Wikipedia:Teahouse

Bonadea, a Teahouse host

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

Question forumMeet your hostsArticles to improveBecome a host

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

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

Most recent archives
1220, 1221, 1222, 1223, 1224, 1225, 1226, 1227, 1228, 1229, 1230, 1231, 1232, 1233, 1234, 1235, 1236, 1237, 1238, 1239

(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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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

AlaricStatus, Thanks, it seems to have been added by an IP about a month ago. Will remove. YorkshireLad (talk) 10:39, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Jugni, try Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pakistan. Best, Usedtobecool ☎️ 18:53, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So far you need to provide sources that he wrote those books, also are you working on your phone? Several sentences are spaced out for no reason and you added some headers without any information below. Remember you can write information that you have sources off, if you don't want to write a header for example "Achievements" don't write it. Editoneer (talk) 13:05, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

Philoserf, these sound like good ideas. I'll be glad to help if I can. keep us posted. --Sm8900 (talk) 04:52, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Mikethewhistle-original, sorry, didn't mean to ignore, I just figured if yours remained the last post, someone else might take a look and provide their perspective. Anyways, about the talk page activity, when I was new, I used to have a lot of trouble with that but nowadays, there are about 2500 pages on my watchlist, so I can wait months waiting a reply on one page while working on other pages. Unless it's an emergency, I have learnt to take as much patience as is called for. I am guessing, you are having a similar problem. You have only a few articles you have worked on or have an interest on, and once you encounter an obstacle there, you've really got a problem as the other editor although readily available to revert you, won't have much of a hurry to resolve the issue speedily so you can move forward. The only solution I fear, is to put the particular issue at hold and move on to other things. About the second thing, I wouldn't worry about it, this happens all the time, and many experienced editors even have trouble remaining neutral on occasion. But, as long as, you step back and reassess, as you've done here, as soon as someone points out a possible issue, you should get along fine. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 16:05, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

thx usedtobecool. good advice. there's more i'd like to say but for once i'll be quiet. tc. Mikethewhistle-original (talk) 21:06, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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:

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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))[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

Article rejected

NAC:OP indeffed as undisclosed paid editing account. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:42, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Maroons in maroon communities in the Caribbean showed great courage and resourcefulness in preserving their freedom in a racially unjust society. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:25, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And for the purposes of challenging your position. You did not donate to Wikipedia, your donation was to the Wikimedia Foundation. - X201 (talk) 09:27, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Link of coronavirus death rates: ^[1]

References

^ BRIEFING One chart shows 11 countries' current coronavirus death rates, based on the known number of cases and deaths https://www.businessinsider.com.au/coronavirus-death-rate-by-country-2020-3?r=US&IR=T

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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

Article rejected

NAC:OP indeffed as UPE account. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:40, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
@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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

Chlod and Wikimandia seem to have different problems.

Chlod, if you want to find the visual editor (more like word processing, similar to Microsoft Word and Google Docs), then look in the far corner for a black pencil icon, and switch to visual editing. Follow PrimeHunter's directions to turn on (or off) the "New wikitext mode" if you'd rather have the toolbar for your wikitext editor match the visual editor's toolbar. Finally, if you prefer the visual mode, then you can also set this as your default in Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-editing.

Wikimandia, your screenshot shows the old 2010 wikitext editor, not the 2017 one. You've also got some extra user scripts involved. If it's still a problem, then please go to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Whatamidoing_(WMF)/sandbox?safemode=1 and see if mw:safemode solves it. If it does, then your best bet is to hope that PrimeHunter or TheDJ will volunteer to help you debug the user scripts (they are two of the best anywhere on this wiki). Either way, please come back here and let us know how it's going. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 15:36, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Switching the "New wikitext mode" feature on and off on the beta features page didn't work, but for some reason, an option in Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-editing named "Temporarily disable the visual editor while it is in beta" was enabled. I do not remember enabling this option, nor do I remember the option being there in the first place. After turning it off, the issue seems to have been resolved. Changing the URL to veaction=edit also worked, but I didn't want to keep on editing the URL.

Thank you to Whatamidoing (WMF) and PrimeHunter for the help! Chlod (say hi!) 19:06, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad to hear that you got it all sorted out, User:Chlod. Happy editing, Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 19:57, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

Hello Davykamanzi, the last time you received a reply there was 4 March. So, no, it's not been pending for 2 weeks. All wikipedia editors are volunteers and work on their own time and interests. I can understand that unlike volunteer editors, paid editors may have a deadline or need to show timely results. But this is the best system we have got to try and maintain the neutrality and reputation of Wikipedia which makes paid editing on Wikipedia lucrative in the first place. So, please have patience. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 15:53, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Paid user

I am a paid user. Where and how shall i use this code?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hellone69 (talk • contribs)

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Caro7200, Nothing extra. The only scenario when there would be is if you were submitting an exact copy of an article that was deleted at AFD. In this case, as the article was prodded, this wouldn't apply even if it was exactly the same, as it never went to AFD.

You could also ask for the original to be restored at wp:refund, if it would be helpful. ~~ Alex Noble - talk 15:31, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What is needed is not "plenty of reliable references". It's "several reliable independent references that discuss the subject in depth". Maproom (talk) 17:47, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I may do it this week. Caro7200 (talk) 18:08, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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 than 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)[reply]

