Wikipedia:Teahouse

RudolfRed, 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.)

Chicago 'L' articles

A couple of IPs (presumably the same person) seem to be going through all the Chicago 'L' stations and changing all the buses to be in monospace font (e.g. Jackson station (CTA Red Line), Chicago station (CTA Brown and Purple Lines)); in the latter case, they've also changed references to other lines to use a coloured template that I think is intended for line diagrams. I'm pretty sure I'm right that this is all inconsistent with WP:MOS and should be reverted, but I wanted to check that was the right thing to do before I go ahead and revert basically every contribution two users have made. YorkshireLad (talk) 20:52, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

• Example diff.

@YorkshireLad: I agree the nowiki tags should be removed, but the rest of the edit looks fine to me (or at least, it should be inspected carefully rather than reverted in bulk).

You should really try talking to them, though I am not sure how. That diff is from an IPv6 with four edits in a 10-min window, so the IP address is changing and they cannot be reached via user talk pages. My best guess would be to open discussion somewhere central (is there a Chicago public transportation Wikiproject?), and point to it through edit summaries and hidden wiki comments in the source text. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 21:26, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

@Tigraan: Many thanks for your answer. There isn't a CTA Wikiproject, though there is one for Chicago and one for rapid transit (inactive), so I guess either would work, or perhaps Talk:Chicago 'L'. When you suggest edit summaries/comments, do you mean I should remove the <code> ... </code> tags when I find them and add the note there? Or add a note to all the as-yet unchanged pages? YorkshireLad (talk) 10:12, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

@YorkshireLad: Yes, I would suggest to remove the code tags and leave a hidden comment next to the resulting text, pointing to wherever you decided to open the discussion. (Copy-paste the comment across pages to make it easier.) But honestly that's a bit of a long shot, I do not know of any consistent way to contact editors on dynamic IPs. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 12:33, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

@YorkshireLad: Buses also use monospaced font on the Orange line page. AlaricStatus 19:47, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

I want to create a page.Please advise me some topics

I want to create a page in wikipedia but don't know which topic to write about. Can someone advise me any topics?I am interested in the field of science and technology , So it would be better if you give related topics — Preceding unsigned comment added by Universology (talk • contribs) 05:55, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

@Universology: Welcome to the Teahouse, and by extension, Wikipedia. If you're looking for suggestions you can go to WP:Teahouse/Suggestions to get SuggestBot up and running on your talk page to give you suggestions every once in a while. Creating an article is one of the most (if not the) difficult things to do on Wikipedia. I suggest reading through Help:Your first article if you want to get introduced to starting articles. You can only start submitting directly to the main articlespace when you're autoconfirmed (i.e., your account is at least 4 days old and has had more than 10 edits made). Otherwise feel free to start a draft in draftspace before putting it up for submission. --Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 06:06, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

 Update It seems you already have SuggestBot. Ignore my suggestion then. --Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 06:15, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Universology, WP:RA has some categories related to science and technologies where you might find something interesting. Be careful though, not all suggested topics are notable. Check the notability guidelines at WP:N before you begin. You might want to read WP:YFA too. If you are just looking for something to work on without being bothered about the somewhat complicated notability guidelines that we have, you could try working on an article for any species. A list such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Mammals/Missing mammal species might be of help. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 06:17, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

I have been wondering for 3 years now on how to a topic in wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eeskaay (talk • contribs) 17:12, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

What can I do to my article so that it is considered notable?

Hi! I am a marketing manager. I have submitted this draft article about Alconost Company, but it has been rejected due to the lack of corporate notability. My question is, what exactly can I do to improve the article and make it actually published? 1. Shall it be submitted by someone else, since I'm considered related to the company? (I have take advantage some time ago of its services). 2. Shall I delete some sources which are considered self-published? If so, what sources? 3. Or is it something that I can't change (the company just doesn't have enough reliable links at the moment). I am looking forward to your feedback, thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khristina Adamovich (talk • contribs) 09:03, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi Khristina Adamovich. Since it seems that you are the marketing manager of the company, you probbaly should carefully read through Wikipedia: Conflict of interest, Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide and Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure before you do anything else. The fact that you are employed by the company doesn't mean that the company cannot have an article written about it or that you cannot be the person to do so; it might, however, be quite difficult for you to do so no matter how hard you try to comply with relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines simply because doing so may be contrary what you typically do to market the company; in other words, you might find it hard to write about the company in non-promotional neutral manner, especially if that means including unfavorable information about the company.

As to whether the either you or anyone else can create an article about the company, that is something that's going to depend upon whether the company satisfies Wikipedia: Notability (organizations and companies). If you can show that the company has received significant coverage in multiple independent sources (like what mentioned in Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Significant coverage), then most likely an article can be written; on the other hand, if the only sources you or anyone else is able to find are trivial in nature (e.g. listing in business directories or small blurbs in trade publications), then it's likely going to be hard for anyone to write an article that would survive a deletion discussion. Self-published sources can sometimes be used, but only certain types and only in certain ways. Moreover, badly written articles full of promotional wording, etc. about a Wikipedia notable subject can always be cleaned up; however, even the most perfectly written article about a non-Wikipedia subject is unlikely going to be able to be saved.

One other should you probably should read is Wikipedia:Ownership of content and "Wikipedia's Law of Unintended Consequences". Since your the company's marketing manager, you probably have lots of control over its online presence. A Wikipedia article, however, is not owned by those who create it and the subject it is written about; so, neither you nor anyone associated with the company will have any final editorial say over what type of content is added to the article. Only content deemed in accordance with Wikipedia policies and guidelines will be considered OK, and anything else can be removed by anyone anywhere in the world at anytime. In other words, if your starts to receive some bad press, there's a good chance that such information will eventually find its way into the article. So, you won't be able to use the article to promote the company and you won't be able to automatically keep out anything negative about the company. -- Marchjuly (talk) 09:31, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Khristina said they have take advantage some time ago of its services, so I didn't read their post as implying they work for the company. In that case, I'm not sure what I am a marketing manager is meant to signify. @Khristina Adamovich: without looking at the article myself, if the reason given was "notability", then it's most likely your case #3. Does that help, Khristina? Pelagic (talk) 11:30, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Draft reviewed twice but both declined with the same reasons

Hello there. I need your help, I created a page for a company that I work for (I am an employee). I submitted it 2 times but both were declined with the same reasons: 1 is "the submission appears to read more like an advertisement and the 2nd is "This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject". Thank you!Nice0903 (talk) 13:34, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Nice0903, in the nicest way possible, most businesses aren't notable enough to have an article here. As we can only write based on the sources that exist, if a business hasn't received enough significant coverage for us, then we simply can't have an article, no matter how much it is edited.

You might want to read Wikipedia:No amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability, an essay that goes into more detail about how and why this is the case. ~~ Alex Noble - talk 13:41, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Nice0903, Also, you might already have been told this, but please read and follow both the conflict of interest and paid editing policies. There are some extra steps you have to take as a paid editor, and you must disclose you are being paid - full detail in the links. ~~ Alex Noble - talk 13:42, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Hey Alex. Nice0903 did not say they are being paid to write the article, just that they are an employee. I'm reading "created a page for" as meaning 'created a page about' rather than 'created a page at the request of'. Kind regards from PJvanMill (talk) 00:07, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Nice0903 (edit conflict) Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. First, you must review and comply with the conflict of interest and paid editing policies(the latter is a Terms of Use requirement and mandatory). Looking at your draft, it is sourced to what seems to be nothing but press releases or routine business announcements; these do not establish that your company meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company(please review). What is needed is significant coverage in independent reliable sources, sources that have chosen on their own to write about your company in depth. For example, Ford Motor Company and Microsoft merit articles because many sources not associated with Ford or Microsoft have chosen to write about them, not just republish press releases or print routine announcements. Not every company merits an article here, even within the same field. If there are no independent sources with significant coverage of your company, it would not merit an article at this time. You may find it helpful to read Your First Article and use the new user tutorial to learn more about Wikipedia and writing an article- which is the most difficult task to undertake here. 331dot (talk) 13:44, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks everyone. I will research and see if I can find significant sources. How many sources does wikipedia required?Nice0903 (talk) 17:33, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Can someone review my edit?

Here, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Doppelg%C3%A4nger&action=history , i suspect that a certain website is promoting itself inappropriately on this article. I removed mentions of the website's name, but i am not sure if this is the right call. Can someone confirm if my actions were appropriate?

