've only been able to find two other articles online (so there are only 3 independent sources I can find in total mentioning it at all, and 2 of those are only passing mentions).

I've seen articles nominated before quickly after they were created without sufficient WP:BEFORE, but I'm concerned that this article doesn't meet any notability requirements and that it might be promoting a product instead. - Whisperjanes (talk) 21:18, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

@Whisperjanes: If the article is in main space, then it is eligible to be deleted. If it is not a copyright violation, then it can probably be moved to Draft space so editors may work on it until it is ready to be moved to main space again. RudolfRed (talk) 21:40, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

@RudolfRed: Thank you for your help! I appreciate it c: - Whisperjanes (talk) 21:54, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Ubiquinone

Hey

It is not possible to ask anything in Wikipedia in Finland, so i am making a correction request here because it is not possible to edit Wikipedia in Finland either, because all users are blocked. I have a lot of problems with Wikipedia knowledge, but I'd love to start with an easy one.

Wikipedia pages in Finnish say:

https://fi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ubikinoni

Ubiquinone is an orange powder. It is odorless and tasteless.

But this is not true, ubiquinone is a strongly flavored orange powder. You can taste it yourself, so you don't have to rely on research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:999:20:95D6:7073:773F:7922:45D9 (talk) 21:38, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

This is the edit link: https://fi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ubikinoni?veaction=edit, so it is possible to edit it. Perhaps that Wikipedia does not allow IP editing? You could create an account, if that is the case. RudolfRed (talk) 21:42, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

I was able to edit the article as an IP (though didn't try to save). Perhaps it was a temporary problem? You'll have to be more specific as to why you can't edit or post your request there. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 23:45, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Hello IP editor. You make the mistake of believing that what you happen to know or have tasted for yourself is far better than statements in scientific papers. Did you read the reference which supported the statement that "Ubiquinone, chemically 2,3-dimethoxy-5-methyl-6-polyisoprene parabenzoquinone (Figure 1), is in its natural form an orange lipophile powder, without odour and taste." Many things have a taste when they're contaminated and, I for one, would certainly have to do an awful lot of research in order to lay my hands on the pure chemical and determine for myself whether it has a taste or not. I'd never even heard of it until today. Please don't try to change anything on any language wikipedia unless you can back it up with good quality sources, or at least show that two good quality sources take a different position on something. What you personally know to be true is of no relevance on English Wikipedia, nor on Finnish Wikipedia, I'm afraid. Nick Moyes (talk) 01:15, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

First time user, wants to object to a page

Hello!

Thanks for taking this on.

I just landed on a page which seems so shockingly biased that I don't know where to start. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaza_envelope

This reads like a propaganda release from the government of Israel,not an objective description of this region. More to the point, I cannot find anyone outside of extremely-devoted Zionists who even *use* this phrase.

What would be the most efficient way to begin lodging my objections. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pernicebro (talk • contribs) 02:42, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

@Pernicebro: Welcome to Wikipedia. You should start a discussion on that article's talk page. RudolfRed (talk) 03:04, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Pernicebro Please be aware that Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources state- any bias in sources will be reflected in Wikipedia. If you have independent reliable sources that describe the Gaza envelope differently, please offer them- this does not mean that the article will be worded the way you think it should be, but you can discuss your concerns with other editors to arrive at a consensus as to what the article should say and in what manner. Wikipedia does not necessarily give equal time to all points of view, coverage depends on the sources. 331dot (talk) 08:34, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

To be honest the current article is mostly sourced to Israeli governmental sources and as a consequence is not neutrally worded (most blatant instance: incessant terrorist attacks). I left a POV tag and a couple of sources on the talk page but I am not sure what to do with the article text. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 13:18, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

I have added three reliable, and neutral, sources and reworked the article. I have de-tagged it as I believe it is now sufficiently NPOV, but please feel free to re-tag if you think it needs more work. Best, QuiteUnusual (talk) 14:12, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Contested deletion

Please anyone can help to create an article for Thug Life vodka and cognac — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tlv333 (talk • contribs) 04:49, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

@Tlv333: Your title says "Contested deletion," so would I be correct in assuming that you may have a WP:CoI on the subject in draftspace? --Tenryuu (🐲 • 💬 • 🌟) 05:37, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Tlv333. Your draft has been deleted as a "test page", so the deleting admin must have thought that that was all it was. But, judging by your user name, you should start by reading NOTPROMO, and WP:COI, and then WP:Your first article. --ColinFine (talk) 10:01, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

creating page

I am Poet/Author & lyricist . I want my info page on Wikipedia. How to create information about myself? Regards, Prakash Patil