An interesting point to add: the company ShareLaTeX was acquired by Overleaf, as detailed in the page Draft:Overleaf. So the company simply does not exist anymore, and the references in its Wikipedia page are only coming from the ShareLaTeX website or from the Overleaf website. Can someone explain to me how that page is allowed to exist while I cannot publish a page with 66 references? MJ1984 (talk) 14:57, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and welcome MJ1984! First, we generally don't engage in arguments of the form "this page exists, so this one should too", because there are too many variables about why a page exists to make that discussion meaningful and productive. Second, to be published pages need independent reliable sources. the companies using the product you mention above are not independent, as they are clients. Can you find some more independent sources that talk about the company? This has been mentioned four times by AFC reviewers (see the templates and comments at the top of the page saying that it needs reliable sources). ThatMontrealIP (talk) 15:07, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reply. I really do not understand what source could be more reliable that the websites of the top research institutions in the world. If tens of the top institutions in the world are customers using this platform, is it irrelevant for the notability of the company? I can make a random search and find tens of pages talking about the best LaTeX editors. All of them will have Overleaf listed. But I feel I would be just wasting my time, as the many independent pages I have already cited are just disregarded. Even a paper published in the journal Nature [doi: 10.1038/d41586-019-01796-1] would be completely meaningless as I understand, because the company behind the journal Nature is connected to Overleaf ("Overleaf is owned by Digital Science, a firm operated by the Holtzbrinck Publishing Group, which has a share in Nature’s publisher, Springer Nature")? MJ1984 (talk) 16:01, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Companies that are clients of an article subject are generally not reliable sources because they are engaged in a business relationship with the company. You listed a number of libraries that use Overleaf; this is a fact rather than a source. We look for sources that are generally engaged in reporting or authorship (Libraries are not for the most part) and which have a history of independent reporting. It is as simple as that. I encourage you to read WP:RS. ThatMontrealIP (talk)16:09, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can confirm anecdotically the new user's impression that Overleaf has become a (if not THE) major player in the LateX editor market, but there does not seem to be that many sources to go by yet. Here's a few independent sources, but none of them count much in the way of notability: [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 17:00, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Tigraan for having a look at it, and thank you ThatMontrealIP for cleaning-up the Draft:Overleaf. [I am not sure if there is a more standard thank you format that can be followed?] I have found the following paper published in a scientific journal and discussing about Overleaf: Martínez-López, J. Israel; Barrón-González, Samantha; Martínez López, Alejandro (2019). "Which Are the Tools Available for Scholars? A Review of Assisting Software for Authors during Peer Reviewing Process". Publications. 7 (3): 59. doi:10.3390/publications7030059.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link). It contains about half a page on "Web-based LaTeX editors", citing only two of them: "such as ShareLaTeX and Overleaf". If you realise that these companies have merged, this is quite a strong argument about notability I guess. Together with the Nature paper cited above written by "a Berlin-based reporter for Times Higher Education, covering universities, research and politics across continental Europe" [9], [10]: Matthews, David (2019). "Craft beautiful equations in Word with LaTeX". Nature. 570 (7760): 263–264. doi:10.1038/d41586-019-01796-1.. Would that be sufficient to meet the notability requirements? Or the mention on the Times Higher Education [11] maybe? MJ1984 (talk) 23:09, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The best people to ask about notability are the AFC reviewers, by submitting the draft or on their talk pages. As User:Tigraan points out correctly, it's tough to establish notability for these kinds of things because there is not much to write about-- so people do not write much about it!ThatMontrealIP (talk) 01:19, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@MJ1984: I do not think Nature's article would be discounted entirely because of the shared ownership of Nature and Overleaf. Context matters, and it seems fairly unlikely to me that this Nature piece was published under pressure from the advertising department. That is a similar situation to, say, the Washington Post and Amazon, both of which are owned by the same guy, but we still generally trust the WP's reporting on Amazon as long as it is not making extraordinary claims. The actual problem is that Overleaf is a passing mention in that piece.

The other scholarly source also only includes a passing mention of Overleaf (plus, MDPI is a dubious publisher).

The problem really is that Overleaf is a niche software. It is well-known among researchers, and if you want my opinion it's a great software, but Wikipedia does not care about that. If you look at Wikipedia:Notability_(software)#Inclusion I do not think it really passes any of the criteria. There is no real press for researcher news (I mean, Nature/Science try to have some, but it's a joke if you compare it to stuff like TechCrunch), so the field-significant sources do not exist; LateX-based software manuals usually are published online, not via editorial committees. The best chance would be to prove that Overleaf is taught at universities (Overleaf itself, not LateX via the Overleaf interface) and that seems like a long shot still. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 12:30, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I try to summarise below what could count somehow:

The Nature's article would be barely ok to mention.
The review article published by independent researchers in a peer reviewed journal is ok to mention, but will probably not be counted at all.
An article on VentureBeat.
A news article on Society for Scholarly Publishing.
Overleaf is mentioned a fair number of times on The Scholarly Kitchen, including:
- this mention: "Like more established innovations such as Publons, Overleaf, and Figshare, these are all researcher-initiated companies, which is perhaps one key to their success." [12],
- or this one: "Scientists are utilizing workflow tools such as Tetrascience, Hivebench, Figshare, Mendeley, and Overleaf to design and manage their laboratory experiments, gather and organize data, work collaboratively, and write up their findings." [13],
- or this one: "So — if I had money to spare and were a betting woman — I would be investing in organizations like Overleaf (making collaborative authoring easier), Paperhive (ditto for reading), and Hypothes.is (open annotation)." [14].
A blog post on Gigaom.
You seem to value TechCrunch, so maybe being listed in the moderated Crunchbase list of companies would be useful? Honestly, I had removed that reference earlier from the Draft:Overleaf, as it looked quite messy, linking news articles completely unrelated.
Another citation from TechCrunch: "Elsewhere, he lists Sharelatex.com and Writelatex.com as two “well-known competitors” for disciplines like physics and mathematics, where scientists use the LaTeX scientific documentation format to author their papers." [15]. Remember that these two companies became Overleaf.
If you want to see how Overleaf (and ShareLaTeX before) are used in education, you can look at the page TeX in Education from TeX Users Group (TUG), which, according to Wikipedia, is one of the "notable entities in the TeX community". Nearly everything listed on that page is from Overleaf or the company that has merged with Overleaf, ShareLaTeX.
If you want to see it in a book, I have already cited the chapter of a book written by Jeffrey T. Leek, reproduced on his Simply Statistics blog: [16].
In an Inside Higher Ed article Catastrophe-Proof Your Dissertation: "If you’re crunched for time, I suggest trying one of the online LaTeX editors like Overleaf. These sites make writing in LaTeX similar to writing in a conventional word processor and handle all the file structure, compilation, and backups behind the scenes. Some journals have even partnered with these sites to allow submissions through them, which could be particularly handy for STEM fields."
The Head Librarian at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics wrote an article in Inside Higher Ed listing ShareLaTeX as a one of the "recommended digital tools for scholarly research" "for creating collaborative, interactive articles and notebooks". But that's the point: if you recommend it, you buy it of course. But then Wikipedia considers that the opinion of that guy becomes completely meaningless, because he becomes a customer.
CERN has tried Overleaf for a full year before deciding to commit to that platform: "Following a year-long CERN-wide trial of collaborative authoring platforms, Overleaf has been fully available to the CERN Community since 2018." [17] But again, they are a customer of Overleaf, because they have decided that it is the best tool, so their opinion is completely meaningless for Wikipedia. And by the way, that page is an Overleaf workshop, organized by CERN, so does that count as being taught?
It seems that you do not value much what is published on the journal Science. But in their guide How to write your Ph.D. thesis, they cite "Anton Goloborodko, postdoctoral fellow in theoretical biophysics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge": "I am also a big fan of cloud services. I used an online LaTeX editor called Overleaf that allowed me to easily share drafts with my supervisor. I started with a free account, and once I reached the storage limits I paid a tiny fee for 1 month of a “Pro” account."
The official LaTeX website LaTeX Project lists Overleaf and ShareLaTeX (now Overleaf) as online TeX distributions. [18]
A news article from High Tech Deck.
An article on TechRepublic.
An article on Math Vault, with sub-title "OverLeaf — The Popular Choice" in "21st-Century LaTeX".
An article on The Bookseller.
Plus the awards I have already listed on the Draft:Overleaf.

