Wikipedia:Teahouse

A lad insane, a Teahouse host

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

Ask a question

Question forumMeet your hostsArticles to improveBecome a host

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

Help Wikipedia

Diverse Photos Added to DC-3 Article on 17 May Deleted This AM; Other Opinions, Please?

Resolved

 – WP:Aircontent is a specific MOS geared for aircraft content articles. Disputes over images best talked about first at article's talk page. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 15:54, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

My photo edit of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_DC-3 done on May 17 was deleted today because "Those images do not aid understanding of the subject" and I disagree. I can see deleting some, as there were a number added, but as I said in the edit comments:

• Most photos went to the lower right, where there was adequate (wasted) white space,
• Photos were more diverse than the rest (one from astern, one close in chopping the wings so the fuselage shows better, one fueling, etc.),
• They were often cropped 16:9, so they can be used as Apple Wallpaper or PC Background (admittedly a minor point).

Additionally:

• My photos showed DC-3s actually doing something - supporting skydiving - surely that's 'aiding to understand',
• The first photo, placed to contrast the first pic below the infobox - an interior empty except for seats/aisle - better shows the scale of a DC-3's interior.

I've had my photos undone a couple of times and saw the point of view of the editor, but this time I disagree - they do aid understanding of the subject, IMHO, and they make the article more interesting, seeing photos rather than empty white space. In summary, Does white space on a page aid understanding of the subject better than photos of the subject? And I suggest my photos aid understanding at least as much, if not more than, any of the existing photos. If there is an objection to the number of shots, I can reduce them. This is my first instance where I disagree with an editor and am unclear if this is even the best place to object, but I assume someone will tell me if I should do something differently. BrettA343 (talk) 18:58, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi BrettA343 and welcome to the Teahouse. Have you and the editor had a discussion on these images? That is what I usually recommend first so you can both understand and see each others point of view? Galendalia Talk to me ^{CVU Graduate} 19:19, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

@BrettA343: As Galendalia kindly mentioned, discussion is a normal part of the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. I recommend that you have the discussion at the article talk page - Talk:Douglas DC-3 - in the hopes that multiple knowledgeable editors can be involved and come to a consensus as to which photos to use. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 19:59, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks @Galendalia: and @GoingBatty:, I'll try the editor first and then the talk page. Note that I've added a bolded summation question above, for thought about the DC-3 article (plus as a general argument for other articles) and will refer to this Teahouse question to both editor and talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BrettA343 (talk • contribs) 05:57, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

@BrettA343: You want to keep this question here? Ok:

Does white space on a page aid understanding of the subject better than photos of the subject?

Whether the photos are replacing "white space" or not depends on how the article is rendered. Wikipedia content can be rendered in a variety of ways. Obviously, this changes when you resize your window, it might be rendered in "mobile" mode, it can be rendered on various Wikipedia replicas.

While we don't focus heavily on the download size of a page, we should not completely ignore it. We also shouldn't ignore that additional "elements" in a page have all sorts of overhead, e.g. they make editing a page incrementally more complicated. But additional content should provide more than a "scintilla" of improvement (not necessarily a lot more than a scintilla, but a little more).

A lot of people like to go to rules (though I actually like to point out the rule that there aren't any "hard and fast" rules, but I'll offer the rule anyay). Here it is: Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia is not. Refer to the section on media files.

Even though I do not feel so strongly about this particular rule, I shall continue. This article had 21 images, your change increased it to 28. But why stop there? There are literally thousands of DC-3 images available that could make this page more interesting or perhaps even more enlightening. How would you know where to stop?

To get on my soapbox, there are literally hundreds of thousands of WP articles that are really, significantly broken. My perspective, though not a common one, is that we should be discouraging changes that aren't fixing significant problems, or alternatively, implementing solutions to reduce maintenance requirements (e.g. articles that will necessarily require edits due simply to the passage of time). So IMO, I would ask people not to spend their time on "subjective" improvements to articles. Making such changes may give editors a greater sense of satisfaction, but they really do not serve WP very well. Fabrickator (talk) 19:40, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Fujairah Airlines Douglas DC-3 Wheatley

Air India DC-3 at Heathrow

DC-3 in SoAfrica

Hi, @Fabrickator:... Thanks for your response. I note that while you re-posted my bolded question, there was no attempt at a direct answer, so I'll give you my take on it:

White space does NOT aid understanding of a subject better than photos of the subject, which can significantly aid understanding, as well as making the article more interesting to the reader.

For me, based on the initial complaint, that should render the subject closed and the photos should go back up. You also failed to address 4 of my 5 bullets in the OP, but brought up subjects that the deleting editor didn't seem to object to, moving the goalpost.

About your related point that "white space" depends on rendering, you've made a good point regarding smartphones. I submit, however, that on today's desktops, laptops and even tablets, resizing windows is largely beside the point. Sure, one can make windows so small that rendering becomes an issue (and then it's an issue for the 21 existing pics, too), but do we develop for all possible uses or what people generally do (and I suggest that that the norm is to browse Wikipedia with a reasonable-sized window, though I don't have a cite for that). I also don't know about Wikipedia replicas, except that Wikiredia renders my matrix photo galleries in left-justified columns, about 5 or 6 times the scrolling length of Wikipedia - do we really care what replicas do or don't do (it seems counter-productive as it creates another bonus for using WP.)?

Re Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia is not and media files, can I assume your point is that my file descriptions leave something to be desired. My descriptions are usually more informative (see my mountain photos) and I hope to have better descriptions for my DC-3 photos as of June 4 or so, when asked-for reference sources should arrive from my home to where I'm staying. I will note, however, that my descriptions are as good or better than many in Wikipedia, and even some in the DC-3 article (though again, mine will improve). If there are other objections, please specify. TIA.

I've got to say that I find your next paragraph - "How would you know when to stop?" - a tad silly in the context of my photos in this DC-3 article. No one's suggesting adding thousands except for your implication. All my photos have been deleted and your argument would be like me saying: "There are 21 photos up... maybe you should remove all of them. But how would you know when to stop? (Presumably when they're all down.)" Having no photos up is as silly as having thousands up, IMHO. Are you seriously suggesting someone might want "literally thousands of DC-3 images" on a page? If not, as I would hope, what are you trying to say, please? For context, you state that I added 7, but I also said that if there are too many (not an argument by the editor who took my photos down, of course), I can reduce the number of photos - how about 4 of mine and deleting 3 of the existing "DC-3 sitting on a tarmac" photos? Is that a doable compromise? I don't want thousands, I just wanted to add some photos to aid understanding of skydiving support and give a better 'feel' for the interior size than a totally empty plane gives. And heck, maybe add a little colour and people using a DC-3.

So I'll suggest that in light of this new criticism that 28 photos may be too many, I'm including photos on the right that I think are 'candidates for deletion' - a change is sometimes good to keep articles 'fresh' and different. Like mine (temporarily), these photos have little in the photo description, and I think unlike mine, they are more repetitive - too similar to each other and many of the existing images - DC-3s just sitting on the tarmac, doing nothing. The photo with multiple photographers in the article is to me, another candidate for deletion. What do you think?

Re you 'soapbox paragraph' and "there are literally hundreds of thousands of WP articles that are really, significantly broken", I did not know that. Is there a list somewhere? I hope you're having an OK time fixing them, but I know my strengths and desires won't have me fixing them at least until I run out of photos (and I don't think adding photos complicates editing much, either). And in contrast to you, I think my photos do serve WP well and I know others who agree with me. If the consensus at WP, however, agree with you, I'm likely out of here. I'm here to serve WP because it's a worthwhile project, IMO.

Finally, I get the sense that keeping the question here was a problem for you... I gave the question to the editor who deleted the photos almost 3 days ago and he hasn't responded - at this point I don't know if he will. Had he answered on his talk page, I likely would have responded to him there, but barring that, I thought there was context here, and here at least I got a response. Next time, I'll contact the editor first. BrettA343 (talk) 19:20, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

@BrettA343: @YSSYguy: ... BrettA343 wrote:

White space does NOT aid understanding of a subject better than photos of the subject, which can significantly aid understanding, as well as making the article more interesting to the reader.

For me, based on the initial complaint, that should render the subject closed and the photos should go back up. You also failed to address 4 of my 5 bullets in the OP, but brought up subjects that the deleting editor didn't seem to object to, moving the goalpost.

I found this whole point you're making, comparing the value of your content to white space, to be so very strange. While I use a laptop, I don't normally maximize my windows. Of course, one cannot dispute your claim that, in some renderings, these additional images display in areas that would otherwise just be white space. But this is still just a "better than nothing" argument.

As to the idea of compromising about replacing some of the existing pictures with ones you have chosen, that would really just change this to a claim that "my content is better than the existing content", which is still just a subjective claim.

I am not amused by your determination to be the arbiter of the debate, e.g. you presume to have overcome my objection on this one point, and in the absence of responses to each of your other points, you claim victory. While I'd like to be able to save everybody some trouble and convince you that the objections made to your changes are valid, I suspect such an effort would be futile.

You should consider one of the various dispute resolution methods, though it's not really as though this results in somebody else arbitrating the dispute, but it's less disruptive than an edit war. Fabrickator (talk) 19:37, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello again, @Fabrickator: & @YSSYguy:. I have five points about your opening sentence and what you find "so very strange"...

1. I wonder if this is another instance of your perception and how it might not be a common one (I wish others would chip in with comments).

2. I wasn't the one who raised the point about 'aiding understanding' (the only reason for me to compare whitespace/photos). That was YSSYguy.

3. Another editor noted to me that "we have some guidance that recommends avoiding excessive whitespace" and he "always removes excess whitespace".

4. I don't know your experience level and you don't seem to have a user page, but have you seen: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Whitespace ?

5. I'd be interested in knowing, specifically, just what you find so very strange. Because I don't find it strange at all.

I find your second sentence misleading because I see an implication that I brought up maximizing my windows - I did not. I almost never maximize mine, and I only talked about "reasonable-sized windows" when "browsing Wikipedia". And photos are better than whitespace is exactly a "better than nothing" argument, because whitespace is nothing. What's wrong with that argument in this context, please?

As to your compromising paragraph, I'd gladly let others decide if mine are better or not than the top two I noted before (one of which is visually cluttered and missing an engine and the other is indistinct with poor lighting and slanted by about 4⁰). Note that based on your points, I've kept in the third pic. And please note that I didn't initially look at replacing those two photos - they were there in my edit. It was only when you raised this (new) issue of too many photos that I thought, well, I've alreadye suggested removing some of mine and no one commented, so how about deleting some existing ones? I tried to resolve the "debate" (I had thought of it as a discussion until now) by presenting other options - to me, that's a good way to resolve things - otherwise we're stuck at you wanting no change and me wanting my initial change and we go around in circles. Let's try moving forward. If you recall, I was the first to suggest - twice - that my photo count could be lowered, even before anyone, including you, raised it.

Also, I'm not "claiming victory" (though thus far, you leave my arguments largely uncontested) and I'm not here to amuse you or not amuse you. You seem to think this is all about you. I'm just trying to suggest alternatives to come to a peaceable resolution for making a better DC-3 article, and I honestly think my changes make it better. By all means, try to convince me that objections are valid, but don't keep moving goalposts and please don't just ignore my points and then take it personally only when I elaborate and make more concrete suggestions to address your late-stated issues. Trust me, I'm a reasonable guy. I don't know if you two are the only ones who object to my photos or not, but I've asked others on the DC-3 talk page to get involved.