Not sure if this is the right page for questions like this. If i should post questions like this elsewhere, let me know. I read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox_or_means_of_promotion before making my edit.

--Disoff (talk) 20:35, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi, Disoff. I agree with your edit. If anybody disagrees with it, it is up to them to discuss it with you on the talk page, according to BRD. --ColinFine (talk) 23:19, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

thanks--Disoff (talk) 17:01, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Boss 429 Wiki page question

I have done research, and have information that directly contradicts a paragraph in the article. I am new to editing, what is the proper etiquette in this situation? Boss 429 Mustang Sbradley02 (talk) 00:19, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Sbradley02. I do not know what exact paragraph you are referring to, so let me split this into two cases. (1) If the paragraph references sources, please read those sources first. It may be that the sources do not actually support some of the statements made, in which case you may delete those statements. It may also be that some of the sources cannot be considered reliable, in which case you may remove those sources as well as the statements they support. (2) If the paragraph does not reference any sources, feel free to delete it.

You may get into a dispute over your removals. If you remove unsourced or improperly sourced statements and another editor simply puts them back, you are in the right: ask them (while remaining polite, of course) to provide a source that backs it up.

Also consider adding the place where you found your information to the article as a source. Kind regards from PJvanMill (talk) 00:50, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your help! In this instance it is the first paragraph under Power. The source (based on the paragraph) makes the often repeated claim that muscle cars in the day were often under rated for insurance purposes. These claims are almost never backed up by actual dynamometer measurements on truly stock engines (also pertinent to this particular engine, I was able to find a reference stating that insurance surcharges were not added by the industry until the following model year, 1971). I located a number of period magazines, and was able to find actual dynamometer measurements on stock engines, therefore I would argue that it is a more reliable source. Unfortunately the referenced book in the Wiki page seems to be going for $245 used, making a check of the source problematic. Sbradley02 (talk) 01:05, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

I do not know what a dynamometer measurement is, but I am inferring that such a measurement would confirm that the horsepower was in fact 375 bhp. If I'm understanding that right, I would say the first thing you should do is add a statement saying "dynamometer measurements confirmed..." and reference the magazine (with page number, issue number &c) that says that is the actual horsepower. See Wikipedia:Tutorial/Citing sources for that. Then, you should probably make the false advertising statement a lot shorter, and maybe make it more explicit that it is speculation (there already is a "Supposedly", but you could replace that with something stronger). Kind regards from PJvanMill (talk) 02:12, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

After the second sentence in that paragraph you could add a sentence to the effect that dynamometer testing of stock engines as reported in automobile performance magazines stated horsepower ____ and torque at ____. That would support the 'official' horsepower of 375 without your having to see the ref that implied a higher HP. David notMD (talk) 09:30, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for both your help. I made the suggested edits. Any feedback is most welcome. This is my first significant article revision. Sbradley02 (talk) 19:56, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

How can I submit a retouched picture?

I have to admit that a lot of the way articles on Wikipedia are formatted is beyond me. That's what's kept me from creating an account and becoming a regular participant. Every once in a while I'll see a grammar error and correct it but that's been about it - until today. I happened to see a picture while checking out Charlotte Greenwood's page and saw a picture that was marred with writing and other defects and thought it might be nice to submit (for approval, of course) a cleaned up version of it. For what it's worth, here's a link to it: Charlotte Greenwood Retouched

David C. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.3.138.195 (talk) 03:40, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

As the image is stored at Commons, our store of free media, you are free to make any derivative works.

To do this, go to https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Upload&uploadformstyle=basic, upload your version under a new title, and then copy the file information from commons:File:Charlotte Greenwood NYWTS.jpg into the summary field, which will copy over the license information etc. This is the information starting == {{int:filedesc}} == - Just copy the whole page. ~~ Alex Noble - talk 08:44, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Does “smartphone price” count as information that deserves to be on Wikipedia?

I am currently working on improving the Nokia Android smartphones articles and I’m currently working on the articles of the first series of phones. I noticed that in most articles the product price is mentioned mainly in Euros but I don’t know if it is acceptable on Wikipedia. What I feel is that:

1. Since smartphone prices can vary over time and in different countries (taxes, marketing strategy etc.), there is no point in adding it
2. However, in some cases, the price can be notable (for eg. If the price is the highest or lowest for a production smartphone)

So, is it appropriate to add such info to an article, especially when the phone is not as popular as flagships? Besides, is there any place besides the teahouse where I can ask topic-specific doubts (because I have the feeling I’m asking too many questions here alone)? RedBulbBlueBlood9911 (talk) 06:53, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

RedBulbBlueBlood9911, see WP:NOPRICE, point 5 in particular. The best place to ask is the article talk page. If there is low activity on the article or the question is more general, ask at the talk page of relevant WikiProjects. If you want to know whether a particular guideline or policy applies in a particular case, ask at the talk page of that policy/guideline page. For example, there is a discussion related to NOTPRICES at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not. Asking here is fine too. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 07:23, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

There's also {{help}} and {{admin help}} to advertise a request for help from experienced editors and admins respectively in whichever talk page you happen to be. Usedtobecool ☎️ 07:27, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

User page

May please visit my user page--Jotham Mapenhure Zvinongoza (talk) 09:10, 7 March 2020 (UTC)Jotham Mapenhure Zvinongoza

Hello, Jotham Mapenhure Zvinongoza, and welcome to the Teahouse. You have tried to create an article on your user page, but that is not the right place for it, so I have moved your draft to User:Jotham Mapenhure Zvinongoza/Herbert Mahlaba. (It has left your user page redirecting to the draft: you can edit your user page to remove that. Your user page is for telling other editors a bit about yourself as a Wikipedia editor.)

Writing a new article is one of the very hardest tasks in editing Wikipedia: most people think that you do it by writing what you know. Unfortunately, this doesn't work very well, because Wikipedia is not interested in what you know (or what I know, or what any random person on the internet knows): it is interested only in what reliably published independent sources have said about the subject. Writing an article starts with finding published sources (and if you can't find suitable sources, you know there is no point in trying to write an article on the subject). I recommend reading your first article, and User:ian.thomson/Howto. --ColinFine (talk) 09:49, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

No separate page on Indian Locomotive class WAGC3 and WAG-11?

Hallo I want to inform you that there is no separate article page on Indian Locomotive class WAGC3 and WAG-11. If any one make separate article page on these two locomotives then it will be a very helpful for us. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suvadeep Saha56 (talk • contribs) 09:33, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Suvadeep Saha56, if you are requesting an article be written, you should ask at Wikipedia:Requested articles/Applied arts and sciences/Transport#Rail transport. ~~ Alex Noble - talk 16:54, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

How to be a Reliable Sources for Maps and Map Website

Hi there,

I'm planning to add a passenger railway map which is a screenshot of my personal website www.railaround.com and a link as an interactive map in one of the "Rail transport by country" articles. Besides COI issues, Billinghurst kindly pointed out that my website would not be considered reliable sources.

Basically, the GIS information of my maps are originally from OpenStreetMap, with corrections by compare with official railway operator manually. I can easily find some other personal made maps in Wikipedia articles and links to those interactive map website. I do want my map to be one of them. So I need suggestions. How to make a non-official map and map website to be a reliable source. Is there anythiny I can do? Please give me some advises. Thanks in advance.

Luojie820 (talk) 11:59, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Luojie820 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. You creating your own map based on various information you have would be original research. You should be citing where you are getting the information and using that information directly, not creating a map of your own based on it and citing your own website. I can't speak to it directly but it is entirely possible the other maps you mention are also inappropriate, as this is a volunteer website where people do what they can when they can, it is possible for inappropriate content to go undetected; we can only address what we know about. The only way you could demonstrate that your website is a reliable source would be if you could show that you are a recognized authority on the issue, with a reputation of fact checking and editorial control- which it doesn't seem that you are. Is there any particular reason you are so interested in directing people to your website? 331dot (talk) 12:15, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Luojie820 I agree with 331dot on this. Guidelines for how we identify reliable sources are found at RS. Your website doesn't have any details that I could see about where the information comes from, who publishes it etc., and so it's not easy to see how a reader could establish its reliability. If I read you correctly, you say that you take GIS data from OpenStreetMap, and then correct it yourself by gathering information from other maps and information sources, but we have no way of confirming whether you have done that work accurately - normally, we would look for a source with an editorial panel checking over the work of its authors, or that is written by academically respected experts in the subject it covers. So, while I am sure you have gone to great efforts to make it accurate, that doesn't mean that it's reliable in the way that we use that term here. GirthSummit _(blether) 12:22, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

331dot, GirthSummit, thank you both for your reply.