Is that sufficient to prove notability? I have tried to list mostly the sources that seem to be recognised by Wikipedia. So it starts to be quite a significant list now?

I do not understand your comment about Overleaf being a "niche software". The link to Wikipedia:Notability_(software)#Inclusion you include just next clearly states as a notability criteria: "It is discussed in reliable sources as significant in its particular field." So being a niche software cannot be used to claim it does not meet the notability criteria for Wikipedia. Your comment "Wikipedia does not care about that" is actually against the Wikipedia:Notability_(software)#Inclusion policy. MJ1984 (talk) 22:50, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

article

i have an article i would like to be approved and published as a page about an artist that i admire. how do i go to the next step? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jenrebecc (talk • contribs) 16:15, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jenrebecc, firstly, remember that writing an entirely new article isn't easy, and we recommend that you have some experience elsewhere first, to acclimatise yourself to our policies.

The instructions are at wp:Your First Article, when you think you are ready. ~~ QRA: Alex Noble - talk 16:31, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

can you review my article? i have it under my username..... i honestly don't know how to submit it. this is new for me. help!!! maybe someone who is an admin can create her page? Gin Stone, artist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jenrebecc (talk • contribs) 16:53, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy link. @Jenrebecc: Welcome to the Teahouse. Your draft has been moved to Draft:Gin Stone. When you're ready to submit the draft for review, add the code {{subst:submit}} to the top of the page and someone will review it. --Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 17:11, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

THANK YOU — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jenrebecc (talk • contribs) 17:15, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jenrebecc, hello and welcome to Wikipedia! I have left a message at your talk page with a list of helpful links. Coincidentally, it also instructs how to sign your posts in discussions such as these. I have signed it for you, for your last post here. I have moved your draft to Draft:Gin Stone, since that is where an article draft should be located, i.e. at "en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Title". I have blanked your userpage at User:Jenrebecc. Please feel free to introduce yourself to the Wikipedia community by editing your userpage after you have read the page, WP:UPYES. As for your draft, I have added a template which gives helpful tips about writing a draft and at the bottom provides a button to submit it for review. When you are ready, you can submit it, but as long as you keep improving it, there is no deadline/hurry. Your draft currently cites no sources. As such, it can't be accepted in its current state. Please ready WP:V to understand why adding sources to support the claims you make is important, then you can refer to WP:REFB which provides simple instructions to beginners on adding references. WP:RS has information regarding what kind of sources are acceptable. Finally, make sure the subject meets the criteria at WP:N or WP:NARTIST before you submit, otherwise Wikipedia can not have an article on the subject. I know this is a lot of information to digest but writing articles is one of the harder tasks on Wikipedia, and I fear doing it successfully requires understanding at least this much. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 17:25, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But please don't submit it in its present state, Jenrebecc, because it will certainly be declined, as it has no references at all, and therefore is not capable of establishing that Stone is notable (in the way Wikipedia uses the word). Remember, Wikipedia is basically uninterested in what you know (or what I know, or what any random person on the Internet knows): it is only interested in what reliable independent published sources have said. For example, you say what Stone is known for: which reliable published source, wholly unconnected with Stone, has said that? An opinion like that should never appear in Wikipedia's voice: it is acceptable in an article only if it is ascribed to an identified reliable published source.

As a more minor issue: the table of basic information you have created manually is normally displayed as an infobox.

One more point, and a rather important one: You uploaded a photo File:Gin Stone.jpg to Commons, identifying it as the work of Joe Navas, and claimed that it was your copyright. Aside from the fact that this seems surprising, it prompts the question whether you have a conflict of interest in writing about Stone. If you have any connection with her, you need to read that link; if you are in any sense paid to edit this, then it is mandatory for you to declare your status as a paid editor. --ColinFine (talk) 17:36, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Navas gave me permission to upload this image from research. and i have added references

Hello again, Jenrebecc. Unfortunately, I don't think the references you have added are adequate to demonstrate notability. I can't see the truro.wickedlocal site in Europe, so it may be independent (though I'm not sure how reliable Wikipedia would regard it) but the other two are clearly not independent of Stone. Also, you have not cited the particular sentence I remarked on (which is not the only example of non-neutral language).

As for the photo, Navas' "permission" is probably not relevant. Do you personally hold the copyright in the photo? If not, then you do not have the power to release it under the CC-BY-SA licence, as you purport to have done here, and it does not meet Commons' licensing conditions. Assuming that Navas does hold the copyright, he may license it by following the procedure in donating copyright materials, but you cannot, unless you are the copyright holder. I have tagged the file in Commons as needing clarification.