And I object to your portrayal of efforts being futile. In the opening post, I noted a couple of times where an edit of mine was undone (photos moved or deleted) and one had a good reason while the other gave no reason. Neither of those cases were "futile" and to my knowledge, those are the only undos I've experienced until May 24. What's futile from my perspective is your debating skills. You rarely address my points - sometimes picking on only one which you repeat, and then don't directly address that point - and when I address your rebuttal, you bring up something else. It's difficult to debate a moving target. This started with a single point, that my photos "didn't aid understanding of the subject"; I think I've addressed that and have twice asked YSSYguy for his input, first on May 25 and then on May27. I'm not sure what else I can do.

And with the blow back I've received from you, I'm sure not about to consider a dispute reolution without changing my initial edit to address your points as best I can, so please have a look at the DC-3 article now (changes instigated also due to: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Be_bold). The top two photos noted in my previous post have been commented out and I've added 4 of my own photos. And this won't escalate into an 'edit war' (especially if you let it stay up for a few days so people can see it), but if it goes to a dispute resolution I want the points you've already raised, addressedi. And feel free to uncomment the two photos I removed (like I had in my initial edit)... there's lots of whitespace near the bottom right that could contain other photos, instead ;-).

The same editor noted above also wrote: "Photos are generally a good thing in articles, as they bring the subject to life and aid reader understanding. I think that they just make the articles more interesting and appealing." And another person suggested that the sameness of the existing DC-3 photos made it boring. He also said: "Brett, your DC-3 photos are absolutely terrific... vivid, vital and fun." I don't know about 'fun', but I think a different context and various angles and perspectives, with a few people involved in DC-3 usage, are good things. I even think you'll get to appreciate these photos. Cheers, BrettA343 (talk) 20:18, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

First point - this discussion should be taking place at WT:AIR, not here as guidelines vary by project.

Second, images must add something constructive to the article, not merely fill space. Wikipedia is not a book attempting to stretch some text out to fill a certain number of pages. On an article with an enormous selection of images such as the DC-3, that means paring down the number of images to those that best clarify points in the article, and it is nice if there is at least one image in each section large enough to justify one, and covering all major versions, at least some of the major or notable operators (with an emphasis on those mentioned in the text), aircraft involved in major incidents (which again should already be in the text), as well as images of the most notable survivors, which means back stories. Personally (although not everyone follows it), I like to see a drawing, if one is available in the specifications section. None of the images should be there that are not connected to something in the text next to them. We do have a link to the wikimedia photo collection, so including images for the sake of including them is discouraged, and that includes galleries.

Within each category one should select based on clarity (minimum background clutter or unrelated aircraft or equipment), quality (in focus, not pixelated etc), colour/vs b&w, flying vs being on the ground and angle (to provide variety). Generally, unless there is only a small number of operators, no more than one image belonging to a particular operator should be used to avoid providing disproportionate coverage.

Third, and this came up earlier, doing the 23rd rewrite on a decent article (anything B or above) is a waste of effort that would better be aimed at the tens of thousands of stubs and C class pages out there, particularly as any change you make as a new-ish editor will likely go against norms that have been arrived at with considerable discussion on <<all>> of the merits either way. That includes things like images, or the "see also" section. - NiD.29 (talk) 23:03, 30 May 2020 (UTC) ps - One shot of the interior is fine, two is overkill. Multiple shots of the same aircraft when thousands were built is wildly inappropriate, moreso when neither of them adds anything significant to the page. - NiD.29 (talk) 23:10, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Two DC-3s - loading and taxiing

Waiting for the next DC-3 load

Hi, @NiD.29: Thanks for your input - it's great to have another voice even if I don't get 'my way'. Your points are well taken and it makes total sense to me about "multiple shots of the same aircraft when thousands were built". You could have saved us a lot of time if you had arrived earlier (not a criticism) or if I knew where to post this. I'd never heard of WT:AIR and others suggested @YSSYguy:'s talk page and the DC-3 talk page. I've got lots to learn!

And I thought my images did do something constructive, say, compared to the Air India and Fujairah photos, neither of which seem to be referenced in the article. The article mentions "skydiver shuttling" and disregarding your 'overkill' note, they supported that point. I'd still like to add one (and only one) image to the article and I suggest one of the two to the right (the top one appeals to me because of the unusual angle, the fact that both C-GSCA and C-GSCB are included and it's more obviously supporting skydivers). And as I said, I hope to have more information about them on June 4 (I've already found out that C-GSCA crashed and was written off ~7 years after these shots were taken, and C-GSCB is in a museum in Dallas, TX as of Jan of this year). So partly seeing that the photo count is down to 19 in the DC-3 article and partly because it supports text, would you object to me adding one of these photos roughly opposite to the related text? And if no objection, do you have a choice which?

Re your third point, as I mentioned when it came up before, I'm not your guy (not yet, anyway) to look for the tens of thousands of stubs and C class pages (thanks for identifying them for me) and improve them. I think it's likely that I have less than a two-year future ahead of me and I want to use that time adding photos, adding a few 'missing' mountain articles, improving text or facts on related pages where I have the knowledge to do so and writing a family history (not WP-oriented; started by my Dad). As it happens, so far I've used over a hundred shots without 'going against the norms' (some were stubs). Sorry if my new-ishness has stepped on toes here - I'm learning and will watch out for 'decent articles' in the future. BrettA343 (talk) 15:54, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Don't stress about stepping on toes - everyone does it, and it is rare edit on an established article that won't get someone excited, hence why I have been creating new articles from scratch or fixing stubs. I agree that some of the images could be swapped for better ones and was in fact looking into it when I got distracted by something else, and indeed new images come up all the time that may improve what was included previously. I would like to see a colour photo of one of the wartime KLM aircraft (they were one of the early operators and may have had the first exports) in orange but could only find one thumbnail sized image in b&w than was taken from a poor angle, and was too cluttered to boot.

Generally questions should be posted on the page where the contested edit was made - although some people feel the need to post such things to the person's userpage, that risks the discussion getting buried. If no-one responds, and no agreement is possible, then it should go to the project discussion page, which is watched by more people, and which has in its archives the reasons why various decisions were made on everything from style guides, to what to include or exclude and all the arguments presented for and against. Any questions just ask and someone will answer though. This is just part of the learning curve, which is steep. We do have a style guide to follow for aircraft articles that warns of common pitfalls and gives a good idea of the ideal - and checking any A or B class page will also give a good idea as well.

Of the two images, I would lean toward the shot from behind because it is different. Instead of "loading" in the caption I would be more explicit, and say "DC-3 boarding parachuters while another taxis by" (or similar), then position it across from where parachuters are mentioned in the text. Cheers - NiD.29 (talk) 17:43, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi again, @NiD.29: Sorry I can't help with any wartime photos, but I'm not quite that old ;-). And thanks for your advice on where to post. But mostly, thanks for your input re the top photo of my preceding post... it's greatly appreciated! Cheers, BrettA343 (talk) 03:11, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

NP, and hope to see you around. - NiD.29 (talk) 07:29, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm back already, @NiD.29:! I'd be interested in your opinion of my DC-3 photo add (as discussed), especially the enhanced description (the caption's marginally updated, too). TIA. Cheers, BrettA343 (talk) 21:53, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Looks good. - NiD.29 (talk) 21:57, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

It looks a whole lot better on Commons, @NiD.29:. Now that it's 'in production', the former formatting of a short intro para and a bullet for each plane's status is all kaput!  It's just one long text string of a single para.  Is there any way to fix that? Cheers, BrettA343 (talk) 22:12, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Not sure where you are meaning - I made some tweaks on the image's own page - does that fix it? - NiD.29 (talk) 00:30, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

My not knowing WP so well, I got on to what's apparently known as the 'media display page' for the image, @NiD.29:, and it's there that it doesn't format my para and 2 bullets text - it all appears as one long paragraph. It displays that when you just scroll down instead of hitting the 'More details' button, which I'd never pressed before. It's too bad that the media display page doesn't format text, IMHO, but I gather nothing can be done about that *sigh*. Thanks, though! Cheers, BrettA343 (talk) 19:14, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

I can't say I have ever used the media viewer before - but of course wikimedia has be down right now - the only time I have ever heard of it being down. - NiD.29 (talk) 20:06, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

How to make an article I wrote not seem like promotion

I really hate having to keep doing this (I have incredible social anxiety), but I am an English Teacher in Hanoi.

During the height of COVID-19 measures here, I was without work and had little to do, so my neighbor suggested I write an article about his company (I am a blogger in my spare time), in order to keep myself busy. And for your reference, no, I am not being paid. It was a half-hearted suggestion that I thought was interesting.

So, I spent many hours looking at every resource I could to write my article. I used articles on this site about similar companies in other countries (Example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sibers) as a reference, in order to keep myself objective and neutral.

So, my article is up for a while and then it gets taken down as a draft for being "Promotional" and "Not detailed enough". I'm very frustrated at this very vague reason, get very upset at my hard work having been upset, and after the user who took it down refused to answer me, I go to User talk:Oshwah and User talk:Yngvadottir to try and find answers for what I can do. I try to be as transparent as possible (I dislike it as it makes me anxious, but I do so anyway because I hate having hard work wasted), and make the article even more detailed. Satisfied with my work, submit it for review, I go off to take a short break and I come back to see it has been rejected almost as soon as I had left my computer with the reason being "Promotional".

So, my question is: What else can I do? Again, I have made every effort to be transparent, have used multiple articles on this site as reference, and have tried as hard possible to use as neutral language as I can.

I had very much wanted to join this community, but with standards that are (to me) very inconsistent and who have people unwilling to answer me, I find it very difficult to justify having to do hours of citation gathering, hours of writing, and hours of proof-reading to make an article. I found this site lacking very much in Vietnamese business (in contrast with other countries), so I wanted to do something, but I find myself frustrated and confused.

What can I do? How can I put my article up? Can someone please explain to me these standards in a way that is simple because I really just want to contribute and not have any of my work put to waste?

I apologize for being rude, but I'm really trying and it feels like only a few people are willing to help me.

Thank you. KyleVietnam (talk) 10:48, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Courtesy: Draft:Rikkeisoft. Created as article, moved to Draft, then Rejected. David notMD (talk) 11:31, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

KyleVietnam, it's not easy to write an article here. One of my first articles was immediately deleted after I published it, (not moved to draft, deleted altogether). I actually only wanted to contribute to Wikipedia and had no reason to want to write about one topic over another, so I completely dropped writing about things of questionable notability which could be seen as an effort at promotion. Wikipedia is, of course, not for promotion. For a year, I focused on writing about topics with obvious notability, while I learnt the ropes of various notability and content guidelines. So, if, as you say, you are interested in becoming a Wikipedian, I suggest you choose uncontroversial topics that no one could conceivably be paying you to write about and whose notability is without question also.

As for the draft in question, the notability guidelines for companies is at WP:NORG. You will need to demonstrate with sources that the criteria is met by the topic you are writing about. The article you say you are referencing for guidance is marked as an advertisement as well, by the way. If you disagree with the reviewers and are confident enough that you have satisfied NORG, you can request that the draft be accepted only to be put through a deletion discussion (see WP:AFD). I advised that this was an option to an editor once before, and the outcome was actually in said editor's favour.