As a rail fan, the website I created is purely for my personal hobbie. I travelled a lot, each time before I went abroad, I read "Rail transport by country" series articles in Wikipedia and find a passenger railway map of that country to plan my journey. However, I always found a simple PNG map can not provide enough detailed information. That's the reason I create my website -- an interactive map of pure passenger railway information.

I think if there's currently no similar map with enough authority, the readers of "Rail transport by country" may willing to see a less authority map, even it says "hey, we can not confirm the accurate, errors may contains".

However, I understand your concern and respect all the rules which make Wikipedia such a great place. I just say what I think about of this question and hope it can be understand.

Thanks. Luojie820 (talk) 13:30, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

how do I submit a new article?

I would like to submit an article about musician Lee Fardon. Fardon is referenced in several articles but does not yet have his own entry. How do I go about this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fencedown (talk • contribs) 13:33, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Fencedown Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I would first caution you that successfully creating a new article is the hardest task to undertake on Wikipedia. It takes much time and practice. You will increase your chances of success if you first gain experience by editing existing articles in areas that interest you, to get a feel for how Wikipedia operates and what is expected of article content. Users new to creating articles often end up disappointed and with hurt feelings as their work is mercilessly edited and deleted by others, I don't want you to have a bad experience so I strongly advise you to get some experience under your belt. It's also a good idea to use the new user tutorial to learn more about Wikipedia.

However, if you still wish to attempt to create a new article about this musician, you should first read Your First Article as well as the special Wikipedia definition of a notable musician. If Mr. Fardon meets the definition and you have multiple independent reliable sources with significant coverage to support it, you can visit Articles for Creation to create and submit a draft for a review by another editor, that will help find any problems before it is formally part of the encyclopedia, instead of afterwards when it will be treated more critically. 331dot (talk) 13:39, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Colouring of cells

Hi! Can someone tell me how to colour cells in a table? Thanks!SuraStina (talk) 13:37, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

SuraStina, firstly, check MOS:COLOUR - because of accessibility, colour shouldn't be used profligately.

The instructions themselves for adding colour to cells are at Help:Table#Color; scope of parameters. ~~ Alex Noble - talk 16:52, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

SuraStina, the easiest way to do so is to go to an article with a simple coloured table and follow the example. Help:Table#Color; scope of parameters has the actual instructions. Usedtobecool ☎️ 16:57, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks all for the tips! Can someone tell me how to do it in Visual editing? I am not very familiar with Source editing. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by SuraStina (talk • contribs) 18:12, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

SuraStina, I've just had a look in my sandbox, and I don't think it is possible with visualeditor.

As this sort of advanced table formatting is quite rare, it wouldn't surprise me if it has never been made compatible. ~~ Alex Noble - talk 18:44, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

That's correct. Visual editing is very limited. When it comes to tables, it's even worse. There are like four or five options: you can add and remove cells and edit text in them but that's about it, last I checked. Usedtobecool ☎️ 19:10, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

New Editor- Need Help with First Article

Hi,

I'm new to the wikipedia community. I've made small edits and published my first draft. Articles for Creation has citied the draft is an Essay. Would like to address the issues with this draft and resubmit for publishing.

Thanks for your help! AWTNP (talk) 14:12, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

AWTNP Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. It's not immediately clear what it is you are writing about. Are you writing about the general practice of reporting tips, or a particular method of doing so? We have an article about gratuities that might already contain (or could contain) some of this information. What you wrote seems to be more of a how-to essay and not an encyclopedia article; an encyclopedia article should summarize what independent reliable sources state about the subject.

I see that you have declared a conflict of interest; what is the nature of your conflict of interest? 331dot (talk) 14:29, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi 331dot! Thanks for your explanation. The article is meant to summarize what sources state about the general practice, which includes methods for doing so. I will remove the Essay tone and follow the parameters of an encyclopedia article. Can I get your opinion on the draft after I make some changes, before I resubmit? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AWTNP (talk • contribs) 15:34, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Courtesy link. Draft:Tip Reporting TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:38, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Personally I might attempt to expand the existing gratuity article first. The only sources you have offered seem to be US IRS documents; that doesn't really establish this as a separate, notable topic deserving of its own article. What is needed is significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Again, what is the nature of your conflict of interest with this topic? 331dot (talk) 16:42, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

331dot, I'm in the Industry, providing assistance in that area. I will expand upon the current draft by providing significant coverage with additional sources. Thanks for your help. AWTNP (talk) 16:58, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

AWTNP, you say "I'm in the Industry", but you don't say what industry that is. That's part of your problem with writing the article – you're too close to the subject, and so you "can't see the wood for the trees". The article would make a lot more sense to the general reader if it made clear, in its opening paragraph, that it's about the reporting of tips from customers in the food and drink business, and covers only the US. Maproom (talk) 18:28, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Best second step with disagreement regarding if something is worthy of inclusion

I have a difference of opinion with another user whether something is worthy to be included. The item I'd like to include is from the person's official biography and the other user says it shouldn't be included because of WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE. I've read and re-read it and think it's worthy of inclusion. I've already posted the item to the talk page, but I don't think it will generate any traffic unfortunately. I'll give it some time to see, but I'd like to know where I'd go next. thx. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikethewhistle-original (talk • contribs) 15:45, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Mikethewhistle-original You can make your talk page comment a formal Request for comment. If discussion fails to resolve the dispute, you can move to dispute resolution. 331dot (talk) 16:12, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I wasn't sure if 3rd opinion would be a lesser step. Unfortunately the other user feels ownership over the page and has expressed it as such, and so they are pretty dogmatic. I'm trying to have a cool conversation/discussion and I think it might be at a breaking point but time shall tell. Also, other than the above WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE, is there a help topic that would be informative regarding "worthy" items to include on a page, and in particular those that are part of a newsperson's page? Thx. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikethewhistle-original (talk • contribs) 16:25, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

I don't know about 'worthiness', but if something gets significant coverage in reliable sources, it is usually fair game for inclusion. 331dot (talk) 17:14, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Need help for creating an article

Hi there, I need help for creating an article which is about a living person, I've already added enough resources to prove the notability criteria. Anyone out there who can guide me in this regard. Jugni (talk) 18:57, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

If you are convinced that your draft at Draft:Amjad Saqib satisfies the requirements, you can submit it for review using the blue "Submit" button. --David Biddulph (talk) 19:34, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

You will, however, need to satisfy yourself and the reviewers that you have addressed the problems that caused previous attempts at Amjad Saqib to be deleted and the creation salted. --David Biddulph (talk) 19:37, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

David Biddulph Thanks for the reply. This is what I'm actually seeking guidance from some expert here to improve the health of my article specially notability criteria. I'm also working on some other articles too and want to learn how to write a perfect one. Jugni (talk) 18:46, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

reliable post

How can i post articles in wiki that are reliable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bahlool shah afghani (talk • contribs) 19:10, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Your user talk page includes links to various pages with useful advice, such as WP:Reliable sources and Help:Referencing for beginners. Note also that your user page is not the place for a draft article. You'll find further advice at WP:Your first article. --David Biddulph (talk) 19:31, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Trying to upload a photo

I've started a page about the well-known French horn player Lucien Thévet, which is an English translation of the page on the French Wikipedia created by his daughter. I've been trying to upload my own photo of the Selmer Thévet model horn from Wikimedia, but so far all I see is the caption but no photo. Also, despite my efforts to fix changes to the formatting in "Edit Source," I can't seem to make those happen. For example, under "Discography," the first piece under Mozart is his Concerto for Horn and Orchestra No. 3, KV 447. There are two recordings, 1) Society of Wind Instruments, Fernand Oubradous, conductor (Gramophone);

                         2) Fernand Oubradous Chamber Orchestra, Fernand Oubradous, conductor (Pathé), 

but the second one has been moved to the left margin and is outside the grey box (which I didn't insert). How do I fix this?

    Finally, although I'm still awaiting a couple of other photos from the French source, at what point will my version be made public? How is that done?