Please also clarify whether or not you have a conflict of interest, and whether or not you are a paid editor. --ColinFine (talk) 19:44, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If I were a paid editor, I would be a lot better at this, don't ya think? I am just trying to give this artist the credit she deserves. That's all. No conflict of interest. I simply thought I was capable of doing it, but apparently I am not. Def seems like a boys club here. I guess I will wait until some larger articles are written about her, but that's really too bad, as I have seen other artists on here with less info. I am totally new to this, and tried my first page, and learned a lot. I mean, you can google Gin Stone artist and come up with a ton of stuff, images and all. But I'm not sure how visual artists become 'worthy' of wiki. Women artists need a boost in a male dominated genre, I was just trying to write about someone who is under-recognized. I live in the same part of the country as her and have seen her work, and was just trying to help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jenrebecc (talk • contribs) 20:02, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jenrebecc, you have shown more competence than some of the paid editors I've encountered here (that is, people who've accepted payment for trying to create an article – I doubt they'll be getting any repeat business). The problem is not with the way you've created your draft, things like the way you've formatted the references can easily be put right. But it seems that, as far as I can tell, Gin Stone does not currently reach Wikipedia's standard of "notability". I've tried searching for better sources about here, and found nothing. Admittedly my search was hampered by the existence of things called "gin stones", which, as I've just learned, are used to cool beverages. Maproom (talk) 22:45, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jenrebecc, we don't generally humour the "other stuff exists" argument, and as far as I'm aware the guidelines for creating new articles have become more stringent than when I first joined Wikipedia. As such looking for sources that meet general notability guidelines is a task in itself. Please understand that creating a new article is one of (if not the) the most difficult things to do on Wikipedia.

Idea: While you are revising the draft, perhaps you would like to take a look at two of our WikiProjects dedicated to giving articles on women more visibility, Women in Red and Women in Green? Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 22:49, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

well thank you everyone — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jenrebecc (talk • contribs) 22:56, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

crowdsourcing

despite so many cons and drawback of crowdsourcing

Welcome to the Teahouse, 110.93.227.242. Did you have a question? It seems as if you may be on the wrong page. --Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 17:03, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

global death rate

at current 57 million death rate per year in 200 years time there will be 12 billion deaths almost. today world population is less than 8 billion which means there will be more than this figures and number

110.93.227.242, I believe you are on the wrong page. --Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 17:28, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I applaud your AGF but if this continues without a helpful interaction, you can stop responding and start reverting, Tenryuu. Usedtobecool ☎️ 17:36, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up. --Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 17:53, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Userboxes

King of Scorpions here. Okay, I know this is kind of trivial, and I apologize for wasting everyone's time. I just wanted to know, is it possible to copy userboxes from other people's user pages? I've found a couple that I like. I also want to know if there's a way to put them in a drop-down side column, like I've seen before. Thanks, King of Scorpions 17:29, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

King of Scorpions, yes, that's usually how they spread around. Very few regularly get to the repository. Do you mean the "side column" like the one in my userpage? You can copy it from there, and modify as per your need. Best, Usedtobecool ☎️ 17:42, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Usedtobecool! I really appreciate how helpful everyone is around here... and yes, I did mean the side column. King of Scorpions 17:45, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers! Usedtobecool ☎️ 17:56, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Continuation of previous "Userbox" thread

Okay, I have the column now, but I can't figure out how to make it collapsible. Is that possible? If so, can someone show me how to do it? I apologize for wasting everyone's time, but I want to know. Thanks, King of Scorpions 20:53, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

King of Scorpions, does that work? For next time, please continue the conversation in the old thread as long as the subject is the same. Best, Usedtobecool ☎️ 21:09, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Moved the thread. Also, the userbox holder I copied does work, if that's what you're asking. King of Scorpions 21:11, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Usedtobecool: Actually, for some reason it doesn't work now. It looks like it would, but it isn't. Help!!! King of Scorpions 21:16, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

King of Scorpions, how about now? Usedtobecool ☎️ 21:25, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!! King of Scorpions 21:27, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

need to edit page, blue max

Need to add Franz Buchner 40 victories. Aug 17 to wars end. Reference Wikipedia page on Franz Buchner. I have his matchbox cover with his name cut into the medal. I would like to add a picture of this personal item he carried to his bio page. Can you help? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.186.229.178 (talk) 18:15, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy link: Franz Buchner.

You'd be best served bringing this discussion to the article's talk page. You would have to upload the image through Wikimedia Commons and ensure that it is free of any copyright; please see WP:IUPC for more information. --Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 18:49, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This question is also being answered on the Help Desk. Please don't ask the same question in more than one place. RudolfRed (talk) 19:24, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A question about myself and my grandfather, Ray Eberle...

Hi there!

My name is Ross Eberle. Ray Eberle ([[19]]) was my grandfather, so you know. I am one of his grandchildren. On this note, I would like to inform you of the fact I know Ray's middle name. But here's my first question... 1: Did you omit Ray's middle name because you don't know it? Or is it because another member of his family told you not to include it? 2: I am a self-published 'indie-author', who has written 6 novels. The first four of these are actually novellas. If I send you free copies of each one, plus a web-site or two about me and my published works, do you think you could create an article about me, my novel series, and each of the books it contains?

Note: I also plan to publish 2 more books in the series, and a 9th part, which will act as a standalone/spin-off. So, please provide your answers...Thanks in advance!

SnarkyEberle (talk) 18:53, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Re: #2, the requirements for books to be included on Wikipedia are found here. Do your books meet the criteria listed there? Useight (talk) 18:55, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SnarkyEberle, Wikipedia content is based on information that is verifiable from reliable sources. Your grandfather's middle name will be included when editors who work on that page find/are-provided-with a reliable source that gives that information. Self-published books or authors are generally not notable according to the English Wikipedia's special definition of notability. But, a sure test is whether an author meets WP:GNG or at least the WP:NAUTHOR criteria. For books, that would be, again, WP:GNG and failing that at least WP:NBOOKS. Finally, even if you deserve an article, editors who will create one on-demand might be very hard to find, but if the subjects get very notable/popular, independent editors without prompting may choose to create one of their own volition. Hope that answers your question. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 19:02, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Usedtobecool , thanks for this information. How can I tell if either I or my books would qualify for the guidelines you listed above? I read all of them, though some of the terminology used within confused me a little. I'm also new to editing on Wikipedia, so please forgive me for not understanding everything on its pages. Would I need to send you entire copies of the manuscripts I've written? Or at least either my Amazon Author-Central Page and/or my Good-Reads Author Page? And by the way, my grandfather's middle name is George, so you know. If you want, I can post a citation of this as proof. To do this, however, I'd have to obtain a copy of his birth certificate. Doing so may take a while. Also...If I don't qualify, then would it be possible for me (Or a group of volunteers) to create a Wikia or Fandom about my series? Thanks again for the fast response and links! SnarkyEberle (talk) 19:33, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SnarkyEberle, while I personally believe that providing first-hand evidence such as a birth certificate should be enough to prove that his middle name is most definitely so, Wikipedia would ideally prefer there to be secondary sources to support this (see WP:PSTS for more information).