Everyone is a volunteer here, and we see a lot of efforts at promoting people, businesses, views and so on. So, speaking for myself, I am happy to help an editor master the skills of writing Wikipedia articles while they write about History or Geography or socio-politics, etc. but I have learnt from experience not to invest in editors who want to first get a living person or a business on Wikipedia. That, those editors will have to figure out for themselves, with only minimal guidance.

If after reading WP:NORG, you have further questions about it, I will happily clarify it for you. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 20:28, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for responding to me, Usedtobecool

I had no idea how to check if something was an ad or not. I guess it makes sense that this site would be skeptical. What if I did just say my article was promotion? Granted, I'm not being paid for it, but I would like the world to pay more attention to Vietnamese business. I have been here since just before the outbreak and it really seems like it would be nice to put more money into this country's economy. My idea was that if I did this with many different types of large, local companies, it would help make Wikipedia a more diverse site (in terms of Vietnam).

So, in that sense, you could call it a promotion (of Vietnam). But I only want to focus on companies that are big here and which are in the news or Forbes, for example. The economy here is still very small (People often earn less than a dollar an hour for working), so this would really be good for this country, in my opinion. Of course, I want to be objective and fair as much as possible, and I am really trying, but I feel that the world (especially America) doesn't know enough about this country and how modern it is. So, I want to fix that.

Do you have any further advice? KyleVietnam (talk) 01:49, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

@KyleVietnam: I feel like you're approaching this incorrectly. Thoughts like I would like the world to pay more attention to Vietnamese business and it would be nice to put more money into this country's economy are going to focus your contributions and editing towards glamourising Vietnam subjects you write about. You're going to go out of your way to make companies like Rikkeisoft sound appealing. This is great for ad copy, but not for an encyclopedia. You are going to have to separate yourself from your personal feelings about these subjects as much as you can and write just the facts. Stick with neutral verbs. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 03:02, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

@Tenryuu:Thank you for your feedback. Speaking frankly, that's all fine. I, again, do want to be an unbiased editor. I have no intention of being overly glamorous for the sake of talking about how wonderful it is. But you will notice how I have tried to make it as unbiased in the article as possible (though I won't comment on the more obvious bias on other pages).

I will be frank. This site does not have enough representation. There is not enough diversity, in regards to Southeast Asian subjects, and it could stand to use more. If trying to improve the diversity on this site is a problem, then that feels like it's a race thing and I wouldn't be comfortable working within that environment, especially when I am dealing with subjects, while not notable within the West, are notable within the region itself.

It has been well-established that there is no conflict of interest. If I brush up my article and make it more neutral and just accept that it is "Promotion", can I have it back up? I just want to contribute without having any more problems. KyleVietnam (talk) 03:42, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

@KyleVietnam: Wikipedia (English Wikipedia in particular) has very strict guidelines about what are reliable sources and paid editing (the latter had been a scandal a few years back). This may translate into a dearth of reliable Vietnamese sources or volunteers interested in the scope. While "increasing diversity" is a laudable goal, it is not the goal of Wikipedia: to spread knowledge that has been provided by reliable secondary sources. From the reviewer's comments, making the draft more neutral should resolve the issue. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 04:23, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

KyleVietnam, yes, there are people who are invested in getting some topics covered over others. That is how we make sure Wikipedia covers a broad range of topics. And, is therefore, to be welcomed. As you already know, I recommend against choosing companies, there are plenty of things undercovered about Vietnam or countries like it. It's ultimately your call, of course, but you ought to be prepared for all the pain of taking the more difficult road also. You can not ask the community to take it easy on you, or relax the standards for company articles from you, since, that is the worst area from which the integrity of Wikipedia is constantly under attack. You will need to figure out first which sources are WP:RELIABLE, and from among them which ones are independent (you should be able to filter out the paid-for pieces in those sources, WP:ROUTINE coverages, press releases from the companies, interviews, etc.) and from among the sources that remain, you'll need to make sure you have enough WP:SIGCOV left to support a standalone article.

Being from Forbes, for example, is not enough. It has to be the case that Forbes covered it because they genuinely thought the topic worth covering, and in their coverage, they presented enough encyclopedic information to support an article. Experienced editors who patrol the new articles and drafts can tell the difference by just reading a few sentences. So, if you are prepared for a baptism by fire, by all means, it's your call, but then it would be unfair to complain that other editors are being rough on you. Finally, be careful about the editor/article distinction. Reviewers called your draft promotional; the fact that, you, the author, would acknowledge a motive for promotion or declare a conflict if any, though a part of the equation is not the be all of whether an article is ultimately too promotional to be in mainspace (I inadvertently manage to write a completely promotional piece about a topic I had never heard of until that day, simply because the sources I was using were all promotional pieces, and I was not experienced enough to judge that fact). When the article is good beyond doubt, articles are accepted irrespective of creators' motives. In the case of your draft, it has no information that a regular wikipedia reader would be interested in. The information there is exactly of the type and format that a company's quarterly/yearly reports would include. It doesn't provide information to the general public, it provides information to potential customers and investors. It's not that that information is never to be included, but with only that, it is not really of any encyclopedic value. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 07:43, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi all. I am neither a new editor, a Teahouse host, or a new pages/AfC person (because I know I am too much of an inclusionist and would just be trying to save all the articles). I've also cut back sharply on my editing since last summer, so I may not be known to some of you, but I've written and improved articles on a very wide range of subjects. I've been trying to help KyleVietnam. I have to say that Wikipedia must not let "what we think the reader will be interested in" become our consideration. That's condescending to the reader: we aim to be more inclusive than dead-tree encyclopedias with editorial boards, not less. It causes unconscious bias to become more entrenched, not to mention causing editors with different backgrounds and interests to drift apart (personally I find video games and almost all popular music deeply uninteresting, and I'm sure most editors find architecture, þættir, and traditional knitting patterns equally unappealing). So we aim for notability, and we let everybody choose what they work on. And we try to encourage coverage of topics on which our existing coverage is weak. Although I understand trying to guide a new editor away from a topic where the gauntlet can be especially hard to run, there is nothing inherently wrong with having articles on businesses; that's why we have a specific notability criterion. There is also nothing inherently wrong with foreign-language sources, including languages that relatively few native speakers of English speak, although I advised KyleVietnam to provide title translations as a courtesy, which is good practise. In fact I agree 100% with KyleVietnam, we should welcome improvement of our coverage of Vietnamese topics, because it is indeed an area where our coverage is poor. The article needs to demonstrate that the business is notable; the most obviously applicable criterion is that it is a major player in its sector in its country, and another is that it has been recognized, in this instance by Japanese companies and press. Beyond that, it needs to reflect what reliable sources have said about it. If that happens to be boring business-type stuff, well, that's what the article should have in it. I cannot trawl through the cited sources looking for press releases, but they appear to me to include major Japanese and Vietnamese news providers, so I think assuming promotionalism is deleterious to the encyclopedia, and I believe KyleVietnam. (I am rather shocked the article was quick-failed with an assumption of bad faith, and had a "stop!" template applied to it that should be reserved for obviously inappropriate drafts and those that have been resubmitted a number of times wkithout meaningful improvement.) Perhaps it would be good if other editors who can read Vietnamese and/or Japanese examined the sources, and so I rather wish KyleVietnam had posted this at the AfC help board rather than the general Teahouse. But please, we should not only not assume bad faith as happened here, we should also welcome an editor who can read Vietnamese and Japanese (and Russian, too) and writes good English, and whatever articles they choose to write. We need such editors and we blatantly need such articles, if only so we reflect a bit less the unconscious biases of editors like me. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:27, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Yngvadottir, hello! Yes, I have seen your username in discussions before. I don't think I suggested there was anything wrong with writing about business; I only meant to make them aware of the painful reality (because they expressed frustration) that that is the area where we get the most WP:SPAs and spam, and as a corollary, that is the area where page patrollers and reviewers are likely to suspend good faith the quickest, and demand content standards atypical of articles that are just getting started, by new editors to add. My other point about whether the content is of interest to general readers, stems from the fact that the type of corporate facts that "would benefit investors and customers only" are the type of facts available on every single organisation. The fact that we don't indiscriminately cover companies but have a notability guideline means that that kind of information, even if it satisfies WP:V, does not add to notability, again, due to the fact that that's the kind of information you'd expect to be available for all companies. So, whether there is information available, and by extension, included, that's likely to be interest to the general public, is a short-hand to evaluating whether there is the type of coverage that satisfies WP:SIGCOV/WP:NORG. I have seen quality content contributors discuss the general accessibility of an article content with regard to the inherent quality that Wikipedia articles should strive toward (and the notion does find mentions here and there among the content guidelines), but that was not the reason I mentioned it. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 08:11, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Mike Greenhaus

Thank you once again for all your help with my article on Journalist Mike Greenhaus (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Mike_Greenhaus) Last week an editor was kind enough enough to give me some feedback and, after some back and forth, they determined that I had enough sources to prove notability (three articles that met the criteria). I added the top 3 to the top of the page as they suggested and resubmitted and another editor immediately declined the article and said I did not have the right sources. This is my first bio so I want to make sure I get it right but wasn't sure what the best next move was Thank you so much for your help Caryplace7 (talk) 02:13, 3 June 2020 (UTC) Caryplace7 (talk) 02:13, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Caryplace7, if two experienced editors are giving you contradicting information, I'd recommend discussing it with the two of them. I could provide a third opinion, but then that would be just that. It sounds like the issue needs discussion among the three of you, not a fourth vote. Do note that a draft review provides an opinion of one experienced editor, not the official judgement of Wikipedia, so there is always room for further discussion and clarification. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 07:55, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you so much. How do I go about starting a conversation with two editors at the same time Caryplace7 (talk) 12:48, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

@Caryplace7: Since this appears to be relevant to the draft itself and not advice in general, I suggest starting a discussion on Draft talk:Mike Greenhaus and pinging the two editors with {{ping}} (← read the documentation) there to notify them both. Just make sure to sign so that the notification goes through. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 20:48, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks again for your advice on how I can go about getting an article published. The editor who denied my request has not responded to my talk page, even after you pinged them. The other editor i brought into the conversation also confirmed again that he verified three independent sources. What would you recommend is the best next step to help the article get published? I have confirmed a number of independent sources, links to other wiki articles and worked to massage the bio itself. I am happy to do whatever is needed but feel a little lost Caryplace7 (talk) 19:22, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

You say that "The editor who denied my request has not responded", but I notice that the editor who most recently declined your draft was not one of the two whom you pinged in your message on the draft's talk page. That may be why he/she didn't reply. --David Biddulph (talk) 19:39, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Been sanctioned?

Hi. Asking again since posting from a few minutes ago is not in list of asked questions.