Thanks! Corniste6367 (talk) 19:35, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

The problem with your second photo is that you omitted the file extension ".jpg". Your general formatting of your draft needs a lot of work. You mustn't put spaces at the start of a line as it screws up the formatting as it did in your question here. You also need to sort out your section headings and remove the misplaced external links. You need to look at the WP:Manual of Style. It certainly won't be made public in its current state. You'll find further advice at WP:Your first article. --David Biddulph (talk) 19:49, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Reactivating a WikiProject

I am relatively new to active editing here. I have an interest in reactivating an inactive WikiProject. I am reading the docs on WikiProjects, the history of the project, watching the active editors on pages related to the project, and exploring WikiProjects similar to the one I am interested in. What is unclear to me is the current community temperament related to WikiProjects? What say you? Fool's errand or worthy effort to undertake. philoserf (talk) 21:10, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Which WikiProject are you interested in reactivating? --Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 21:15, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

I intentionally left that out. I am less interested in advice about a specific WikiProject than I am in the community view on reactivating WikiProjects in general. philoserf (talk) 21:22, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

I found this here and here about reviving a Wikiproject --Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 21:27, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Thegooduser. I found those too. philoserf (talk) 21:32, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

It seems I was right to wonder. I found this current conversation Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#In defence of wikiprojects — philoserf (talk) 07:06, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Aurat March vandalism problem

This article has an IP vandalism problem because the topic is controversial. Would an editor look at and decide if it needs to be nominated for semi-protection? David notMD (talk) 21:25, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

​ Support semi-protection: Named editors seem to be behaving. If you're asking for a duration suggestion I'd say maybe 2 1/2 weeks? Any input from the article's primary editors on the talk page? --Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 21:55, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

User:Bookku, the creating editor, has asked for anti-vandalism help on the article's Talk page. I posted my query here because I am not familiar with the process of proposing temporary semi-protection. David notMD (talk) 21:58, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

The both of you may want to consult WP:ROUGHSEMI to learn more about semi-protection. You can request it by posting {{Edit semi-protected}} on the article's talk page. (David notMD—Bookku) --Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 22:31, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

I made a request for semi-protection here. Sdkb (talk) 23:58, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks to all of you for supporting the article In my absence too article remains is taken care of and remains protected. Feeling good. Thanks and warm regards Bookku (talk) 01:59, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Edits on the Visual Editor

Can you change cell colours and text alignments on the visual editor or do you have to use source? WDM10 (talk) 23:49, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

@WDM10: Welcome to the Teahouse! An earlier question (#Colouring of cells) asked about this and it does not seem that the Visual Editor is able to do that and you would have to use source. Instructions for colouring cells can be found at Help:Table#Color; scope of parameters. --Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 01:00, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

@Tenryuu:Thanks. How about text alignment? WDM10 (talk) 01:20, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

@WDM10: What you're looking for is in this MetaWiki page. Scroll down to the align="right" section.

Ok so just to confirm, source editing is the only way to make these adjustments? WDM10 (talk) 01:37, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

WDM10, I have looked and never found a way to do much beyond adding and removing cells and editing text inside them. Adding to that what it says at WP:VE#Limitations and the fact that, in the past one year that I have followed Teahouse discussions, no one has come forward to say they have found additional functionalities, I would say the answer to your question is — almost certainly so. My best guess is, you can do no more than what is included at Wikipedia:VisualEditor/User guide#Editing tables. Most experienced editors don't use visual editing at all, so I find it unlikely you'll get an answer in the definitive here. The editors at the official feedback page should be able to tell you exactly what can/can't be done, why it is so, and when if ever that'll change. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 06:35, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Ok thanks for your help. WDM10 (talk) 06:45, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

is there a quick link for citation needed?

I see citation needed sporadically, and I just read about it and it has it can be inserted in what I would call long hand (by putting the left special brackets with citation needed and two right handed special brackets. I've looked over the items above this editing area, but I can't see one that's for inserting citation needed. Is there one or is the only way to do it longhand? Mikethewhistle-original (talk) 00:27, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

{{cn}} Meters (talk) 00:45, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Sorry. You mean you want a button to inset the 6 characters for you? If you select Wikimarkup you can select {{}} and save 4 characters... Meters (talk) 00:48, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

@Mikethewhistle-original: Meters has the best solution for you. {{Citation needed}} is a template and requires the curly braces on both sides, and {{Cn}} is recognised as the same template but abbreviated. --Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 01:03, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

lol "insert 6 chars". I apologize but I have a disability so I try to find a way to make things easier where i can. when i was younger and before life become more problematic i would not have asked such a question.Mikethewhistle-original (talk) 01:12, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Didn't mean anything by the "6 characters". I initially thought that you didn't know that that you could use a template at all, realized my mistake, but never thought that you might be doing the full template call. Meters (talk) 01:21, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

@Mikethewhistle-original: I understand what you mean; I sometimes edit very long articles and do everything in source code and references sometimes take up space that could be used for something else. While it might not necessarily solve your "citation needed" problem, are you using the Visual Editor? Otherwise you could install Cacycle's wikEd editor to use for source code editing; I've used it for years and it has buttons for formatting text and inserting tables and stuff. --Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 01:25, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm just using barebones is how i'd describe it. I will give it a try and truly appreciate the info. i've got more time to edit now (unfort b/c of my disability) so it's double-edged. TYMikethewhistle-original (talk) 02:01, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Mikethewhistle-original, from the top of the editing window, click 'Insert', choose 'Template', provide "cn" without quotes as the template name and click 'Add template'. More intuitive alternative to 'cn' would be 'fact'. The window refreshes with options but you don't need to do anything, just click 'Insert'. This works for both source and visual editing. In fact all things that are added by putting a pair of curly braces around them can be added this way. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 05:22, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Requesting neutral party for page creation

My article (a living person biography) got deleted as ambiguous. I would like to seek help in getting this created by a neutral party as I am connected with the subject of the biography. How do I proceed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vinastrings (talk • contribs) 04:29, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Vinastrings, you can put in a request at WP:Requested articles but please know that all wikipedia editors are volunteers who work only on what interests them, and almost universally take a dim view of any attempts to use Wikipedia for promotion. The best advice would be to just stop trying, as Wikipedia is not for promotion and it's not necessarily a good thing to have an article here. When the subject becomes sufficiently notable, someone neutral and uninvolved will think of creating an article without your asking and/or even if you object. The second best advice would be that you declare your connection to the subject as instructed at WP:COI and try again, in draftspace of course. Please take a look at other biographies on people in similar professions for guidance. See MOS:PUFF for some examples of promotional words to avoid. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 05:45, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

It was not deleted as "ambiguous". It was deleted as "unambiguous advertising". Maproom (talk) 08:33, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Merge

I want to change what a article merges with as it merges to something that doesn't make much sense compared to another existing article that would be more relevant. ("Carving ski" which goes to the page for skiing which should actually go to "Carve Turn") Dellwood546 (talk) 04:41, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Dellwood546, when you type in Carving ski and the page Ski opens, at the top, it will have "(Redirected from Carving ski)". Click on the bluelink there, and it will take you to the redirect page which you can edit to change where it targets to. Click edit and change the part that says "Ski" to "Carve turn". Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 05:56, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Note the correct target for the redirect would be Carved turn (i.e. with a 'd' and a lower-case 't'). —[AlanM1(talk)]— 11:48, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank You! Dellwood546 (talk) 17:27, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Notability

How does one determine "notability"? I would like to create an article on a US/New Zealand artist, Brit Bunkley. He has about 25 hard copy references in catalogs and books and a reasonably strong online presence, but no monographs. He has won significant prizes, but most of them were in the USA years ago. He currently does quite well in prestigious video/film festivals. Any suggestions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndreaSG50 (talk • contribs) 05:12, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

AndreaSG50, to satisfy notability, the subject needs to meet the criteria described at WP:GNG. Short of that, we can have an article on an artist based on the presumption of notability if they meet at least one of the criteria at WP:NARTIST. After you read those criteria, if you think the artist meets either of those, you can start a WP:DRAFT and submit for review and advice from experienced editors. Note that the sources do not have to be online or new, but they need to be secondary, reliable and independent to contribute toward notability. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 06:02, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

A heads up just in case it applies to you, we have a strict policy regarding conflict-of-interest-editing. So, if you are connected to the artist or have a financial interest in writing an article on them, you must disclose it. See WP:COI and WP:PAID. Usedtobecool ☎️ 06:08, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Copy-pasting draft to an already-existing article