In regards to creating a Fandom (formerly Wikia) about your series, go ahead; as far as I'm aware, Fandom is (no longer?) affiliated with the Wikimedia Foundation and doesn't pose the same set of notability standards that Wikipedia does. Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 19:45, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SnarkyEberle, yes, if you provide a source for the information, the middle name will be added. It's a simple non-controversial addition for which we can expect no objection. So, that's that. You will have to read the lists at WP:NAUTHOR and WP:BOOKCRIT and decide whether any of the criteria would be met by you or your books, but as for the GNG, it basically boils down to this: The subject needs to have multiple (at least three, independent from each other, i.e. not based off each other or reporting on the same event) significant coverage (some detail, not passing mentions, not routine coverage such as press releases but without necessarily being the main topic of discussion) in reliable (generally factual, having editorial boards, independent experts, peer-reviewed, reputation for fact-checking and neutrality, redacting when necessary) secondary (not the subject itself or someone who has an emotional, familial or financial connection, not interviews or autobiographies, not self-published or primarily based on those) sources.

If still it doesn't make sense, ask yourself whether any of these questions you can answer in the affirmative:

Are there at least three detailed discussions on you in reputed national level newspapers, or books from independent academics or have you won a national or higher level literary award?
Does your book have at least two reviews from reputed independent critics or has become a national bestseller or has won a national or higher level award or has derivatives/adaptations that have?

Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 19:55, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We can't speak for fandom or wikia, but yeah, the answer is most likely, yes. Amazon or Goodread links are no good here. We don't need manuscripts either. See above! Best, Usedtobecool ☎️ 19:58, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

what is expanded date

I'm seeing "expanded date' being used on some pages, but when I look at what differences it's creating on a page it's unclear to me. I tried a search for it but couldn't find anything. Can someone either tell me what it does or where I can read up on it. thx. Mikethewhistle-original (talk) 21:16, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Mikethewhistle-original: Can you provide an example or some context? A search reveals no recent usage of that term anywhere on Wikipedia. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 22:54, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. I was going to put it above but then couldn't find it. finally did here. thx Mikethewhistle-original (talk) 23:25, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Mikethewhistle-original: From what I can tell the diff is making dates consistent as per the {{use dmy dates}} template at the top of the page. It's a minor edit, though I myself would not have used the word "expanded". Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 23:30, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

thks. I think that was my problem, ie focused on "expanded" and trying to see what it was really doing when my search needed to be for {{use dmy dates}}. TY. Mikethewhistle-original (talk) 23:41, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Mikethewhistle-original: In User:KyleJoan/common.js the editor uses User:Ohconfucius/script/MOSNUM dates.js with documentation at User:Ohconfucius/script/MOSNUM dates. The script calls it to expand dates when month numbers are changed to month names. The edit changed 2020-02-06 to 6 February 2020. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:51, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Editor has been blocked for possible socking. Their new sock who'd created a new thread below has also been blocked. Usedtobecool ☎️ 19:29, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Arrow's Impossibility Theory

Since ranked voting is being employed more and more, and since there have been some critics of the plan who have cited the above, it would be nice to understand Arrow's problem with the procedure. But that article needs to be explained in plain English! As it is, perhaps (perhaps!) a few logicians or mathematicians might understand it but average voters will not. How about a supplement? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.45.224.90 (talk) 21:16, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

if you have ideas on how to improve an article, you should start a discussion on that article's talk page. RudolfRed (talk) 21:41, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Expecting the OP to know how to improve the article, when they don't understand the theorem, is optimistic.

A couple of times, I have written on the talk page of a mathematical article, saying that I can't make any sense of it; and found, some time later, that someone had rewritten parts of it to make it more accessible. Maproom (talk) 22:50, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to what RudolfRed has mentioned, could a Simple English version of the page be created? --Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 22:58, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) I think RR's point was that the place to discuss it is the article talk page (in this case, Talk:Arrow's impossibility theorem). —[AlanM1(talk)]— 23:00, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Are apples really apple?

OK, I'm certain there will be more to the answer than the question because the question I hope will be simple. I'm trying to get some clarification on consistency and the example below should be a whamdinger. If you compare the three pages:

You will see that two are not like the other. MK & Ashley list the 3 sisters' half-brothers, but Elizabeth does not. Both brothers have some acting credits to their name and one of them is effectively in the clothing business with his half-sisters.

So can someone clarify why 2 pages have info that the 3rd does not? Neither of the guys have wiki pages, but both are on imdb and have some other google hits. In my opinion only one has what I think is enough activity to overcome the do they have enough activity to be included bar, but I'm hoping someone can maybe make more sense of it. Also, in case someone can answer it before I re-read guides again why this same type of info is also listed (or maybe I should say not listed), in two different sections - ie birth and family vs personal life. I guess it was my military service that has caused me to want consistency because we depended on it and it mattered. Being able to to get a clip off a buddy or know where something was on his tac vest mattered when seconds counted. But I don't have the day of the week on my underwear, I promise. thks.Mikethewhistle-original (talk) 22:38, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would guess that two of the sisters' articles list their half-brothers while the third does not because no-one has got round to adding that information to the third article. I doubt it's the consequence of any policy or deliberate decision. You military guys have a command structure, us volunteers don't. Maproom (talk) 23:02, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Someone actually added it the 3rd article and it was reverted by a user. That's what's got me stymied. Either people looking at two pages are missing something that someone on the 3rd page knows that no one on the other two pages knows, and they might. I think whether someone is of enough publicness to be on wiki can sometimes be debatable, but it must be the same on all 3 pages. If it doesn't belong on the 3rd page, then it doesn't belong on the first two either. Mikethewhistle-original (talk) 23:19, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Mikethewhistle-original. Wikipedia doesn't have an Editorial Board, or a Department of Consistency, or any other such structure: it has thousands of volunteer editors who work on what they choose. Some, like yourself, are concerned about consistency and wlll do their best to make this consistent; many more do not bother much about consistency. I doubt if anybody would argue that consistency is a bad goal, but many people are not concerned enough about it to spend time on it.