Hi Prakash. You would have to find reputable sources on yourself in order to create an article that is up to Wikipedia standards. However, this is strongly discouraged as you would have a major conflict of interest. Wikipedia hosts articles, not social media pages, so I am very certain that you will not be able to do what you intend to do on here. --Tenryuu (🐲 • 💬 • 🌟) 05:42, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

I am sorry but Wikipedia is not a venue to promote yourself and is not a social media website. It is a neutral encyclopedia. Please try Facebook, LinkedIn, YouTube, Tumblr, Twitter or Instagram to advance your career. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:47, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Rejected submission due to promotional doubts

Hi, I am helping to add an English translation of an already existing German profile from an artist who won an International Arts Price 2019 and already presented works in SF MoMA. Are there additional requirements and how to increase the relevancy of this rejected translation?

Thanks and regards, Neomys (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:19, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Neomys Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Please understand that what is acceptable on one language version of Wikipedia is not necessarily acceptable on another; each language version is its own project with its own editors, practices, and policies. In this case, the vast majority of the citations are to the artist's own website- this is not acceptable for establishing that this person meets our special definition of a notable artist. What is required is significant coverage in independent reliable sources. 331dot (talk) 08:29, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

How to Cite a Page or an Article

How to Cite a Page or an Article on Wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noreenkhan988 (talk • contribs) 08:52, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

@Noreenkhan988: See WP:CITE. In short, you use <ref>reference tags like this</ref>. However, we generally do not cite Wikipedia articles because circular sourcing is a bad idea. See User:Ian.thomson/Guide#Finding_sources for suggestions on how to find sources (among other things, such as how to link to other articles on the site). Ian.thomson (talk) 08:58, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Noreenkhan988. I think you may be asking about citing a Wikipedia article outside Wikipedia. If so, please read WP:Citing Wikipedia. --ColinFine (talk) 10:03, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

@Noreenkhan988: Note also that there is a "Cite this page" link in the "Tools" section in the left-hand margin of Wikipedia articles, which leads to sample citations in various styles. Deor (talk) 16:46, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Corporate notability

Hi all,

I need help with my content on Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:ReTyre. It has been declined 3 times even though I'v changed based on Editor's suggestions.

Can you guys have a look to see what else I should change?

Many thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maryam Khawaja (talk • contribs) 10:59, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

@Maryam Khawaja: Before anything else, you must disclose your employer per the instructions I've left on your user talk page. Ian.thomson (talk) 11:19, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

@Ian.thomson: thanks for your note!

Is this article capitalisation improper?

This is a bit of an English check/ manual of style check before jumping into move requests/mass moving of pages which could potentially be disruptive. There are a few dozen articles with "Parliamentary" in the title, but preceded by "List of" e.g. List of Parliamentary constituencies in Avon, List of Parliamentary constituencies in Bedfordshire, ect. If my understanding of English is correct Parliamentary should be decapitalised here, because it doesn't start the sentence and isn't a proper noun. For example, in this sentence from the UK Parliament website "The United Kingdom is currently divided into 650 parliamentary constituencies." Is this correct or am I missing something? Thank you, Editing with Eric (talk) 11:59, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

It's correctly capitalised as it is a proper adjective. In the context of Parliamentary constituency, it relates to Parliament as the institution. See the linked article: In general, an adjective is capitalized if its meaning is "pertaining to X", where X is some specific person, place, language, or organized group. Most capitalized adjectives are derived from proper nouns; for example, the proper adjective American is derived from the proper noun America. QuiteUnusual (talk) 14:51, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you! This is one of those rules of English that I know but wouldn't be able to name. I think some confusion arises because parliament can be either a noun or a proper noun depending on context, and at time commons usage just ignores the related proper adjective. I did some further searching and found very conflicting usage. For example the above Parliament.uk sentence uses lower case; the Guardian and Observer style guide suggests it should be lower case, but the Gov.uk style guide recommends capitalisation of parliamentary (giving the examples of Parliamentary committees and Parliamentary report) but even the Government isn't consistent because the Government Communication Service Style Guide indicates it should be lower case (even more ridiculous, it cites the Gov.uk as a reference source!). Anyway, it seems like either capitalisation preference is generally accepted. Editing with Eric (talk) 16:59, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Article Declined

Hi there.