Hello. My question is, is it uncivil to move a draft to an already existing article? I recently copy-pasted a draft to an existing article. By the time I copy-pasted the information I had not finished fixing formatting aspects of the cites. The creator of such already existing article got mad and started formatting the article as his like, writing in edits summaries that I copy-pasted my "entirely poorly formatted user draft" onto the article and claimed I was violating WP:OWN (I'm not the creator of the article, he is, and I could not find anything related to drafts in such policy). He later left a message on my talk page saying he would revert me if I do it again. Did I do something wrong? Did I actually violate any Wikipedia rule? That's what I want to know. Thank you. --Paparazzzi (talk) 06:19, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any actual "rule" against it, and I don't consider any good faith edit uncivil, but unless you're overwriting a redirect or a short stub with absolutely nothing worth saving, you might find other editors who have actively edited the article take offense, rightly or wrongly. If you do boldly overwrite an article and are then reverted, in my opinion the best thing is to avoid an edit war by editing the article piece by piece, retaining whatever existed that's worthwhile. Of course, if no one objects, there's no problem. Station1 (talk) 06:56, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Good to know. Thank you so much. I tried to move the draft to the article before but I could not do it. After copy-pasting, the creator of the article accused me of WP:OWN and said that he will revert me if I do it again. He also called me a "semi-experienced editor" that has "no idea how Wikipedia works" and said that my draft "was not even that well-written". Was that uncivil from his side? He has also labelled other user's editions as "crap", "stupid bs" and "fancruft bs". Isn't he being a bully towards other users? Regards, Paparazzzi (talk) 07:08, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

You can't actually move a draft over an existing article because that would destroy all traces of the old article in case someone wants to reinstate it, as well as its history. It would be the same as deleting an article without discussion and then creating a new one in its place, which is definitely not allowed. Overwriting an existing article is different, because, as in your case, someone who disagrees can simply revert your edit, just like any other edit. That revert was certainly allowed, and once reverted, you shouldn't try the same thing again without first gaining consensus on the article's talk page or elsewhere, but yes, in my opinion it probably could have been handled with a little more civility. Station1 (talk) 07:30, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

You're right Station1, it could have been handled with a little more civility on my part. I will not indulge in Paparazzzi's claims of me "bullying" editors in summaries when I think I was understandably frustrated when the user HaysonDage had restored their edits twice at that point, disregarding BRD, and inserted a claim to the lead, unsourced and not a quote, that Lovato's song is an "empowerment anthem". That's what I was calling "fancruft BS".

Now, onto what else Paparazzzi tried to take out of context and frame differently here. I said on their talk page: "It's like even despite being a semi-expierenced editor here, Paparazzzi, you have little to no idea how Wikipedia works." I said this because they went to WP:RM/TR with a request here, despite creating their user draft two days after I Love Me (song) was started by me, and tried to get the existing article erased in favour of their userspace draft. A user who would think for even a second that an admin is going to completely erase an article's detailed contribution history in favour of a draft you've worked on because you prefer your own work, is laughable and newbie-like behaviour. It does not matter that an article is a stub or less detailed than what you've written. We're not going to erase histories for stuff like this, as Station1 has rightly pointed out. Furthermore, editors should not be disregarding WP:CITEVAR and erasing everyone else's work. So it does not matter that you, Paparazzzi, "had not finished fixing formatting aspects of the cites". As I am the creator of the article who first added detailed references to it, per CITEVAR, that means you stick with the existing citation format and order. You did not do this regardless. You would not have formatted them back to how they were, because by overwriting the existing articles, you proved you don't care how it was. A subsequent edit proves Paparazzzi does not care to stick with the existing citation style [1] that I originated.

Paparazzzi has previously extensively contributed to Demi Lovato's articles, including starting the article for her previous single Anyone, and seems to think because they have an interest in her as a pop singer that they now get to overwrite all of her articles with what they've worked on in their own time. I cannot recall specific instances, but I am certain I recall Paparazzzi has done this before. Replacing an entire article with outdated Template:Infobox song formatting, erasing all references and replacing them with citations that have an incorrect date format for an artist who is American, and making no attempt to include the authors of said articles or the publication dates, is not a draft that should be overwriting a previous article entirely. This is why I said I will revert Paparazzzi should they do this here or elsewhere in future. If the article already exists, you work on the article as-is bit by bit, or copy what is on the article into your userspace to work on it there. You don't originate your own article and overwrite what all other editors have done (Or if you do, be prepared to be near-insantly reverted for thinking that's going to fly). That is not on. Ss112 07:44, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Paparazzzi now also seems to be disregarding WP:BRD after my edits and restoring unreliable pop music blogs that I had already removed [2], as well as removing tags from others, claiming that I'm tagging or removing them because they're in another language [3]. I have extensively used sources in other languages on articles where appropriate, and made plenty of K-pop articles and articles about works in other languages—it's not because they're in another language at all, so any implications to the contrary are inappropriate and untrue. It's because the non-English sources used are unreliable pop music blogs. One is a UOL HOST website, the Wiki article for which clearly states it's a "website hosting service", which sounds like a blog to me. If you have concerns about the use of "Je Ne Sais Pop" on the article, Paparazzzi, you discuss it on the talk page per WP:BRD. You don't continue to restore your changes. Ss112 08:02, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

• "Paparazzzi has previously extensively contributed to Demi Lovato's articles" That's wrong, here on the English Wikipedia I have previously contributed significatively only on Fix a Heart and Anyone (Demi Lovato song)
• "seems to think because they have an interest in her as a pop singer that they now get to overwrite all of her articles with what they've worked on in their own time. I cannot recall specific instances, but I am certain I recall Paparazzzi has done this before." So you are basically accusing me of something because of your intuition?
• Jenesaispop is a reliable Spanish website run by a group of Spanish journalist who have previously worked on other important Spanish publications, it is not a blog. Of course I will discuss it on the talk page.
• As of now, you have not said you will apologize for calling somebody's editions "crap" and "bs". Remember WP:BITE. Paparazzzi (talk) 08:25, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Paparazzzi, you overwrote the cooperative work of a dozen other editors with your own version, and described what you had done as a "merge". Ok, "crap" and "bs" are rude. It's hardly surprising that some of them were annoyed, but they should have used more polite language. I would describe your action as arrogant, incompetent, and dishonest. Maproom (talk) 08:52, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Ok. Thank you @Station1: for replying and telling me it is not ok to move/re-write a draft over an existing article. I apologize for that and it won't happen again. And thank you for your kind words, @Maproom:, they are really appreciated.Paparazzzi (talk) 09:01, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Okay, great, then I may be wrong about you copypasting your userspace work over mainspace articles in the past. My bad—it might have been another user. Whatever the case, you still did it here, which was wrong to do, and the two other users who have contributed here have basically concurred. Don't do it in future. Ss112 09:05, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Paparazzzi, yes, Ss112 could have been more polite but their advice is sound if you can look past that. Also, IMO, if you can cite BITE, it does not apply to you, WP:CIVIL still does though. If you think Ss112 has chronic behaviourial problems, the venue to raise that is WP:ANI but beware both editors' behaviours will be scrutinised there. Also, note that competence is required, so if Ss112, an experienced editor, has previously said why something is wrong and the other editor persists rather than cease or discuss, Ss112 gets a bit of a leeway to lose their cool, up to a certain limit of course.