You think those pages should be consistent in that way. Somebody else removed the information: maybe they aren't aware of the inconsistency, maybe they are but think it less important than some other factor, or maybe they believe there is a difference in the two cases which means that the inconsistency is only apparent. I don't know. But the way to resolve such question is not to put out a general appeal about a principle, but to open a discussion with the individuals who appear to disagree with you - see WP:BRD. --ColinFine (talk) 23:52, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

help on two issues - info boxes and how to ensure that a text doesn't sound like boasting.

Hi, I've two issues, (a) I've just been trying to sort the info box from disappearing on a page. I think that I've made a mistake somewhere in the code or I've mistakenly deleted it. (b) I'd also like some advice on how to ensure that text written about a live individual doesn't sound as if they're intending to boast. I do hope that you can help. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 35winds (talk • contribs) 22:39, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy link: Mark Wood (explorer) Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 23:05, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, 35winds. You had a lot of syntax errors in the infobox, which I have mostly fixed. (I suspect that the redlinks should mostly be unlinked, but I haven't done that).

As for the text: the way to write the article neutrally is basically to ignore and forget everything that Wood has ever said, or wanted to say, about himself, and instead base the text 100% on what people who have no connection at all with Wood have chosen to publish about him. Note, by the way, that none of the BBC reports are independent of him (they are all obviously based on interviews or press releases), and the fourth reference is to a blog: blogs are hardly ever regarded as reliable sources. At present, therefore, you haven't got a single independent reliable source, and so there is almost nothing which can validly go into the article, and it is liable to be deleted as non-notable. --ColinFine (talk) 00:14, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Review edit

My recent contribution on Ghanaian musician Draft:Vudumane was moved to the draft space for lacking verifiable sources. I had made more research and added more sources. Can any experienced Wikipedian be my guide in moving it back?? Geezygee (talk) 22:47, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Geezygee, welcome to the Teahouse. When you're ready to put it up for review, add {{subst:submit}} to the top of the page. Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 23:06, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Geezygee, the references that I've checked are all based on interviews with Vudumame, and therefore don't qualify as independent. What is needed is several reliable independent sources with extensive discussion of him. Maproom (talk) 23:11, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maggie Hall (Molly Burdan) Photo

This is a picture that has been floating around the internet for years professing to be Molly (Maggie) but is not. No one knows who attributed this as her, but the picture is actually a photo of Ruth Aulbach Sellers. There are no known photos of Molly (Maggie), but according to historical accounts where she lived - Murray, Idaho - she was really a blonde. She did work as a madam, but there are differing accounts about the prostitute part.

If you want to know about her ask the resident historian. Larry Hammer of the 1884 Murray House. It's a bed and breakfast which served as a bank and newspaper office in its prior lives.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.32.249.150 (talk) 22:54, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy link: Maggie Hall

Welcome to the Teahouse. I would suggest taking your concern over to the article's talk page where editors versed in the subject can discuss the matter with you. Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 23:39, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Longitude on Location map not working

Hi, I'm improving the Alta Vista Homeowners Association, Sonoma County, California as I go, and one of the maps on there is one of Sonoma County and the surrounding area. On the location map, all the pogs get shifted to the left, but the latitude is fine. I was wondering if there is some way anyone could help me, since I am new to Location Maps. I went through the source and everything is fine, it's just that the longitude is messed up. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks.

--Yeetstuff (talk) 23:01, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Yeetstuff: I haven't worked with those maps before, but looks like you swapped left and right at Module:Location map/data/USA California Sonoma County, which I fixed. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 23:33, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Question about citing significant coverage

Hello, I submitted a page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:The_Way_of_Wrath

And it was rejected because of lack of reliable sources: 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. Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

I found the following secondary sources, could you help me with this? would any qualify?

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sothasil1 (talk • contribs) 00:33, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sothasil1, the issue is not the reliability of your sources, it's their independence. The sources you list above all appear to be based on statements by the publisher of the game. It's not surprising you haven't been able to find anything better, when the game hasn't been released yet. I suggest you wait until a month or so after its release, and then see what independent reviewers have said about it. Maproom (talk) 08:23, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

English article on Japanese artist

Hi Teahouse, I've written an article on Shigeru Izumi. Would someone familiar with Japanese names check my default sort, also if anyone can add the name in Japanese characters it would improve the article. There is already an article on him on Japanese Wikipedia. Thanks! WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:12, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@WomenArtistUpdates:

Done. I'm not sure what you mean exactly by "default sort", but I've added the {{nihongo}} template for you in the lead section. Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 04:30, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WomenArtistUpdates, I have used the standard defsort as it looks like that's what is done with Japanese names from my brief perusal of WP:MJ. You might want to take a look at the guideline yourself. I have also added the article to WikiProject Japan. Hopefully, someone who knows Japanese will add the Kanji in time. Best, Usedtobecool ☎️ 10:50, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Already done. Kanji added to lead section. Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 12:23, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Usedtobecool and Tenryuu! Looks great. Best, WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 16:05, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

how to add a person?

hi Team, how do you add a person to Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.196.52.84 (talk) 01:52, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(by talk page watcher) Hi 203.196.52.84, did you mean to create an article about a person? Unfortunately as you have not created an account yet, you aren't eligible to create a page directly. You can either create an account and wait for it to be at least 4 days old with at least 10 edits, or can create a draft via the Article Wizard and follow its instructions.

There are several points to keep in mind; please see Wikipedia:Your first article. However, to avoid wasting your time, please take a few moments to check if your subject is notable. Quoting the Article Wizard, it said:

In short, the topic of an article must already be covered in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. These include academic journals, books, newspapers, magazines, and websites with a reputation for fact checking. Social media, press releases or corporate/professional profiles do not qualify.
— Wikipedia:Article Wizard

Once you have confirmed that your subject is notable, I assume that person is living. Therefore, it would have to adhere to some strict policies on biographies. In particular, it must have at least 1 (ideally more than 1) source. There are many other points that you might have to pay attention; you may read more about it in the Article Wizard.

When the draft is done, you may submit it for review (more instructions will be provided by then) and if it is accepted, you could see it in mainspace. After the page is accepted, you would still have to wait for 90 days (or until it is patrolled) (see this guide for more details).