So, as a relatively inexperienced editor focusing on Killing of George Floyd article. I learned videos are original sources whose audio/visual info requires RS. Received OR warnings. (Received reporting threat from user that didn't read talk/examine video. Maybe user didn't like info???) Finally understanding, provided RS for an edit 16+/- hrs ago; edit was accepted as DONE; Now I can't access article's talk page or my watchlist. Have I been sanctioned? (After providing an accepted edit with supporting RS?) Thanks for reading the question's preamble, and thanks for the help. Pasdecomplot (talk) 12:43, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

No you haven't been. -- Hoary (talk) 13:11, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Don't worry, Pasdecomplot. The first time I got one of those Discretionary Sanctions notices on my talk page I was scared witless! "What have I done?", I thought. The answer was Nothing, except that I had chosen to edit a page on a topic that was currently attracting huge debate, vastly different opinions, and liable to attract lots and lots of disruptive edits. So, for certain very specific topics, we place an alert on all editors pages who have made edits to that topic. It formally advises them that we will tolerate far less disruption (from anyone) than we normally might. So, for example, making more than one revert in a 24 hr period on such a sensitive topic would be far more disruptive there than it would be on a less contentions subject, like the Mona Lisa. So, you've simply got a DS notice; should you subsequently act disruptively, you can't say you weren't warned when you get summarily blocked from editing. There's nothing personal in that notice at all. I would say that getting a DS Notice is rather like the old fashioned British method of 'Reading the Riot Act', although under the terrible situation we have been seeing this week, that metaphor is really rather too close for comfort. Take care, Nick Moyes (talk) 14:02, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Pasdecomplot The important thing is on the top line of the message you received: "It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date." It just to make you aware of the policies. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:07, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

@Pasdecomplot: There are a few topics on Wikipedia which are prone to a higher volume of edit warring and controversial edits. Another area is post-1932 US politics. Like Joseph said, it's a form message warning editors planning on participating to not be reckless with their edits. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 15:05, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Are you still unable to access Talk:Killing of George Floyd or your watchlist? -- Hoary (talk) 23:24, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Hoary Yes. Cannot access talk, can read watchlist but not access posts. (No reply command here either. Direct entering reply in edit function.) -- pasdecomplot (talk) 12:31, 04 June 2020 (UTC) —Preceding undated comment added 12:11, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

pasdecomplot I can't think of any "reply command". (I'm editing this, now, just as I'd edit anything else.) When you look through your watchlist, it should have links to the articles concerned. When you click on these links, are you not taken to the articles? -- Hoary (talk) 12:37, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Hoary wrong nomenclature? The reply command box normally found on pages is not here on this Tea House question. Perhaps my mistake in assuming it should be. pasdecomplot (talk) 13:09, 04 June 2020 (UTC)

@Pasdecomplot: When you say you can't access Talk:Killing of George Floyd do you mean that you can't read it or that you can't edit it? You won't be able to edit that semi-protected page until your account is autoconfirmed, which will be later today. --David Biddulph (talk) 12:41, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

David Biddulph cc Hoary Thanks David. I was contributing to the protected article through suggestions, and accessing all functions of talk for follow up, but access was stopped. Thus, I thought something had changed. I look forward to regaining access and contributing. Again, thanks for all the comments and help to the question from all contributors.

pasdecomplot (talk) 13:14, 04 June 2020 (UTC)

Is there anyone who can help me with this?

Hi I was working on a page (specifically This one) and it appears that I have broken the EPFC limit. It says that you can manually use the mw.incrementExpensiveFunctionCount but I have no idea how to use it. Could someone help me? REDMAN 2019 (talk) 13:20, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

@REDMAN 2019: wow - that's a pretty technical question for the Teahouse (although PrimeHunter normally charges to the rescue with those)! As it's a Wikimedia Commons-related question, I wonder if you might be better off asking at c:Commons:Help_desk if you don't get an answer here. Nick Moyes (talk) 14:12, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Alternatively, you can try WP:VPT. Regards SoWhy 14:18, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Good point- I should have suggested that. Ta. Nick Moyes (talk) 14:22, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

@REDMAN 2019: mw.incrementExpensiveFunctionCount is the opposite of what you want. It doesn't change the limit of 500 but increases the ongoing count during processing of a page without actually calling an expensive parser function. This means you will have one less call available before breaking the limit. The limit cannot be changed. You have to either split the page or find a way to use fewer expensive parser functions. commons:Template:Football kit makes many expensive #ifexist calls to test whether there is an image for a pattern. It doesn't have an option to omit the test. When the limit of 500 is passed, all #ifexist calls automatically return false without making a test. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:54, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

@PrimeHunter: thanks for your reply I will see if their is a way to reduce the number of expensive parser functions on the page in question. @Nick Moyes: I know my way around Wikipedia pretty well by now and that unfortunately means that if I have a question to ask here it will probably be a hard one :) Cheers! REDMAN 2019 (talk) 10:13, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

@REDMAN 2019: I have created commons:Template:Football kit/No check without the expensive #ifexist checks.[1] You can change some of the calls to the new template. The result will be poor if a pattern image does not exist so always check that first. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:00, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 10:27, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Need Review of Draft for First Article :)

Hello hosts! I am excited to be creating my first article for Wikipedia. I have created a draft here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Kyle_McMahonFrankNSteinJr (talk) 14:46, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

I was wondering if someone could review and let me know:

1. 1. Do I need to include Credits & if so how do you add them?
2. 2. How do I do the sidebar? It doesn't seem to work for me.
3. 3. How do I add the references automatically that I cited in the article?

Thank you so much. Looking forward to hopefully adding to the community.

Frank FrankNSteinJr (talk) 14:46, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello, FrankNSteinJr, and welcome to the Teahouse.

1. If by "credits" you mean a list of 

McMahon 's broadcast appearances in films and on TV and Radio, we generally call the first a "Fimography" by analogy with a bibliography. A List of records and CDs is called a Discography. And so on. Only the more significant appearances should be included. All feature films, but not every inmdividual TV or radio appearance. Format them as a bulleted list, and give the title of the show or production, the date, the publisher (which may be a network or a station), and the name of the character played if there is one ("as Jo Jo the Clown" or "as himself").
2. If by the "sidebar" you mean an infobox, see {{Infobox Person}} or {{Infobox Actor}} for instructions. But do nopt worry about an infobox until the rest of the draft is in better shape.
3. I have added the {{reflist}} template to your References section. If you use the <ref>...</ref> mechanism, the cited refs will show up automatically. Please read Referencing for Beginners for more detail on this.
4. Several of your refs show error messages. Please read these, in many cases the fixes should be fairly clear. Again, read Referencing for Beginners
5. Twitter is not usually an acceptable source unless citing a specific tweet from an identified and verified person who is either an expert, or the subject of the article. IMDB is mostly not considered a reliable source.
6. Drafts should not be in categories, but they may be present as links to show the categories desired when and if a draft is approved. But usually 4-6 categories are quite enough.

I hope that is helpful. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 15:28, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you so much! I’ll get to work on this, fix what you noted and read the guide you posted. Once this my first article is done and published, I’d like to move on to Creating or adding to other notable Delaware people and places. I’ll have more confidence to do it :)

Thanks so much! — Preceding unsigned comment added by FrankNSteinJr (talk • contribs) 15:50, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

You are quite welcome, FrankNSteinJr. If you have further questions, please feel free to come back here to the Teahouse to ask them. Do please remember to sign your posts on discussion page such as this with four tildes (~~~~). The wiki software will convert this to your signature (default or custom) and a timestamp. But please never sign in the test of articles or drafts. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 16:04, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you again! I read through all of your links which were extremely helpful. There is an editor named ThreadIsLong who added some suggestions to the Draft/KyleMcMahon as well. I took both of your suggestions and implemented them.

1. I took out the "trending on Twitter" sentence because the sources would be considered unreliable (a tweeted screenshot). 2. I also took out the sentence regarding the United Nations Youth Ambassadors Program because the only sources on that were from McMahon himself. 3. I updated two other sources to reliable sources. 4. I added Selma's Oscar win, which I found when looking up what studio the movie is from. I used the Academy Awards website as the source for the Oscar 5. Per your instructions, I added a bulleted list with Title, Date, Studio, Credit. Which leads me to a question about this: As I was looking through sources, I saw that he has a credit on a Tina Turner tribute album but I didn't think that was notable enough to include. Is that okay to not include it or should I add it? (He also has one song through Warner Brothers that was free with the Oprah Lifeclass shows, which I am realizing now I forgot to add to the credits)

As I stated on his page, I'm having some fun with this as I feel like I'm doing a research paper for the world.

FrankNSteinJr (talk) 00:51, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Some questions

Hello,

An article I wrote on "British Nuclear Medicine Society" (BNMS) linke: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Nuclear_Medicine_Society, and learned a lot but still have some questions.

It initially got rejected 2-3 times. The main reason was insufficient notability and excessive advertisement. Even though it was very similar to an existing Wikipedia article, for example, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Association_of_Nuclear_Medicine (EANM)

I thought it would be a good idea to add a new section to the article called "Contribution to society", since BNMS has existed for 60 years. The section was full of peer-reviewed references, some written by BNMS staff & other articles authored by non-BNMS researchers citing BNMS written manuscripts. Wikipedians advised me that it reads like a promotional article, so I tried to refine it as suggested. Anyways, it got finally accepted.

Since BNMS article got accepted presumably based on the new section, I thought it was appropriate to add a similar section to the EANM article, and I did.

Then, another editor removed this section "Contribution to society" from the BNMS article with a comment "Reorganised activities to prose, removed contributions to society section as it sounds non-neutral and is effectively a bibliography of BNMS, and tangentially related, publications". They also removed this section "Contribution to society" from the EANM article with a comment "Removal of "Contributions to Society" section - the heading alone doesn't seem neutral or encyclopaedic, and the content itself is essentially a bibliography and collection of citations, not what Wikipedia is for".

My questions are as follows:

1. Why does is it appear to be acceptable to list publications in the middle of biography but not for other articles? I have listed here a few examples as the complete list is very long.

-https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mildred_Dresselhaus#Selected_publications

-https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Julian_Buerger

-https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daron_Acemoglu#Selected_publications

-https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_H._Townes#Selected_publications

-https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Levinson#Publications

-https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nevin_S._Scrimshaw#Works

-https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyril_Stanley_Smith#Selected_works

2. If it is not acceptable, should such bibliography be removed from the middle of all articles on Wikipedia?

3. Why were the following articles accepted on the basis of meeting the visibility condition? I have listed here a few examples as the complete list is very long.

-https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Building_Research_Organisation

-https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Politics_Research

-https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulletin_of_Latin_American_Research

-https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Institute_for_Cancer_Research

-https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cancer_Research_Institute

-https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sleep_Research_Society#Publications

4. How can a person/organisation potentially satisfy Wikipedia's visibility requirement if it has not contributed to society? And if it has contributed, then why writing about it is considered non-neutral?

I would be thankful for your inputs.