In the case of what you did with your draft, it was insulting to Ss112's work, so I can understand their terse message at your talk page. We are a community working toward a common goal. Sometimes, your good faith actions can hurt others even when you don't use a rude word. So, I don't see a point to escalating this at this time. Ss112 has already acknowledged that they could have done better. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 09:23, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

question about WP:NPOV

Does "war hero" violate this? This was in reference to John McCain but not on his page. When I look at his page "war hero" a/o "hero" is on his page, but the context in which they are used are negative comments. So I guess I'm trying to understand why if it violated the npov would the comments with it presenting it in a negative manner be ok. thx Mikethewhistle-original (talk) 10:05, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Mikethewhistle-original, NPOV isn't about the intrinsic quality of words themselves. It's about reflecting the sources proportionately and accurately without introducing editorial bias by Wikipedia. So, if a given subject hasn't been called a war-hero by very many sources in the positive sense but a lot of them have discussed the issue when it was used in the negative contexts, Wikipedia would reflect that and it would not violate NPOV. The best place to hash it all out is the talk page of that article itself though, that's where editors should discuss the number and quality of sources that use the word with regard to the subject in each context/connotation and arrive at a consensus as to whether the mention should be in the positive sense, the negative, both or neither, in Wikipedia's voice or attributed and with quotes, and so on. Usedtobecool ☎️ 11:56, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks that is helpful. (Although I have to be honest that I've not found the talk page too helpful where I've tried to use it but that could be related to low traffic on pages or interest). I guess as a Navy vet myself, McCain was a bit of a hero to me who I respected a great deal for his sacrifice so it was without any thought that I used it and I'm glad the other user removed it and gave me the ref and I found my way here. TY Mikethewhistle-original (talk) 12:15, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Looking for Recommendations

Hello everyone, I am a serial DOTA 2 addict and believe that we can add a lot of stuff about the game here. For instance, characters, players, etc. Because whenever you search for these you get links from other websites. Now I know, there isn't a lot of significant coverage about many of them (and that I believe to be one of the most important reasons for the lack of Wikipedia pages) but I was wondering if Wikipedia guidelines for characters and items differ in any way or we can go about them in some other way maybe? And also I haven't come across any WikiProjects regarding the game either. I would love to have inputs before I can move forward with my research. Thanks. NotJuggerNot (talk) 10:09, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

NotJuggerNot Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. It is important to remember that Wikipedia is not a game guide and any article about a game should not attempt to describe the characters and items extensively(unless there is much coverage about them in independent reliable sources). It's fine to briefly describe the plot of the game without a specific source, (such as how Super Mario Bros. or The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild do) as the game itself is okay to use as a source for its plot. Some individual characters merit articles (such as Mario or Sonic the Hedgehog (character)) because independent sources have extensively written about them. Unless something has significant coverage, it shouldn't be written about here.

There is a general video games WikiProject that may be able to give you better assistance. 331dot (talk) 11:02, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Hey 331dot, thanks for the help. Really appreciate it. not a game guide is honestly what I exactly needed to read. And yes I have started a discussion on video games WikiProject. Let's see what response I get from the people there. Thanks again. NotJuggerNot (talk) 13:50, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

NotJuggerNot Are you thinking about adding content to this site specifically? There's already a Gamepedia dedicated to it. --Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 15:05, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Stubs vs Articles

I recently attempted to create a new stub for a Lebanese professional. I used a stub, specifically, because there is not sufficient material available for an article. I attempted to create the stub by creating a new article and adding a 'stub' tag. In less than 12 hours, a reviewer was eager to reject the 'article' because he was unconvinced that this person deserved an article.

I am confused, because a person from a third-world country who becomes a physician and then goes on to practice medicine internationally is indeed someone whose accomplishments should be noted. History has shown, in particular, that this cohort of individuals frequently rise to the top of society and have a lifetime of achievement recognized (once their life is over). To note: I sourced everything possible, and even created archives of the sources on the internet archive.

I am writing to ask if there is anything that I may have done to make it unclear that I was working on a stub? Are there any strategies that I can take to avoid conflict based on the subjective assessment of 'they're not worthy?' I really feel like I took the time to learn the rules, applied them, and promptly had my work trashed due to a failure to understand what I'm trying to accomplish. I did have nearly 40 such people lined up for stubs, but if this scenario is guaranteed to repeat itself I will simply delete my account and make no effort to 'grow wikipedia.'

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lebodiasp (talk • contribs) 11:08, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Lebodias Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm sorry that you haven't had a good experience; successfully writing a new article is the hardest possible task to undertake on Wikipedia. It takes much time and practice. Users are much more successful when they first edit existing articles in areas that interest them, to get a feel for how Wikipedia works. Diving right in to creating article usually ends up as it unfortunately has for you. I'm sorry to hear that.

If you are creating and submitting a draft for review, a stub will not be accepted. By using that process it is assumed that you will develop it into at least the beginnings of a full article, not just a stub. It's only existing articles that are started without a review that get marked as stubs, so others can work on them.

The sources that you offered aren't appropriate for establishing that the man you wrote about meets Wikipedia's special definition of a notable person. You must have independent reliable sources with significant coverage of the person- more than a brief mention. The article should summarize what those sources say. Your sources just cite his academic achievements and residency. If he is not written about significantly in independent sources, he would not merit an article at this time, regardless of how well you write it. Wikipedia is not a forum to merely recognize achievement- it summarizes what independent sources state.

I would be very sorry to see you leave, but I will inform you that for legal and technical reasons, accounts cannot be deleted- if you no longer wish to use it, just abandon your account. I would suggest you read things like Your First Article and use the new user tutorial before that, though. 331dot (talk) 11:18, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

331dot, A stub that shows the subject meets an WP:SNG is accepted, there's no requirement that an AFC submission should meet WP:GNG. All an AFC reviewer is supposed to do is evaluate whether the draft would be deleted at AFD if it were an article. Stubs meeting SNG aren't. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 11:43, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Lebodiasp, A stub on a subject that doesn't meet the general notability guidelines as explained at WP:GNG requires to demonstrate with reliable sources that the subject meets at least the subject specific notability criteria. In case of a doctor, that would be WP:NACADEMIC. Best, Usedtobecool ☎️ 11:24, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

WP:TOOSOON applies to any person in the early stages of their career who has not yet been written about by others. David notMD (talk) 11:28, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

I am no longer confused and there is no need for anyone to take their time to explain further. I regret that I cannot delete this to save you the time and effort.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Lebodiasp (talk • contribs)

International Women's Day

March 8th is International Women's Day. The article is semi-protected due to recent vandalism. David notMD (talk) 12:26, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

David notMD, ?? Usedtobecool ☎️ 13:09, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

A statement, not a question or request. David notMD (talk) 14:44, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

David notMD, ah, ok! It was in the midst of an edit war. So, I was wondering if something might have been lost. Good to know. Thanks! Usedtobecool ☎️ 16:38, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Columns question

In List of abolitionists#Individuals, why is the columns template (to display in two columns) not working? deisenbe (talk) 13:01, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

@Deisenbe: I see two columns as long as the browser window is wide enough for a reasonable amount to be displayed (starting at about 1500 pixels in my case). —[AlanM1(talk)]— 13:07, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

This is entirely proportional to the size of the browser window. I see 5 columns in my 2560 pixel window.--AlainV (talk) 14:25, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

To source or not to source...

Hello Teahousers! Based on what I have encountered here and point # 7 of WP:DEL-REASON as interpreted there (arguably somewhat in conflict with #6), I seem to be wrong in my wish to continue to adhere to the principle that articles tagged for years due to lack of sources should be deleted. Must one oneself conduct a thorough search for sources which includes printed media before suggesting that such an article be deleted? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:55, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi SergeWoodzing and welcome to the Teahouse! Before nominating an article for deletion, one should follow WP:BEFORE. When it comes to your question, c and d are relevant. The absolute minimums all include online searches for sources (Google, Google News, Google Scholar, etc). This is the minimum before all AfD nominations, including articles that have been tagged as unsourced for years. However, if offline sources exist, they can be used and mentioned as sources in the AfD. Sources also don't have to be in English. Wikipedia:Offline sources is an explanatory supplement to the verifiability policy, and something you might find interesting. If you have any other questions, feel free to come back and ask. Clovermoss (talk) 16:21, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I now know how to double-check what you may have seen as my allegation that no sources do exist for a certain article, and also for future reference.

I have no objection or question re: "C", as long as we agree that "C-4" cannot stand alone for a "Keep" when there are no sources at all.

If no offline sources have been cited for several years for a clearly source-tagged article, must one attempt to search for them? I wouldn't know how to do that, to be frank. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:42, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi SergeWoodzing. Thanks for the thank you, it's nice to know that you considered my previous response helpful. As for searching for sources for articles that have been unsourced for years, yes that's still something that should be done. The minimum is searching for online sources. You don't have to search for offline sources, but if they exist they might be mentioned in a keep vote and result in the article being kept. When I search for offline sources, that usually involves a trip to my local library. The way I search for online sources involves searching for the article title and other key phrases used in the article likely to turn up results (although it's important to make sure that the results aren't circular sources). When there's articles tagged as unsourced, there are links on the template itself that you can click on to the search for sources, which is something I find quite useful. Clovermoss (talk) 01:46, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you again! My only remaining question was about offline sources when I wrote to you last time. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:04, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

New article advice

I've not created an article before, but would like to for Quire Cleveland, a highly-praised early music ensemble. It is on a par with Apollo's Fire (which already has a substantial Wikipedia page) and shares many of the same singers. As for notability, a quick search shows these entries:

1. http://www.bach-cantatas.com/Bio/Quire-Cleveland.htm
2. https://store.cdbaby.com/Artist/QuireCleveland
3. https://www.cleveland.com/arts/2020/02/quire-cleveland-addresses-modern-day-with-immigrant-themed-journey-home-program.html
4. https://www.cleveland.com/musicdance/2018/09/fall_classical_music_and_dance_16.html
5. https://clevelandclassical.com/quire-cleveland-bids-adieu-to-its-founders-with-free-retrospective-concert-at-st-johns/
6. https://www.choirplace.com/choirs/250/quire-cleveland
7. https://clevelandclassical.com/cd-review-quire-cleveland-englands-phoenix-william-byrd-divine-music-for-choir/

Would such as these qualify as "reliable sources"? Tmciver (talk) 16:44, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Tmciver, and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm afraid that, in my opinion, the answer is No. The only one that appears to be independent of QC is the CD review - but that is of the CD, and says hardly anything about the choir. The rest are all derived from what the choir says.