All in all, I hope you have a great time editing! Thanks and see you later! tLoM (The Lord of Math) (Message) 02:34, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Article rejected

Header added by ColinFine (talk) 08:53, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello team I hope you are doing well

I submitted my article and unfortunately it was rejected, can i get some help too update it so that it can be accepted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Namulinda Brenda (talk • contribs) 07:51, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy link: Draft:Eleanor Nabwiso - X201 (talk) 09:10, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed uses of Wikipedia as a reference. Wikipedia can't be used as a reference in articles. There was also a reference that was created five times in the article, I've merged the five individual uses into a single reference by using a named reference. I haven't checked that reference for quality. - X201 (talk) 09:20, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Namulinda Brenda, I fixed quite a lot of stuff in the draft that you wrote. In particular, the IMDb and YouTubve references were replaced by newspaper sources. I still need to work on the Career section; you might like to help. Anyway, when we're done, I (or you) might submit it for review again! Thanks! tLoM (The Lord of Math) (Message) 10:11, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cleaned it up a bit more. Remember to 'sign' your comments at Teahouse and Talk pages by typing four of ~ at the end. David notMD (talk) 12:50, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

the “strong men” of Guam and the Mariana Islands.

Hi there's nothing about this topic in Wikipedia - can you find someone to write it. I wanted to find out more so can't write it myself as I know nothing.

THANKS KATH — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.81.131.144 (talk) 10:35, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What is the topic about? "Strong men" as in Strongman (strength athlete)? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:30, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Example mention at http://guam.org.gu/gary.heathcote.muscle/Legendary.Chamorro.Strength.2012.Heathcote.htm that the Chamorro people were tall to very tall compared to early European explorers and had great strength (factual) and native beliefs in great feats of strength (folklore). Maybe best place is adding to that article rather than as a separate article. David notMD (talk) 12:57, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Accounts of Chamorro physical appearance (e.g., Driver 1988; Levesque 1990-96) from the early European contact period (A.D. 1521-1700) lend credibility to de Loyola's tale of Chamorro brawn, for European scribes universally described Chamorros (probably young and middle adult males) as possessing great strength. In 14 chronicles that explicitly mention strength, verdicts ranged from "they appear strong" to "among the strongest (indios) ... yet discovered in either the Orient or the Occident" (York 2001: 6, ll). Regardless of the extent of exaggeration, the unanimity of multiple and independent testimonials about the great strength of Chamorros is compelling."

Undoing a Move Article

I am trying to improve hospital articles in Tanzania and accidentally "moved" an article called "Moi Teaching and Referral Hospital" for a Kenyan hospital to "Muhimbili Orthopaedic Institute" mistaking it for the abbreviated form of a hospital in Tanzania by the same name. I can't seem to move it back and freaking out a bit! Help! [[20]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cryptogene (talk • contribs) 12:51, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You can press History and undo it, if this doesn't work glide over "move" which is near the "History" tabber and there you go. Editoneer (talk) 13:07, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

help with declined submission

Hi, I had an article declined with helpful comments. I thought I had met all the requests before resubmitting the article. The article was declined a second time with no comments, so now I'm not sure what to do. This is the article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Richard_R._Wilk Thanks. Nuala Claire (talk)Nuala Claire — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nuala Claire (talk • contribs) 13:32, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Both reviewers gave you a clear answer on the draft and your Talk page: no hyperlinks allowed in the article, and references need to be in a proper format. In addition, many of the factual statements in the body of the draft are not referenced at all. David notMD (talk) 14:59, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can not find move button

Hi I want to move draft content or publish to Wikipedia's live space using move function in the more tab, but I can't find the more tab. Can you show me where is it (the more tab)

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by MISudrajat (talk • contribs) 16:32, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MISudrajat, you are not yet autoconfirmed, which is required to move pages. You need to have had an account that has made 10 edits over 4 days, which you haven't reached yet.

We strongly recommend new users submit their pages through wp:articles for creation, rather than moving the pages themselves. ~~ QRA: Alex Noble - talk 16:35, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And you can submit your draft for review by picking the blue button on it. However, I recommend you don't do that yet, because I'm sure it will be declined. Though you have some references, as far as I can see, not one of the references is about the SCENT programme. Please be aware that Wikipedia is basically not interested in what the subject of an article says or has said, or wants to say. It is only interested in what people who have no connection with the subject have chosen to publish about the subject, and any article should be 90% based on such independent sources. Furthermore, the text as present is somewhat promotional: for example, no Wikipedia article should ever describe anything using evaluative terms like "innovative" unless it is directly quoting an independent published source. Please have a look at your first article; and you might also find User:ian.thomson/Howto useful. --ColinFine (talk) 16:44, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Article Referencing Guidelines for Dr. George Ambartsoumian

I am new and the learning curve of wikipedia is pretty steep for me. I really appreciate if you can help me with my chosen article on Dr. George Ambartsoumian. If you can give me an example of what exactly is missing It would be helpful. I found that Dr. George Ambartsoumian had a mention on Canadian Government website as well as EY website which I put in citation but maybe I did it wrong. Please advise and welcome to modify the page for me as its my first I will be really thankful to all members. Thank you in advance for your mentorship! --Junaidbusn170/sandbox (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:39, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Junaidbusn170, welcome to the Teahouse. Reading the comments the reviewer left behind it seems that while the subject may be notable and thus worthy of an article, other sources would be preferred and I can see why: only 1 of them (the Horizon Weekly page) gives Dr. Ambartsoumian a paragraph, but that's not really enough to be considered a good source. All the other ones mention him in passing (in fact, 4 of the sources lead to the exact same article where he is mentioned as a recipient for an award). Dr. Ambartsoumian can't just be mentioned; he has to be a prominent subject being talked about in an article rather than a passing mention. Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 21:45, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tenryuu Thanks for you kind reply. I now understand what it meant i.e. the chosen links must be completely about Dr. George Ambartsoumian. I will try to find something about him. I chose Dr. Ambartsoumian because of Ernst & Young and the Canadian Government mentioned him, thinking it would be easy first article. But I was wrong. I would say Thanks to you again. Will look for another page about him. Do you think I need 1 or 2 or more? Should I actually try to contact them that I am writing about them and if they can give me good references? Thanks again You are my Good Great Mentor now. ~~Junaidbusn170/sandbox~~

@Junaidbusn170: I suggest 2 or 3 good sources; that's usually enough to satisfy most new article reviewers. You don't need to contact Dr. Ambartsoumian yourself, and generally that's not recommended as we would like relatively neutral sources.