Thank you

Earthianyogi (talk) 22:40, 3 June 2020 (UTC) Earthianyogi (talk) 22:40, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

@Earthianyogi: Although Wikipedia has many policies and guidelines, they can be interpreted differently by various editors. There are also many articles that need to be updated or maybe even deleted. I suggest you read the essay Wikipedia:Other stuff exists, and continue working to make the Wikipedia articles better. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 01:33, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

For me, it's not the bibliography that's problematic, it's the phrasing. For an example, let's look at one entry that was deleted: In 2017, EANM along with the Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, the European Thyroid Association, and the American Thyroid Association setted a group on differentiated thyroid cancer to discuss differences in an open, honest, data-driven, respectful manner to improve clinical management of patients. I don't know what "setted" means. ("Set up"?) In some contexts (notably "open software"), "open" has a clear meaning. In others, its meaning is somewhat unclear: it's evaluative. ("Open" by what standards? "Open" as described by whom?) "Data-driven": well, theology and "critical theory" aside, every study claims to be "data-driven", does it not? (But are the data representative, or cherry-picked?) "Honest" and "respectful": utterly superfluous, as I can't imagine a (non-parodic) statement of intent to be either dishonest or disrespectful. Additionally, associations routinely set up inter-association groups; what's remarkable about this one? -- Hoary (talk) 03:23, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

@GoingBatty:, and @Hoary:: Great points, especially that "they can be interpreted differently by various editors." Also, I see why the content appeared like an advertisement. I tried hard not to write it in a tight academic style, as the content is written for the general population, even though it may depend a lot on the subject of the article and the reviewer's level of experience. It is easy for a detail-oriented reader to access the article directly as this level of detail may not be of interest to a general reader (Wikipedia is a multilingual online encyclopedia - right?). Since Wikipedia is built on a collaborative effort, would you agree that it would have been more productive for the experienced editor @Beevil: to highlight it before deleting the content, or be kind to make an effort to edit such superfluous words/lines within the "Contribution to society" section, rather than simply removing the whole section altogether? I think a positive contribution should be encouraged. I will try to rewrite this section and add it back again and will invite you all to review. Thanks. Earthianyogi (talk) 10:50, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Earthianyogi, WP:BRD applies; start a section at the talk page, invite the other editor to participate, and argue that some content could be retained, propose you could rewrite to fix if the concern is just the presentation. If and when you agree, your work is safe in history to be restored. The full revert does not mean you'll have to start again. Hoary gave their analysis, but they are not a mind reader, they can't guarantee that Beevil will not object on some other grounds. So, Beevil is the one you should discuss this with. Teahouse can not be expected to intervene on someone's behalf in every dispute. Editors here have provided their perspective, it is now on you to follow WP:DR procedures in support of your preferred changes. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 11:17, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Want to translate an specific page from English to Spanish

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

I want to translate in Wikipedia this article into Spanish.

This is going to be my first article in Wikipedia.

I need help on doing it, since I am a new member here, want to do the things right.

So I hope it can be helpful.

Thanks in advance. Mktjapan (talk) 23:23, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

@Mktjapan: Welcome to Wikipedia and thanks for wanting to improve it. See WP:TRANSLATEUS for some guidance. Also, each language Wikipedia has its own rules and guidelines for how articles are written, so I suggest you ask at [2] for further advice. RudolfRed (talk) 00:43, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

That's good advice, but whereas WP:TRANSLATEUS says

We suggest text for the edit summary like: Content in this edit is from the existing English Wikipedia article at [[:en:Exact name of English article]]; see its history for attribution. Formatting follows..

I suggest that you instead write the same thing in Spanish. -- Hoary (talk) 01:34, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi Mktjapan, the Spanish wikipedia does have some other rules to mark a page as translated, they tag it with some special tags. Have a look other here: [3]https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Traducciones. CommanderWaterford (talk) 09:55, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

WHICH NEWS SITES ARE DEEMED CREDIBLE FOR A MUSIC ARTIST

Which news sites are deemed credible for a music artist to be placed on in order to have a wikipedia page created? Marquis Tarver (talk) 23:50, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Marquis Tarver The musician should meet WP:MUSICBIO. As for which news sites are credible, see WP:NEWSORG. Hillelfrei ^talk 00:21, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Additionally, please see Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Start with books published by reputable publishers, academic journals, and reputable magazines and newspapers and their websites. For newspapers, don't be misled by an august title: The Times of India, for example, recycles PR junk. For starters, try The Guardian, because it's pretty good (often very good indeed) and free of charge. Incidentally, a "music artist" can more neatly be called a "musician", and Wikipedia asks all participants not to SHOUT with capital letters. -- Hoary (talk) 00:24, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

@Marquis Tarver: Welcome to the Teahouse! Another criteria to consider is whether the source is independent from the musician - see WP:Independent sources. While there is no complete list of every possible source that would be acceptable, there are many examples at WP:RSPSOURCES with explanations about what makes each one reliable or unreliable. GoingBatty (talk) 01:39, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Are you the subject of this draft? I ask because your names are startlingly similar. If you are not, then your username is misleading and violates Wikipedia policy; please use a different username. If you are him, then you are attempting to write an article about yourself. Doing this is "strongly discouraged". Put more directly: One way or another, the attempt is probably doomed. If this musician is notable, then there will be plenty of independent, reliable sources about him, and unrelated people will want to use these in order to create a disinterested article about him. -- Hoary (talk) 01:44, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

@Hoary Yes, I know that. I don’t know anything about Wikipedia and I am just trying to learn more about it to self educate myself. I would like to say I don’t feel as if anyone was shouting in the messages above wanted to clear that up. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.136.90.254 (talk) 03:51, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

The title of this section is in all caps, which some can interpret as SHOUTING. GoingBatty (talk) 01:48, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

is Authority control and sister project link "d" duplication, foreign language Quotations from Wikiquote on en wiki

• Lady Gaga contains wikidata template twice : {{Authority control}} and {{Sister project links|d=Q19848}}. is this considered duplication ?
• is it ok to use foreign language Quotations from Wikiquote hyperlink Williamina Fleming on Williamina Fleming in Sister project links template. is it allowed on our wiki ? Vishnuvardhan leela (talk) 07:53, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

How do I put citations into a bio in a draft I am writing?

 Gingerfinallysnaps (talk) 09:25, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi Gingerfinallysnaps, welcome to the Teahouse. Please have a look at Wikipedia:Citing_sources. Hope that helps. CommanderWaterford (talk) 09:57, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

@Gingerfinallysnaps: Check out WP:ERB, which might be a bit easier to follow. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 16:57, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Creating a new section on a page?

Hi,

I started a project to collect official evidence from police use of force cases in the United States a couple of years ago. I was doing this in the hopes of creating a database for people to access these materials (video, documents & photos). I obtained these via legal means e.g. via FOIA requests when required. I still want to share this evidenciary material with people but creating and maintaining an independent online database is not something I am able to do. This is why I would like to share what I have with an existing database like Wikipedia.

The videos are all uploaded onto YouTube. The videos are unlisted, so they can only be accessed via link and the documents and photos are stored in g-drive. This is all information that is (and should be) available to the public but sometimes you have to request it to get it.

I was wondering if it is possible to add a section for evidence on the relevant Wikipedia pages. For example, I have 200+ exhibits (videos, documents and photos) given to me by the DA's office on the shooting of John Crawford III.

user: Busimhlongo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Busimhlongo (talk • contribs) 09:36, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you 165.73.100.42 (talk) 09:32, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

@Busimhlongo: If you own the license to the videos, you can add them to Wikimedia Commons, the file repository used for Wikipedia. You can add categories to them to group them with other videos that depict similar things. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 10:20, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Busimhlongo. If the videos are all on Youtube, and appropriately licensed, I can't see what the value would be in uploading them to Commons as well. You can't use any of them in Wikipedia, because all information in Wikipedia is required to be based on reliably published sources: anything you tried to do based on these would be original research, I'm afraid. If some of them relate to matters which are already covered in Wikipedia articles, it might be possible to add them to those articles as illustrations - see WP:Videos (you would need to upload them to Commons to use them in this way), but not as sources for any information. --ColinFine (talk) 14:15, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

DRAFT Lebanese Yacht Club was not approved

dear all, kindly note that i have just been advised that Lebanese Yacht Club draft for submission was not approved by the reviewer reason: Lacks events that pass Wikipedia's notability thresholds. can you please advise the possibility to resolve this problem and resubmitted again. appreciate your assistance. Princesse Marissa (talk) 09:48, 4 June 2020 (UTC) Princesse Marissa (talk) 09:48, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Princesse Marissa Hello. You've asked this question at the AFC Help Desk; please only use one method of seeking assistance, to avoid duplication of effort. Thanks 331dot (talk) 10:29, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Why do my edits keep getting deleted

Why are my edits being deleted less than an hour after posting ? I’m adding true content and referencing. 86.183.115.190 (talk) 11:05, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

There are no edits associated with your IP address other than your above comment, so it is difficult to answer you. If you made the edits with an account, remember to log in before posting. 331dot (talk) 11:09, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

This is the first edit this IP address has made. If you mean edits you made under another IP address or your username, you need to specify which ones you are referring to in order for us to help you. Regards SoWhy 11:10, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. It was made under username Rickmaids. I don’t know if it’s logged in now — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rickmaids (talk • contribs) 11:55, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Your edit here [4] was reverted because Twitter is not a reliable source. Theroadislong (talk) 11:58, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Rickmaids, Twitter can be used in rare circumstances but the types of things for which it can be used are quite narrow. See WP:USERG and WP:SELFSOURCE S Philbrick(Talk) 18:11, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. How do I go about editing my own personal life with a source more reliable than the actual person it’s about please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rickmaids (talk • contribs) 12:16, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Rickmaids. You say that you are editing my own personal life. Are you asserting that you are Julian Dicks, then? If so, you should not be editing that article at all, only making suggestions at Talk:Julian Dicks. As to the actual edit, under WP:ABOUTSELF a twitter comment can be an acceptable source when it is verifiably made by the subject of the article. But is this a fact that should be in the article at all? Wikipedia is not a gossip column or a record of the details of celebrity life. The focus of the article is properly on Dicks's coaching career. Are such details of his family life really proper in an encyclopedic article? Also, the statement is very much of the moment. It will be out-of-date in a few months at most. Wikipedia articles should be longer-term that that, usually. Wikipedia is not the news. How many times would such comments need to be revised over the next ten years, say? If you still want to add the information, i suggest that you first discuss it on Talk:Julian Dicks. Please follow the Bold, revert, discuss cycle. You made a bold edit, it was reverted, and now please discuss it with other editors. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 13:01, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. No I’m not him I’m his agent . Cheers for the advice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rickmaids (talk • contribs) 13:05, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Rickmaids You must read the important information I have posted on your user talk page(User talk:Rickmaids) and comply with the policies described therein, as soon as possible. Thank you 331dot (talk) 13:07, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Citations continued

I have worked out how to create citations but is there anything else I need to do to make my draft acceptable before I send it off? I am new! Thank you. Gingerfinallysnaps (talk) 11:10, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Are you asking about Draft:Philippa Beale? If so, my puzzlement starts in the very first paragraph. What are "semiotic images"? If "iconic works about advertising" means something other than plain "works about advertising", then what? -- Hoary (talk) 11:26, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Gingerfinallysnaps, and welcome to the Teahouse. Draft:Philippa Beale also has a number of formatting issues. In particular the sections are not formatted properly for Wikipedia. But more importantly, the sources for the draft are unclear. A number of works are listed in the "Bibliography" section, but it is not at all clear which, if any, of them is intended to serve as a source for the article, much less which statements are supported by which source. Pl erase read Referencing for Beginners and Citing Sources. Please also readour guideline for the notability of artists and our policy on notability and make sure that Philippa Beale is notable in the special sense in which Wikipedia uses that term. The works in the "Bibliography" section do not seem to list authors for the most part. The "Selected Exhibitions" and the "Bibliography" sections, and perhaps also the "Collections" section should be formatted as bulleted lists. There are also no wiki-links to relevant articles. Please see Help:Editing and Help:Cheatsheet for how to do wiki-formatting.