The question always is "where have people wholly unconnected with the choir, and unprompted by them, chosen to write at some length about the choir, and been published somewhere with a reputation for editorial control and fact checking?"

Unless you can answer that question in the affirmative, at least twice, then the choir is not notable. Sorry. --ColinFine (talk) 17:47, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for advice. What about the cited references for a group like this, then? Are they acceptable? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Trinity_Baroque Tmciver (talk) 20:47, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Would this be considered an acceptable source? https://clevelandclassical.com/ross-duffin-beverly-simmons-talk-about-quire-clevelands-10th-anniversary-season/ Tmciver (talk) 21:09, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

For a different proposed articles, what about these from Plain Dealer and NY Times?: https://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/15/arts/music/an-avant-garde-odyssey-fromles-delices-ensemble-at-columbia.html?smprod&_r=1 https://www.cleveland.com/musicdance/2015/04/clevelands_les_delices_rising.html Tmciver (talk) 21:24, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Biography is likely being edited by subject - what to do?

Hi, Maria Kavallaris's page is being edited by a username called Mkavallaris (more than likely the subject of the page). The edits are fairly minor, but this is a potential conflict of interest for the user. I generally stick to editing or creating pages, so I'm not sure how to flag this issue. If anyone has suggestions or knows what to do, please let me know or feel free to take action. Soulsinsync (talk) 17:18, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

@Soulsinsync: Have a brief look at the edits and check if they compy with WP:NPOV and so forth. As you have already created articles, you probbably already know this. then, insert {{subst:Welcome-COI|Article name goes here}} on their talkpage, along with some personal lines that mention additional policies, if nessesary. Victor Schmidt (talk) 17:26, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

@Victor Schmidt: Will do, thank you! Soulsinsync (talk) 18:40, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Finding online sources

I'm working on an article about lighting visualization as a part of WikiProject Stagecraft and I'm running into some difficulties. Namely, since the article's topic is digital, I'd like to track down some web-based references. However, the only online sources I can find are either from sellers, blogs, or forums, none of which are particularly reliable. Is it alright to have primarily print references for a digital topic? The draft is in its early stages and I'm working on expanding it further, but I'd like to ensure that its references are up to quality standards before I do. Thanks a bunch! Codecinderblock (talk) 17:28, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi Codecinderblock and welcome to the Teahouse! If you can find more reliable sources offline than online, then go for it! You might also find Wikipedia:Offline sources to be an interesting read. If you have any other questions, feel free to come back and ask. Clovermoss (talk) 17:37, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Codecinderblock, yes. There is no requirement that sources be easy to access, and paper sources are generally considered more reliable on nearly all topics. ~~ Alex Noble - talk 17:39, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Customizing user page

I want to add in some templates to describe myself and my interests in my user page. Can I get some templates to start with? Aswin8 (talk) 17:46, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Aswin8, Yes. These are called userboxes, and there's quite a few of them. Wikipedia:Userboxes is the information page, and there is a list of all of them at Wikipedia:Userboxes/Galleries/alphabetical ~~ Alex Noble - talk 17:56, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Aswin8, Also, the easiest way to just look at the source of other users' pages, and just copy what they have done. ~~ Alex Noble - talk 17:57, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Aswin8, WP:USERBOX should help. You can also copy templates that you find on other users' userpages whichever ones suit you. Best, Usedtobecool ☎️ 17:58, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

I keep getting warnings about reliable sources

Hi, This is the page I'm creating: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Giuseppe_Cristiano I keep on getting it drafted because of sources, and it's getting very frustating. I have already worked on a wikipedia page before, and it got perfectly accepted as an article. I keep on finding good resources, but apparently it's still not good enough. How can I make it work so I get my page about this artist I want to make an article about finally uploaded as an article? I usually work with the visual editor. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mgab05 (talk • contribs) 19:30, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Mgab05 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I would suggest asking the reviewer that declined your draft directly as to what their specific concerns were. 331dot (talk) 19:37, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

It looks as if the vast proportion of the cited references were to material written by the the subject. What Wikipedia needs to demonstrate notability are references to detailed coverage about the subject in published reliable sources independent of the subject. --David Biddulph (talk) 19:52, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Confused

This is going to come across as a little pissy, but I'm a little annoyed...and confused. I created a page for an index created by a Federal Reserve bank and cited it appropriately, yet it wasn't approved. Meanwhile, subjects that are less prominent that are cited in a way that is only as prominent but usually less are up and running. (See the links below.) It seems so scattershot. What has to happen to get things approved? It seems like the rules aren't being applied fairly.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:St._Louis_Fed_Financial_Stress_Index

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jiri_Zidek_(paleontologist)

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

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

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

(Wpearce1983.k (talk) 21:29, 8 March 2020 (UTC))

Welcome to the Teahouse, Wpearce1983.k. The article draft review process hasn't always existed, and some of those other articles you link to were created much earlier in the history of Wikipedia. It's also only new editors who have to submit drafts - more established editors can create articles directly, so some poor-quality articles slip through that way. The advantage of having a draft held to a higher standard is that once it's accepted, it's unlikely to be nominated for deletion, whereas poor articles that have yet to be noticed are always liable to have that happen. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:43, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

As for the specific issue of Draft:St. Louis Fed Financial Stress Index, the main thing to do is add references to independent sources that discuss the topic in some depth. You've cited two sources, but they're not independent of the subject. See Wikipedia:The answer to life, the universe, and everything on this. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:50, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the insight. I've added multiple additional sources that should suffice. Wpearce1983.k (talk) 23:40, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Wpearce1983.k, I went ahead and accepted the draft. You are definitely right about those other articles, however the excuse "well X exists and that's a bad article, why can't Y exist" is not an endearing argument for many new article reviewers. In my mind, actions speak louder than words. You put in the effort to put good reliable sources in your article that showed its notability and that's why it got accepted. Bkissin (talk) 13:45, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Musician

I’m a musician/artist trying to create a artist page, so when people type my name in the search bar there is an informational in Wikipedia. I recently signed a contract with BMI;) soo excited! Just wanted to expand network opportunities -thank you -Isaiah — Preceding unsigned comment added by Isaiahvox (talk • contribs) 21:57, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

You misunderstand. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and is not for promotion. You can find advice about conflict of interest, and about paid editing. --David Biddulph (talk) 22:05, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

@Isaiahvox: Welcome to the Teahouse. Unfortunately this is NOT what Wikipedia is used for. Aside from the issues David Biddulph has posed above, perhaps Instagram, Soundcloud, or other social media apps are better suited for you? --Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 00:28, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Article rejected

If this draft is not an autobiography, it may be resubmitted with an explanation on the draft talk page that it is not an autobiography.