Also, please sign your posts with 4 tildes (~) at the end, as not doing so prevents me from seeing notifications that you've sent me a response with the {{U}} template. --Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 22:02, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

beyond what's int he wiki guide, any advice you can give regarding starting a new page for a person

Essentially I want to know if I'd spend a lot of effort, for little reward. There's an actor and actresss that I'd like to do a page for but reading the blp and all the other things makes me very iffy. If it would be too great, any suggestion on what might be an easier page to do? thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justafriendlyguy60 (talk • contribs) 17:45, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Justafriendlyguy60: Writing an article is the hardest task in Wikipedia. You should probably read Help:Your first article, but to do a brief summary: any article you write must have Inline citations to reliable sources, and the subject must meet the notability guidelines (basically, whether or not it's worthy of being included in an encyclopedia). Click those links to learn more. Also keep in mind that if the subject that you want to write about is in fact notable, someone will (likely) write the article eventually. Just one question: who did you want to write the article about? Hope this helps, King of Scorpions 17:52, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OP blocked as a sock of Mikethewhistle-original who has a few other active threads on this page but had since been blocked for suspected socking. Usedtobecool ☎️ 19:33, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Make my own sandbox?

Hi there,

Is there a way for me to make my own sandbox? I noticed that the sandbox is cleared as soon as you are done with your test. I want to test inserting some references and making a side info bar so I will probably need to edit multiple times. Thanks for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DarkHorse234 (talk • contribs) 19:03, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, DarkHorse234, and welcome to the Teahouse! It's actually quite simple; just go to Special:MyPage/sandbox and hit "create". You can access it by clicking on your "sandbox" link at the top of your page next to "preferences". Hope this helps, King of Scorpions 19:09, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh right, thanks for that :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DarkHorse234 (talk • contribs) 19:19, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@DarkHorse234: You're welcome. Also, you should sign your comments on talk pages with 4 tildes (~~~~)King of Scorpions 19:23, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DarkHorse234, you can create multiple personal sandboxes such as User:DarkHorse234/Sandbox1, User:DarkHorse234/Sandbox2, etc. Any subpage of your personal userpage will do. Best, Usedtobecool ☎️ 19:25, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, good to know thanks. DarkHorse234 (talk) 19:33, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Introductory Box at the Top of the page.

Hi,

How do I insert the top box with the picture and birth details in the sandbox?

Or is that function in the sandbox?

I am also having a problem itemizing the references. Is there a place in the site with a tutorial on that?

Thanks

Jennifer — Preceding unsigned comment added by JGoldwell (talk • contribs) 19:29, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, JGoldwell! The top box is called an infobox. Infoboxes can be tricky as you have to pick the right template and the right parameters. Maybe you shouldn't worry about that yet. About the references: I assume you mean a list under a section called "References" in an article? If so, what you do is insert the reference between the <ref> and </ref> tags Then, in the "References" section, you put in {{Reflist}}. See WP:Citing sources to learn more. Hope this helps, King of Scorpions 19:36, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

JGoldwell, welcome! WP:TUTORIAL would be the actual tutorial page with Wikipedia:Tutorial/Citing sources being the one about referencing. Please consider completing the The Wikipedia Adventure. The box you are referring to is most likely the WP:INFOBOX. The easiest way for a new editor to build an infobox is to copy one from existing articles on similar subject as the one you are working on and to change the details. WP:REFB has information on the easiest way for a new editor to master basic referencing. Best, Usedtobecool ☎️ 19:44, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@JGoldwell: What do you mean by "itemize"? Usedtobecool and King of Scorpions have provided links to you, but if by "itemize" you mean numbering them, you don't need to worry about that; the software does it for you in order of when they appear in the text. Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 21:16, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all of you. Great explanations. I have the box and the references figured out. Now to figure out how to upload the pic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JGoldwell (talk • contribs) 22:34, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

can someone help me with posting a reference?

I Need some help posting a reference — Preceding unsigned comment added by Music web guy (talk • contribs) 20:14, 10 March 2020 (UTC) I am trying to add my interview with Buzzy from 2008 but I don't think I did it correctly. I own mwe3.com since 1999 and I was the reviews editor with 20th Century Guitar mag from 1997 to 2009 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Music web guy (talk • contribs) 20:19, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy link: Buzzy Linhart.

You would add it via <ref> tags around your reference which you put in the body of the text, right after where you would mention the topic. If it's a website I suggest using the {{cite web}} template within the <ref></ref> tags. Would you happen to have another source? Wikipedia doesn't tend to do well with interviews as sources; it prefers secondary sources more than primary. Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 21:00, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Music web guy, see WP:REFB for instructions on basic referencing. But before that, you have a conflict of interest in wanting to add these links to Wikipedia. So, you need to follow the WP:COI policy, disclose the nature of your conflict and use the article's talk page to suggest edits using WP:Edit requests rather than make them yourself. Please carefully consider whether your links improve the encyclopedia before you make such a request. Usedtobecool ☎️ 21:07, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How do I nominate an article for deletion?

Hello. I think that an article should be nominated for deletion due to, for what I feel like, it not meeting WP:MUSIC. How do I nominate this article for deletion? And are there any more prerequisites that I must follow beforehand? Thanks, Biscuit3413 (talk) 20:38, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Biscut3413 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. You may begin an Articles for Deletion discussion by following the instructions written at WP:AFDHOW. You might also want to read the section above it(direct link: WP:BEFORE) to learn more about things you should look at before taking that step but it sounds like you might have weighed other options already. Twinkle is a tool that makes it easier to do make AFD nominations- you can enable Twinkle in your Preferences. 331dot (talk) 20:43, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Biscuit3413, Instructions are at WP:BEFORE, continuing down to WP:AFDHOW. After you become an autoconfirmed editor, you can use WP:TWINKLE to automate the actual nominating part. Best, Usedtobecool ☎️ 20:49, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Biscuit3413 (talk) 21:00, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi How do I put a Photo onto my draft I dont know how to — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4kingly (talk • contribs) 22:42, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How do I post a photo

How do I put a photo on a draft with out it looking wierd or in the wrong place — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4kingly (talk • contribs) 22:47, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

[1] BRIEFING One chart shows 11 countries' current coronavirus death rates, based on the known number of cases and deaths https://www.businessinsider.com.au/coronavirus-death-rate-by-country-2020-3?r=US&IR=T

[1]