I'm obviously disappointed that my article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Enda_Grace_(Television_%26_Film_Producer) has been declined.

Can anybody shed some more light on the reasons for this please? I thought it was fair, balanced and of public interest as the subject draws a lot of attention here in Ireland.

Many thanks in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Productionguru (talk • contribs) 13:13, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Productionguru. I don't think that anyone can make it any clearer than the wording in the grey box at the top of the 'Submission declined' pink box that has been placed on the draft.

You need to click on each one of the first 5 (of 7) links (words in blue) in that grey box, and carefully read the contents of the pages that they take you to: these will explain the Notability criteria it is necessary for a subject to meet in order to qualify for an article here. The further 2 links in the grey box will similarly lead you to general advice on how to try to address the draft's current shortcomings.

If despite this advice you cannot find suitable sources (online or offline) that demonstrate the subject's notability (as Wikipedia uses the term), then a Wikipedia article about them is simply not possible. However, if what you say ("the subject draws a lot of attention here in Ireland") is true, you should be able to find suitable sources in newspapers, magazines and so on. Remember that sources need to be specifically about the subject, not just about things to which the subject has contributed and in which they are mentioned or listed in passing. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.202.162.227 (talk) 14:22, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Cleaned up draft, but I agree that it does not yet meet criteria for notability. Needs more content based on citations ABOUT Grace, not descriptions of his accomplishments. David notMD (talk) 15:05, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Declined submission even after attempt to address notability

Hello, my article draft has been declined twice - the first time around it was for a lack of significant coverage, as many of the sources cited were not entirely about the subject at hand.

In the second draft, I made sure to include published articles/sources that were specifically about the subject as well as its founders. I found these articles to fit wikipedia's requirement for sources - published, reliable, secondary and independent of the subject.

The language used in the article is very matter-of-fact and not hyperbolic or promotional at all. I can't see why it was denied a second time after these changes. The editor who reviewed the 2nd draft (Theroadislong) didn't leave any notes as the first editor (DGG) did, they left only the same boilerplate message that was left in the first place, with no further clarification - even after I tried to address the issue with the first draft.

Can you help me? What can I do to improve my article? Where am I going wrong?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Goodshop — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jk3142 (talk • contribs) 16:44, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Jk3142, there is no rule that sources cited "must be entirely about the subject". However, for a source to help establish that the subject is notable, it must be independent, and include in-depth discussion of the subject. Which three sources cited in Draft:Goodshop do you think best do that? Maproom (talk) 17:15, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Hello Maproom, these are 3 sources that I think show the criteria you mentioned: https://www.thestreet.com/personal-finance/credit-cards/goodshop-give-charity-holiday-shopping-12790628 https://blogs.wsj.com/holidaysales/2007/11/23/good-shopping/ https://risnews.com/goodsearch-supporters-turn-innovative-ways-help-their-favorite-nonprofits-holiday-season

Jk3142, Howdy hello and welcome to the Teahouse! We don't write about every company, only those that are notable. There are billions of businesses, and we can't possibly write about every one, thus we have to have a minimum standard for inclusion. Proving notability is done by finding quality coverage that is independent of the subject and from reliable sources. Most of the sources you have are just PR, and not actually independent coverage. The WSJ article could be good, but the link is dead so I can't evaluate it. If you can't find enough sources, that may mean that the subject just isn't notable. That's not a reflection on you or the company, it just means that the media hasn't paid it enough attention to warrant an article. So: if you can find some more quality sources, please do, and add them. If not, then you may wish to edit in another area; creating articles from scratch is the hardest thing on Wikipedia. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 17:19, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you CaptainEek. I've added multiple sources and resubmitted for review.

For the second decline, Theroadislong left an Edit summary: "Submission is about a company or organization not yet shown to meet notability guidelines." David notMD (talk) 17:21, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Need attention here!

Hi, there's a discussion going on over here, VF Corporation Talk page, about creating a separate page for Draft:Kontoor Brands. The company is listed on NYSE and has been covered widely by independent and reliable news media outlets. If some of you can please respond there, then we can proceed with the publication of the draft. Thank you so much in advance. FelixtheNomad (talk) 18:33, 24 February 2020 (UTC)