I hope this is helpful. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 12:15, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Created section titles by bracketing with == == David notMD (talk) 13:58, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Block Wikidata access in software infoboxes

How can I avoid data being pulled in from Wikidata in software infoboxes? It is annoying if it picks up the wrong logo or screenshot. In case of multiple variants of the same software (NOT a fork under a different name, but same look and feel, so only 1 screenshot is needed per language, but multiple software infoboxes), the original name cause Wikidata info to be pulled in. At the EN wikipedia, it does not, but at the FR and IT pages of the same program it does. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cinelerra and https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cinelerra . Manitech (talk) 12:02, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

I think that you'd better to ask this question in itwiki and frwiki, respectively. Ruslik_Zero 13:52, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Ok, will do. Does this mean that such a possibility is language dependent? Thanks, --Manitech (talk) 14:16, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Manitech A Given template may pull content from wikidata always, never, or optionally. Different versions of Wikipedia use (or may use) different templates, even when the purpose is similar and the template name is the same or related\, the template coding may be different. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 15:03, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Understood. In the EN wikipedia then, is there a "keyword" that will prohibit a template of single field thereof to be pulled from wikidata? --Manitech (talk) 20:10, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Not a general one, to the best of my understanding, Manitech. Some templates are so written that if a field value is explicitly specified, it overrides the wikidata value. Others so that the wikidata value is used and the local value ignored unless the wikidata value is missing or blank. Some might control this with a keyword, but I think not many. It all depends on how the template is written. A few years ago there was an RfgC (a project-wide discussion) in which it was proposed to bar templates using wikidata values at all, but that position did not gain consensus. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 20:52, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I (retired programmer) would have proposed something like "name = xxx" take from wikidata if possible, and "name == xxx" do not consult wikidata. So one could say "logo == ¨ and prevent it from picking up a logo from wikidata or showing a logo, and controllable per field. Anyway, many thanks for the clarifications. It is how it is. Cheers, --Manitech (talk) 10:18, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Wondering if I need to declare a COI for a new article

I'm considering making an article for the Disappearance of Steven Cook - he went missing in 2005, remains discovered a decade or so later, with an inquiry returning an open verdict in 2019.

I think it's notable enough and I definitely think there are enough sources to cover it, reliable and notable ones - however, I have a somewhat remote connection to the deceased.

He was my mother's cousin, though I don't know how close they were, and my father worked on the website to promote the search for his body, which has now been taken offline following the discovery of his remains.

Even though he disappeared when I was 5, and I never knew or met him that I can recall, I still don't want to fall foul of the COI policy, so I'd appreciate any help with this. Thank you! Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) 12:20, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Ineffablebookkeeper and welcome back to the Teahouse. Part of the question is how close you feel to Cook, and whether you might have any problem writing neutrally about him. But if others perceive that there could be a problem, in the interest of transparency, it is probably better to declare a COI, even in a marginal case. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 12:47, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

@Ineffablebookkeeper: I agree with DESiegel. If you hypothetically came across an important but unflattering piece of information about this person, would you hesitate to include it in the article, or would others reasonably have that perception? If so, you should disclose; otherwise you're fine.

If you do disclose, I'd recommend specifying the specific (fairly loose) connection you outlined above, since if you don't, others will likely assume it's a close connection and give the article unwarranted scrutiny. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 16:50, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi - thanks for getting back to me, I really appreciate it. I feel as though I'd have a relatively neutral connection to the subject - I've never really felt one way or the other about it, it wasn't a big thing in our family, and I think the last time I saw some actual blood relations of mine might've been at a funeral I went to - but if it's advisable to declare a COI on my userpage, I will, as obviously it's impossible to be objective about yourself. I'm assuming this won't prevent me from actually creating the article? Thank you again! --Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) 21:09, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

@Ineffablebookkeeper: Oddly, I know, to varying degrees, a lot of people (nevermind businesses) that are subjects of Wikipedia articles. The way I look at it, I would declare a COI if I were to do anything significant to their articles that is at all subjective (i.e., other than correcting grammar, cleaning up a cite, etc.) – generally anything that would not be classified as minor. Most of them, I've never edited at all. I don't believe (though I might be forgetting one) I've ever felt the need to declare a COI for. You're got the right mindset in questioning it, so you should be fine, whatever you choose. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 23:05, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Creating the 2nd Article while the first is pending.

I need help with how to create a second Article while the first one is still pending. The article I want do is the Young Communist League of South Africa. The challenge is that when I try to create it on my sandbox it looks like it mixes my first article with the edits. (Tefo S Radebe (talk) 12:30, 4 June 2020 (UTC)) Tefo S Radebe (talk) 12:30, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Tefo S Radebe. You can create a userspace draft, such as User:Tefo S Radebe/Young Communist League of South Africa or go right to draft space, with Draft:Young Communist League of South Africa. You can also create multiple sandboxes, such as User:Tefo S Radebe/Sandbox2 and User:Tefo S Radebe/Sandbox3. There is no need for new drafts to be started in a sandbox, and startign multiple articles in the same page can cause confusion, as you found. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 12:42, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Meanwhile, your user page: please see WP:FAKEARTICLE. -- Hoary (talk) 12:48, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Discography

why every wiki i create about me always gets deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarginalChino (talk • contribs) 13:16, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

MarginalChino Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. You are not writing "a wiki", but "a Wikipedia article". However, Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell the world about themselves, please see the autobiography policy. Wikipedia is only interested in what independent reliable sources state about a person, showing how they meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable person, or in your case, a notable musician. Wikipedia is not interested in what someone wants to say about themselves. If you just want to tell the world about yourself, you should use social media. 331dot (talk) 13:32, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

One draft page that you had created was deleted because it appears to have been a test page i.e. did not have any meaningful content. The second page was deleted because it failed criterion WP:A7 for speedy deletion i.e. it was not clear why this person should be notable. Ruslik_Zero 13:49, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

so if i write about my self on social media's will by bio be automatically sent to here or what????? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarginalChino (talk • contribs) 13:52, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

MarginalChino Please do not create additional sections; simply edit this existing discussion for follow up questions. To answer you, if you write on social media, it stays on social media. The only way there will be a Wikipedia article about you is if others take note of your career in independent reliable sources with significant coverage and choose on their own to write about you- and only if you meet the special definition of a notable musician that we have. You should not attempt to write about yourself here or enlist others to. Wikipedia has no interest in aiding your career or enhancing search results for you. 331dot (talk) 13:57, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

I will add that any article about you that might be created is not something that you would have control over. You could not dictate what appears there, prevent others from editing it, or lock it to the text you might prefer. A Wikipedia article is not necessarily desirable. There are good reasons to not want one. 331dot (talk) 13:59, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

so then why dont you approve or restore my deleted article i wrote???? people to find and locate me on google to know more about.....— Preceding unsigned comment added by MarginalChino (talk • contribs)

MarginalChino As I said, if you want your fans or other people to know about you, you should use social media. Wikipedia is not here to help you reach your fans. 331dot (talk) 14:09, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Marginal, you're not even creating truthful articles about yourself, you're just creating blatant hoaxes. – Thjarkur (talk) 14:20, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

@MarginalChino: Wikipedia is not social media. You may want to look at some alternative sites at WP:OUT for something that better suits your tastes. (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.) —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 14:38, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Using map from book?

Hi! Can I straight up copy/paste a map from a book if it's minor, verifiable, and if I properly credit the map source and year of publication and its author? Julia Domna Ba'al (talk) 13:44, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Julia Domna Ba'al, Hi and welcome to the Teahouse - no, you cannot, most probably it will be an infringement of a copyright. please have a close look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:FAQ/Copyright. CommanderWaterford (talk) 13:46, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the answer! Yes it is a copyright infringement. I have two followup questions if that's alright.

1. How much can I quote a book without violating copyright? Say I'm explaining something then in the end I want to quote a writer. Like Philip Hitti saying "a preview of the gigantic show to come". This is fine, right?

2. If I make my own map using one in a book as reference, that's fine right? it will be very similar, as it's a map after all, but created from scratch on my end and using my style.

Julia Domna Ba'al (talk) 14:03, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Julia Domna Ba'al.

1. US copyright law is rather vague on exactly how much may be freely quoted of a copyrighted work. In one rather extreme case quoting 300 words from a several hundred page autobiography was held to the "the heart of the matter" and not allowed, but there were some unusual factors in that case. See Wikipedia:Quotations for details our the policy here. In general quotations should be fairly brief, usually no more than 1-2 paragraphs and often no more than a sentence. Quotes should be relevant to the article, and not misrepresent the quoted work. Quotes must always be attributed to the person (or entity) quoted in the article prose, and must be cited to a reliable source that shows that the quote is from the person it is said to bge from.
2. The facts conveyed by the map in the book (such as what city is located where) are not protected by copyright. You may use those facts to create your own map freely, although it would be good practice to credit the original map as the source of the new map.

I hope that clarifies things a bit. Do feel free to ask more questions here. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 14:36, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

@Julia Domna Ba'al: You might also first search for a public domain (or freely-licensed) version of the map you want to use. The UT PCL collection, for example, is mostly public domain. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 23:25, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

• If you do decide to use one of those maps, before you upload it to Commons, you should make sure it's not already there. BTW, have you looked to see if a usable map for your purpose is not already at Commons? —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 23:30, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

-
DESiegel, AlanM1 Thank you for the links and the help! That website is great but my map is pretty niche. I will remake it, no problem. My issues have resolved. Julia Domna Ba'al (talk) 04:16, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Draft: House of Highlights (sports media)

Hello, I'm trying to publish my first article to Wikipedia and I want to make sure I'm doing everything correct. I submitted Draft:House of Highlights (sports media) and I wanted to see if it has been reviewed yet and what I need to do in order to get it approved by Wiki editors?

Thank you! JDeditor850 (talk) 14:06, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

JDeditor850 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. You have not yet submitted your draft for review; I will shortly add the appropriate information to allow you to do so. After you formally submit it for review, it will eventually be reviewed by a volunteer editor, and you will be notified as to what happens. 331dot (talk) 14:11, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi JDeditor850. If you are the same editor as HoHighlights, please make sure that you declare you are employed by the company you're writing about on your user page. Previous related question: Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1062#House of Highlights —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 14:45, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Userboxes making my page look disorganised

Resolved

 – Userbox bounding templates, floating via table, and {{clear}} suggested. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 16:00, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Userboxes making my page look disorganised

How do you make your userboxes cluster into a neat pile on your page? I have about five on the top of my user page and they are messing the top part of my bio: it is squashing my small little bio on the top and I don't know where else to put them. Do they have to be at the top or can you put them in the bottom? Need help! SarahTHunter (talk) 14:25, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

You may want to try using {{Userboxtop}} and {{Userboxbottom}}. --David Biddulph (talk) 14:29, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

@SarahTHunter: One tip is to browse through the userpages of other editors and peek at the source code that they've used to create their pages. For fancy layout ideas, see Wikipedia:User page design center. Nick Moyes (talk) 14:35, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

I add mine at end of all my other stuff. Be aware that some are taller than others, so if mixed in with standard size boxes, create gaps. David notMD (talk) 14:47, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

​You can float them to the side or clear the space before the text. You can also just place them at the bottom. – Thjarkur (talk) 15:28, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Problem solved. Thank you very much! SarahTHunter (talk) 15:29, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Mad

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.

---

Good morning my name is Ken I am a licensed fisherman I live in Dutchess County New York every place I go to the fish has a poster sign why is this is this legal I go to Ponds I go to lakes I go to parks always a poster sign saying no trespassing no fission Why do I have a pay for a fishing license when I have no words to fish please let me know please help me no fisherman Ken 24.168.41.38 (talk) 14:44, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi IP editor, this is not the place to ask your question. You may want to ask the local government instead. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 14:46, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

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.

uytrvcx7647

 Bumsowee (talk) 14:47, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Bumsowee, did you have a question? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 15:02, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Redirect Rose report.