Where to add this comment in talk page ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Salvadi Actor (talk • contribs) 01:33, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

User:Salvadi Actor/sandbox upper left has a Talk page. Be aware that this draft was first Declined and then Rejected, the latter meaning that in the opinion of an expert reviewer, there is no potential for this meeting Wikipedia' definition of notability. Same for Draft:Dilip Kumar Salvadi created by a different editor, same day (7 March). David notMD (talk) 01:43, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

This: wikipedia-airbrushes-list-of-climate-skeptical-scientists-out-of-history/

I actually donated to Wikipedia in the past. After this (article of Wikipedia airbrushing list of climate skeptic scientists--which this page didn't even allow me to mention...!!! wtf!!), no longer will I consider it. Am spreading the word about this type of closed-minded censorship with Wikipedia. So. Disappointing. As someone with a PhD in physics, I've found that those who censor challenges to their positions, or demean those who challenge their positions, can't defend their positions in the open. Nothing is "settled" you fools. Nothing in physics or science is "incontrovertible." If that were the case, we would have stopped learning science with Lord Kelvin's pronouncement 120 years ago, and your precious addiction to youtube and that device in your pocket wouldn't even be possible because quantum mechanics wouldn't exist, to name just ONE subject. What a bunch of maroons. Again, pathetic. Asking questions, and challenging ideas is how science works! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.123.248.93 (talk) 02:13, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi, welcome to the Teahouse. We have six million articles and I'm not sure what you refer to. Your post is the only result on a search for "climate-skeptical scientists". After searching deleted pages with somewhat related titles I did eventually find List of scientists who disagree with the scientific consensus on global warming. It was deleted in November after discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of scientists who disagree with the scientific consensus on global warming. Maybe this is what you refer to. It doesn't have climate or sceptical in the title and I would have expected a physics PhD to be more precise. As far as I know, it was the only list of scientists based on beliefs on any subject. It's not really something we make lists about but we have many articles about climate sceptics, e.g. in Category:Climate change denial. Anyway, the top of this page says this is a place where you can ask questions and get help in using and editing Wikipedia. I don't see a question or help request. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:50, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, that's the one. Brietbart just today found out the article was deleted four months ago. --

AntiComposite (talk) 04:33, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether being called a "maroon" is uncivil and if so whether it is better or worse than being called "teal", "puce", "indigo" or "burnt umber". I suspect that the worst is probably "pistachio" but I'm no expert in colourology.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   05:01, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

This place is full of taupes, in my experience. —Мандичка^YO 😜 07:20, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

coronavirus death rates

Dear Wikipedians, Can we make a death rates based on the reference below? I think that it is quite beneficial information about danger of coronavirus but it is now missing in Wikipedia. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 04:58, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

• Link of coronavirus death rates:

References

I would be against it on the grounds that it's a one-time snapshot of numbers, rather than a continuously updated record like some (such as this one) linked at the foot of the main article, that will rapidly become outdated, and therefore misleading.

I also question its basic logic. It's comparing the number of deaths to the number of total known cases, but currently around half of the total known cases are still in progress, and an unknown number of these may also result in deaths.

If one looks only at the cases that are known to have run their course and resulted in recovery or death, the death rate is very different – worldwide, about 5.6% so far. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.202.168.21 (talk) 05:17, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

@Goodtiming8871: Welcome to the Teahouse. It's more appropriate to ask that on the article's talk page. I have to agree with the IP editor above me; with the number of updates that the situation gets a day it will become outdated quickly unless it's stated that those were the statistics at that time. --Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 05:42, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

@Tenryuu: Thank you for your Kind response Goodtiming8871 (talk) 06:16, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

I need help with editor that undoes all my edits

There is an editor that is undoing all my edits and driving me crazy. They have had a past issue and been blocked for it. I have to confess I'm coming here because it's driving me over the edge and i need to take a step back before I too go too far. But they also undo edits of any user who edits a page they think they own. I thought wiki was a community and not something someone owns. What can I do because what little hair I have left (and it's mostly in my ears), can I do before I pull it all out???? I'm so exasperated I'm not even sure what to do. I have tried communicating, but they are dogmatic that pretty much any change someone else makes violates some rule on wiki.Mikethewhistle-original (talk) 05:04, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Mikethewhistle-original You've already asked and been given some good advice to follow. It is indeed up to you to make a case for your edits if they are removed; please discuss your edits and what you want to do on the article talk page. If you are unfamiliar with the guidelines, that's okay, but you then need to let others calmly point them out to you. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort where we all must work together. 331dot (talk) 07:11, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Article rejected

I declared that it is not autobibiography as mentioned in the reviewer feedback. Please let me know do I need to resubmit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Salvadi Actor (talk • contribs) 06:59, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

If you are not Salvadi, you should go to Special:GlobalRenameRequest or WP:CHUS to request a change of username, you should not use his name as your username if you are not him. Before submitting it again, you should review the Wikipedia definition of a notable actor and see what independent reliable sources with significant coverage you have of him. The sources you have are not appropriate for establishing notability. IMDB is not considered a reliable source here as it is user-editable, and the other sources seem to just document his films. 331dot (talk) 07:07, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Visual editing not available. Only 2017 wikitext editor available.

All of my edits seem to be coming from the 2017 wikitext editor. When attempting to edit, I also cannot switch to visual editing for some reason. Does anyone know why this is happening? Chlod (say hi!) 07:09, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

• I'm also here to find out what's going on. This is very buggy and annoying. —Мандичка^YO 😜 07:16, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

  @Wikimandia and Chlod: I haven't been able to replicate. You might want to open a thread at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical), where you'll be more likely to get an answer. ~~ Alex Noble - talk 07:54, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

• What do you mean, you haven't been able to replicate? Are you saying the regular source editor is still available to you and nothing is changed? This is what mine looks like, with no toggling of any kind on my behalf. There's nothing replicate, it just changed. —Мандичка^YO 😜 08:05, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

  Wikimandia, I tried a few pages and visual editor appeared to work properly, with both editors available to use. What are your settings at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-editing ~~ Alex Noble - talk 08:14, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

  Wikimandia, That doesn't look like the 2017 editor. That is just syntax highlighting being enabled.. Use the marker toggle in the editor toolbar to disable it. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 10:49, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, I eventually figured that out. I never enabled that so it was completely annoying and alarming. —Мандичка^YO 😜 11:19, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

@Chlod: The 2017 wikitext editor is enabled with "New wikitext mode" at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-betafeatures. I can switch to VisualEditor both with and without this. If it doesn't work for you then try manually changing action=edit to veaction=edit in the url of an edit page. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:37, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Promotion

Hi all need some help, I am a musician not as popular as some but how does one get their info onto Wikipedia for all to see? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Isaiahvox (talk • contribs) 09:11, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

You appear not to have read the replies which you received at #Musician above. --David Biddulph (talk) 09:56, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Pending edit request

Hey guys. I've had an edit request pending for nearly 2 weeks at Talk:Innocent Umezulike. If any willing editors could review and/or implement the remaining points of the request, that would be greatly appreciated. Davykamanzi → talk • contribs • alter ego 13:08, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Paid user

I am a paid user. Where and how shall i use this code?

Hellone69 you appear to have done it correctly by placing the template on your user page. You should also mention your status in edit summaries whilst making edits. ~~ Alex Noble - talk 14:21, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Peter Golenbock

Hello. I'm thinking of starting another article on this sports writer and best-selling author--it was deleted in January 2020 for not being referenced. Is there anything I need to do, beyond providing plenty of reliable references, because this was so recently deleted? Thank you for your help. Caro7200 (talk) 14:41, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Help to publish the page on Overleaf

As many researchers, I use LaTeX to write papers, in collaboration with other researchers in the world. In recent years, some online solutions have made this process much easier. Currently, the dominant platform to write papers online with other researchers is Overleaf. I wanted to get more information about the company, but realised there is no Wikipedia page. I have decided to finish the draft page that had been rejected previously: Draft:Overleaf.

I have made several attempts to comply with the requirements for publication of an article. I am a paying user of Overleaf. I do not have any link that would create a conflict of interest.

I have cited some of the top publishers using Overleaf, such as Web of Science Group and AIP Publishing, together with some of the top institutions in the world that are using Overleaf for collaborative scientific writing: Harvard, MIT, Princeton, Stanford, DTU, ETH Zurich and CERN. All the original links from these companies and institutions have been cited in the draft of the Overleaf page. I could continue the list and add many more of the top institutions using Overleaf. But if the list above is not enough to prove the notability of the company, I do not think that any list would convince the people who have rejected the publication of the page. So I would really appreciate some help to understand how the most widely used company for collaborative LaTeX editing in the world cannot meet the notability requirements for a Wikipedia page.

If you look at all the other companies listed on the Comparison of TeX editors page, they barely have one reference, if not zero outside from their own website. If Wikipedia editors want to be fair on this, I think they should remove all these pages from Wikipedia. I do not see why those pages meet better the requirements for publication that the extensive collection of information I have provided here. Please let me know how I can get this page published finally. I have already spent several days on it, and I do not see any way to fulfil the requirements raised by the Wikipedia reviewers.

MJ1984 (talk) 14:51, 9 March 2020 (UTC)