Resolved

 – Removed all content except the redirect to fix. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 15:44, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi. I want to redirect from the Rose Report, a company that does not appear to exist, to Independent review of the teaching of early reading (Rose Report 2006), a very notable site. I added a #REDIRECT to the Rose report but it does not seem to work. Thanks. John (talk) 15:10, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

 Fixed. Jnhmunro, leave only the redirect link on the page and nothing else (categories and redirect templates notwithstanding). —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 15:23, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you! John (talk) 15:35, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Is there a correct way to direct attention to this comment /slash "question" ... ?

See Talk:Deadname#The_"#fragment"_suffix_here..._no_longer_works_as_intended --Mike Schwartz (talk) 16:02, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Usually people aren't watching redirects, so you could: post at the target article, post here at the help desks, or use {{help me}}. – Thjarkur (talk) 16:29, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

@Mike Schwartz: posting in the right place is an art that takes a bit of practice to master. You can see how many people are watching a page by clicking on "page information" on the right; if it says "less than 30" you're unlikely to get a response. Using {{Please see}} at a relevant WikiProject can help (but choose one that has recent activity on its talk page). It's also important to be concise, since editors are less likely to read longer messages, and I'd recommend using bolding/subheadings more sparingly. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 17:00, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

business.com = reliable?

Hi, is Business.com reliable? Thanks, Bart Barcino125 (talk) 16:34, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Barcino125, taking a brief look at it, my guess would be no. If you wanted to be sure, you could ask at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Is there a specific page from that website you're looking to use? It might depend on the context. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 16:54, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello.

Got a message from a bot in my User Talk page, to join this, just saying hi. Skappy (talk) 17:19, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello Skappy and welcome to Wikipedia. If you ever need help while editing or using Wikipedia, stop by the Teahouse. We'll do our best to help you. Interstellarity (talk) 17:28, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Ok, thanks! Skappy (talk) 17:30, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Hank C. Burnette draft page

Colin and Bonadea, Thank you very much for your helpful advice on 15th May here in the Teahouse concerning my aim to create an English Wikipedia page for the musician Hank C. Burnette. I have read the various pages you referenced,hopefully followed your advice, and I have now started a draft page in my Sandbox. I wondered if you could read what I have written so far and let me have any suggestions as to whether I am on the right lines. I thought it would be best to check notability and the standard of citations for the main facts first, before going any further. Best wishes, Wizzlewick Wizzlewick (talk) 17:42, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi, Wizzlewick. I would say No, I'm afraid. The Oxford reference looks as if it is reliable - but you should be citing the Encyclopedia of Popular Music, not the Oxford aggregator. The question there is whether there is substantial material on him there or not, which I can't tell without having access to the source. If so, that is one suitable source. But I don't see another one in your draft. YouTube is his own channel, so it cannot contribute to his notability. Discogs is user-generated and so not a reliable source (see WP:RSP), and in any case there is no substantial information about him there.

Again, the question is, have several people, wholly unconnected with Burnette, chosen to write at some length about him, and been published in reliable places? The Encyclopedia entry might be such a place, if it is more than one paragraph; but you need a couple more of that quality. --ColinFine (talk) 18:34, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Wizzlewick.

• First of all, a formatting issue. You have several places where the same source is cited multiple times. Please use named references to combine these into a single citation.
• The more usual way is to give the legal name first, as Sven-Åke Högberg (born December 12, 1944), better known by his performing name of Hank C. Burnette is ...
• As per WP:DOB, for living people, only give the exact birth date if it has already been widely published outside of Wikipedia, or has been published by or with the obvious consent of the subject, such as on the subject's personal web page. Otherwise give just the year.
• Discogs is generally considered of dubious reliability. It is OK to cite for an album's track list, but really not for anything but that.
• Most of your cited sources are pretty brief, and I would be inclined to question the notability here. But Wikipedia:Notability (music) includes as a notability criterion Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart. which seems to be met here. Still I would prefer a more filled out draft and some sources which offer more in depth coverage. It may be that offline or archived sources would be needed.

I hope that is of some help. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 18:52, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

ColinFine and DES, Thank you both very much indeed. There is plenty for me to work on there! Much appreciated!

Best wishes, Wizzlewick Wizzlewick (talk)

I have been looking at the music Wikipedia:Notability (music), as kindly mentioned by DES above.

Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart. Hank C. Burnette had a single in both the UK and Swedish charts, and I have independent reference websites for these entries.

Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels Hank C Burnette had three albums released by Sonet Records, which is a sufficiently important enough independent label to merit its own Wikipedia entry. As an aside he also had one album issued by Columbia Records, which is obviously a major record label. He also had one album issued by Sun Records, which is extraordinary for a European artiste. I have found record label images and listings to support these record label issues.

So, I am guessing that if Hank C Burnette fufils two of the main criteria in the first list on Wikipedia:Notability (music) then he qualifies on music notability, does he not?

Sonic

 1-ball Official (talk) 17:52, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, 1-ball Official. This is a forum for users in needs of assistance in editing Wikipedia. Let us know if you need any guidance. Nick Moyes (talk) 18:53, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Article??

How do you write an article on Wikipedia. Thandolwethu Doctor Ndlovu Nhlapo (talk) 17:54, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Thandolwethu Doctor Ndlovu Nhlapo, Hi and welcome to Wikipedia. You might want to check out https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Your_first_article. CommanderWaterford (talk) 18:00, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

 Randall finsterwald (talk) 18:35, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Show

 Deferred to User talk:CommanderWaterford

 – —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:37, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

@CommanderWaterford: OMG! I loved that show. I wish it was back and was permanent! x20px|mm Galendalia Talk to me ^{CVU Graduate} 18:43, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Galendalia did you have a question? By the way, your ping of CommanderWaterford did not work, but this one should. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 19:05, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

DESiegel, thanks for pinging me ... honestly I am confused, what kind of show? Have I become famous meanwhile!? :) But hey, nobody has to spam the Teahouse, also have a talk page :) CommanderWaterford (talk) 19:17, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

CITV article vandalism

Resolved

 – Edit has been there for years and is actually sourced. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 23:31, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello. I am extremely new to Wikipedia and while looking at the CITV page someone has put "Michael Jackson" as the former Central worker in the The Stonewall Productions era (1989–1991) section. I do not know who this is supposed to be and cannot find the person who did it, so if you know this, can you please edit it. Thank you! Tommy0001 (talk) 18:56, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi Tommy0001, welcome to Wikipedia and thanks for the interesting question! I donb't know what interface you are viewing Wikipedia on, but all articles have a History page; here is the one for CITV. There's a link there near the top to "Find insertion/removal", which facilitates searching for "Michael Jackson" in a page with a long history like this one. I had to restart the search twice, but it turns out the name was added in this edit on 2 August 2012. And while it was searching, I already found a source: this, dated 3 May 2004. So it seems this is a case of someone else having what must at one time have been a pretty common name. Phew. If it had turned out to be an unsourced recent change, I would have suggested hitting "edit", changing the sentence back to whatever it had been before using copy-paste, and leaving an edit summary something like "reverting unsourced change made on DATE", so that if the change was in fact accurate, someone could redo it with a reference. But please don't assume such a detail is vandalism; it can turn out to be correct, as it did in this case. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:22, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello Yngvadottir, and thanks for the comment. Well, as they say, you learn something new everyday. I guess it was quite a daft question. Anyway, thanks for the comment and I guess I should learn how to use Wikipedia a bit better now :P Tommy0001 (talk) 19:56, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Not at all daft, I think it was well spotted, and that's why article histories are publicly viewable and why we try to provide references so readers can check. I just didn't feel comfortable adding what looks like a forum post as a reference. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:02, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

How to you add a new term to the system with the meaning?

I would like to add a description to a process I am coining... HOLON System I am new to the system... how do I do that? Lori Swetlin (talk) 20:10, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Lori Swetlin and welcome to the Teahouse. Generally speaking, you don't. A term you are in the process of coining is very unlikely to be notable as yet. our guideline on neologisms says: Articles on neologisms that have little or no usage in reliable sources are commonly deleted, as these articles are often created in an attempt to use Wikipedia to increase usage of the term.. See also Our policy on original research, and our policy on promotional writing. nless others, independent of you, have discussed this term at some length in published reliable sources, it does not belong on Wikipedia, and even if such sources exist, you should not be the one to writ the article. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 20:41, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

How to edit?

How to edit other articles Jumpycamel (talk) 20:16, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Jumpycamel, and welcome to the Teahouse. I have left you a welcoming message on your userpage with a few basic links to get you started. If you feel you need more, checkout Help:Getting started, or take our interactive tour called The Wikipedia Adventure, and try to collect all fifteen different badges along the way. Just like getting in a car for the first time: start slowly with Wikipedia, making simple manoeuvres, and don't try to do too too much or go to fast at first. We're always here to assist if you worried you might crash. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 21:13, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Format of articles

I am very new to wikipedia and am writing my first article in visual editor. It is simply a list of winners and runners up - Any tips to help me get it included properly would be appreciated

Many Thanks REFEREEIPC (talk) 20:46, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello, REFEREEIPC, and welcome to the Teahouse. I suppose this is in regard to Draft:Elite Lady 8 Ball Pool Players, is that correct? In general this sort of all-stats article is not favored here, although there are some exceptions. WP:NOTSTATS says: Wikipedia articles should not be: ... Excessive listings of unexplained statistics. Statistics that lack context or explanation can reduce readability and may be confusing; accordingly, statistics should be placed in tables to enhance readability, and articles with statistics should include explanatory text providing context. Where statistics are so lengthy as to impede the readability of the article, the statistics can be split into a separate article and summarized in the main article. Thus you should add sourced context information that explains what these results are, and who compiled them. Cites sources for the states should be provided, and some sources that discuss such statistics so as to demonstrate the notability of the topic. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 21:05, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for replying - yes I am working on the elite ladies draft - I noticed that there is a very similar article that presents all the mens comp winners but there was no the womens equivalent so I was trying to mirror that format - Its in table form, is split into separate events - I think it is readable - I have added references to all the articles / websites I have used to compile my article. Does there need to be other types of references ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by REFEREEIPC (talk • contribs) 21:13, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

REFEREEIPC, please do not use external links in the article body. See WP:EL and WP:LINKSPAM. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 15:03, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for replying - Am I right in assuming that External links are links to websites ? I cant work out how to split my article into differnt titiled sections eg Main body / references / external links How do I set up separate sections to allow me to add a section for External links please ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by REFEREEIPC (talk • contribs) 08:03, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello, REFEREEIPC. See Wikipedia:section for details on sections. In general you add a section by inserting text such as ==Section header== in the draft, with nothign else on that line. It is the paired equals signs that mark this as a section header. A subsection is marked with ===Sub-section header=== with trriple equals signs around the header text. Each further sub-level gets an extra equals sign. Note that section headers are in sentence case, that is only the first word is capitalized except for proper nouns and other words which would be cap'd in running prose. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 16:47, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Alphabetical Referencing

I notice that some articles have the usual reference list plus an alphabetical listing of those references. How do I do that alphabetical listing? Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:57, 4 June 2020 (UTC) Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:57, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Jenhawk777, welcome to the Teahouse. Not sure of what exactly are you referring to, can you give us an example of an article?! CommanderWaterford (talk) 21:20, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

@CommanderWaterford: I went and looked and I think it's listed under Bibliography--do I put that in by hand? Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:54, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

There's one here: [5] Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:59, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hello Jenhawk777 and welcome to tehj Teahouse. I suspect you noticed an articel using Parenthetical referencing. This is a system inm which the direct citatiosn give onloy the author and year to identify the work, with a separate list of works cited with full details, usually in alphabetical order by author. the template {{Harv}} exists to support this system, which is used in a minoprity of Wikipedia articles. Some prefer it, some dislike it. As per, WP:CITEVAR, articels should not be changed from one citation system to another unless a consensus to do so is firat obtained, and usually good reasons are needed to form such a consensus. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 22:07, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello again DESiegel! I come here enough I feel like we're getting to be old friends. :-) I didn't understand anything you said ... The article I referenced has both lists, not one or the other. It has the normal numbered references in the order they appear in the article. I have that too. But they also have a second listing under Bibliography that is the same authors listed alphabetically. It seems like, in an article where there are many references, that having an alphabetical list as well might, at times, make it easier to find things. Sometimes I remember the author but can't remember where in the article I saw it, hence the value of an alphabetical listing. But if I have to go through them all and relist over 200 references one at a time, well, I'll just suffer through and do without! I was hoping there was such a thing as an 'abracadabra alphabetize my references' command! There should be! :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:17, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Jenhawk777 The article Role of Christianity in civilization is using a mix of parenthetical (aka Harvard) and full-ref citations, which is confusing and inappropriate. For example, the current ref 5 (Haskins, Charles H. (1898). "The Life of Medieval Students as Illustrated by their Letters". The American Historical Review.) does not appear in the bibliography, because it is not formatted in the parenthetical style. Any given articled use one style or the other, and stick to it. I note that you commented negatively on the citations in this article back in 2018, see the article talk page. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 22:23, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

DESiegel I saw that you went and put a tag at the top. I hope they don't find out it was me that clued you in!  :-) One editor probably started the article one way and other editors came in and did it the other--so that's how they end up with both huh? Screw it up? Okay, I'm not up for that either, so I guess no alphabetizing for me. Sigh. Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:28, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) In what might be called the standard, or full-ref style, the numbered footnotes go to full citations, which appear in the order in which they are first used. In the parenthetical or Harvard system, the numbered notes go to a brief form of the citation, with just enough info to identify the work in the list of works cited or Bibliography. Full details are given in the Bibliography, whicfh is i9n alpha order. Did you read the page I linked to, above, Wikipedia:Parenthetical referencing? This system is explained in detail there. There is a related system know as shortened footnotes, which uses {{sfn}}. Converting from one

Yes I did tag the article, Jenhawk777, and I will be starting a talk page discussion about it. It may well be that One editor probably started the article one way and other editors came in and did it the other but editors are supposed to keep using the existing format, or else get consensus and change all the old refs, so that only one format is in use in a given article. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 22:34, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes sir I did read the page. If consensus can be gained--I think most of the refs are standard--perhaps I could volunteer to do the work of making them all alike, thus doing the proper penance for getting the article tagged. :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:41, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Discussion is now open at Talk:Role of Christianity in civilization#Citation style, Jenhawk777. Feel free to add your voice. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 22:52, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

@JenHawk777: Like others, I prefer the standard "long-cite" approach (the single list of numbered references). I think a lot of articles that have mixtures started out in the Harvard/sfn style, but currently, a lot of people are only familiar with the simpler (IMO) long-cite style, so they get added in that style. Harvard is more prone to problems with broken links if people unfamiliar with it attempt to do anything significant with the sourcing. One good reason to use the Harvard style, though, is where you have a lot of different pages to cite in a small number of sources, and you don't like the {{Rp}} approach (a reasonable concern when multiple cites are chained together like this^{[1}:23[4]:i–iii[5]}). —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 01:55, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

@AlanM1: Hi Alan! Nice to meet you. I like the standard citation as well because I periodically go look things up that I question--at least I want to. As DESiegel pointed out, I was very unhappy when I felt thwarted in that effort on Role of Christianity in civilization. Of course that was before my informative friends here told me about the Harvard method--sounds a little indecent doesn't it?--and no one answered my question on the talk page so I had no idea why those refs looked as they did. At any rate... I do use the {{rp}} approach all the time, even when I have multiple cites chained together, and yes it's a little messier no doubt, but at least anyone who comes along behind me can readily find what's being referenced! So I guess I will add my vote for traditional long citing and all the beautiful alphabetical listing will eventually go away. So sad, but if you can't have both, better to have the one with all the info. Thank you for all your help. You guys are great. Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:24, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

@Jenhawk777 and AlanM1: At this point6, if you want your views to have any effect on the article in question, the place to express them is Talk:Role of Christianity in civilization#Citation style, as whoever closes that discussion is unlikely to read this thread or take it into account even if S/he does. You might want to consider copying these last two posts there, if you so choose. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 03:31, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Come on DESiegel keep up! I have already gone there and put in my two cents! Thanks for all your help.  :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:34, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Redirects To My Draft

Resolved

 – Wait until article has passed review. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 23:28, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

I wrote an article about a parent company entitled IXL Learning. The company owns and has a number of subdivisions, so how do I create redirects that lead to the article? Thank you for your time. Le Panini (talk) 21:03, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Le Panini. Your question is a little premature, I'm afraid. Please wait until your article has got through review at Articles for Creation and then through New Page Patrol. Only then might the question of creating WP:REDIRECTS be relevant. Nick Moyes (talk) 21:06, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Understandable. Thank you! Le Panini (talk) 21:08, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Creating a Category

How do I create a category from scratch by myself? (Oinkers42) (talk) 23:11, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

@(Oinkers42): Welcome to the Teahouse! The instructions on how to create a category are posted at Wikipedia:Categorization. GoingBatty (talk) 01:59, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello?

Hello? Mirett (talk) 00:43, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

@Mirett: Welcome to the Teahouse! Did you have a question? GoingBatty (talk) 01:59, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Renaming an article with italics

The title says it all. I rarely edit or create pages related to media (books, TV, film, etc.), but have recently created the page I May Destroy You. I did not create the page with italics, so can I rename it to an italicized version? Thanks. KidAd (talk) 04:38, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Technically you won’t have to rename the page, and you also can’t do so. You can just add {{Italic title}} in the first line of the source code. RedBulbBlueBlood9911Talk 05:14, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the help! KidAd (talk) 05:30, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

@KidAd: Many infoboxes like {{Infobox television}} add italics by default unless you disable it with a parameter.[6] PrimeHunter (talk) 08:57, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Good to know. As I said, I am very unfamiliar with editing in this subject area. I mainly stick to politics and academics. Thanks again. KidAd (talk) 17:32, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Related to editing rules

 SHWETANSHU BHATT (talk) 04:47, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

SHWETANSHU BHATT, Welcome to the Teahouse! Did you have a question? CommanderWaterford (talk) 06:49, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Your first edit was reverted because it had no citation. Your second and third edits to same article reverted because you copied content that is protected by copyright. Your Sandbox User:SHWETANSHU BHATT/sandbox contains what I am guessing is the same copyright protected content. There are limits to how much can be quoted. A better approach to editing Ghost town is to use your own wording to describe the situation in India, along with that citation you found. David notMD (talk) 09:42, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

What to do when an editor attempts to whitewash unfortunate realities

Unlike most counties Sweden has never mandated a country-wide COVID-19 lockdown. As a biomedical scientist I have followed Sweden's story closely because it is one of the few clean "experiments" that can address the question whether lockdowns are working. Unfortunately for Sweden it is now apparent that lockdowns really do work: the Washington Post (https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/sweden-epidemiologist-anders-tegnell/2020/06/03/063b20e4-a5a0-11ea-b619-3f9133bbb482_story.html) reported on June 4 that Sweden now has a MUCH higher death toll than neighboring Scandinavian countries. Specifically Sweden has eight times as many deaths as Denmark and 19 times as many deaths as Norway. I posted and correctly cited this public health outcome on the COVID-19 Wikipedia page for Sweden (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_pandemic_in_Sweden). Another editor (Bladjur) promptly deleted my edit, as well as another sentence citing a story in the Guardian that as of June 2nd Sweden had the highest 7-day rolling average death toll of any country. I reposted the Sweden / Denmark / Norway comparison in the second paragraph of the Swedish COVID-19 page but I'm almost certain Bladjur will delete it again.

Sweden's high COVID-19 death toll is an important result of the brave or foolish experiment the Swedish Public Health Agency conducted this spring. Many people are interested to know the outcome of Sweden's experiment... it could influence policy in other countries and even save lives. Reading the Swedish COVID-19 Wikipedia page a few days ago you'd never know that Sweden has such a high death toll, instead you'd learn a lot of arcane and uninteresting facts about Swedish ministerial policy... the whole article appears to be essentially a lengthy marketing piece written for or by the Swedish Public Health Agency. My question is what recourse do I or Wikipedia have to protect Wikipedia from editors who want to whitewash embarrassing or untimely information? StanfordPostDoc (talk) 07:59, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

The place to discuss content issues is on article talk pages – I can't see that you have attempted to discuss this at Talk:COVID-19 pandemic in Sweden. Please note that personal commentary and evaluative language such as "laissez-faire policy" is never appropriate in a Wikipedia article. (I confess to being very surprised that the Wikipedia article does not mention the fact that a lockdown would not have been possible in Sweden since no provision for that kind of action in peacetime exists in Swedish law. It is possible that that could be considered original research, though.) --bonadea contributions talk 08:32, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Just as a note, I reverted SPD's latest edit, mainly since it added evaluative language; in addition, adding time-sensitive information to the introduction of the article is potentially problematic per WP:UNDUE. There are a couple of other issues with the addition as well, but I'm sure they can be hashed out in talk. --bonadea contributions talk 08:51, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

@Bonadea: It does mention it, in the Strategy section. bladjur (talk) 13:10, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

(ec) Hello StanfordPostDoc and welcome to the Teahouse. Per WP:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, your first step should be to start a discussion with Blådjur and whoever shows up at Talk:COVID-19 pandemic in Sweden. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:35, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello StanfordPostDoc! From what you say, it's too soon to focus your energy on the possible motives and affiliations of editors on the other side. It could as well be you've missed something. If you check out the history page of that article, the edit summaries accompanying the edits that reverted your additions give some explanation. You'd best follow the bold, revert, discuss method of resolving content disputes. You made an edit, it was reverted, so now you should start a discussion at the talk page explaining your concerns and why you support reinstating the content. If you reach an impasse with the editors who are actively editing that article, there are other Dispute resolution processes that you can explore, which may start with asking a third editor to give their opinion (WP:3O) but go as far as openly advertising to the whole community to provide an input (WP:RFC). There is also the Neutral point of view noticeboard where you can post to bring attention to whitewashing, etc. that you believe compromise the neutral point of view policy of Wikipedia. Please note though that Wikipedia is not for WP:RIGHTINGGREATWRONGS, so if the world, meaning most of the available reliable sources, has got something wrong, Wikipedia will reflect that even if you believe it to be wrong. Usedtobecool ☎️ 08:36, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

@StanfordPostDoc: Those are pretty serious allegations. But you can rest assured I won't delete it again. Because I never deleted it in the first place. Didn't even remove a single character. I did however move your sentence, as it didn't make sense and was without context (regarding lockdowns): Danish and Norwegian strategies are very different from each other. Denmark imposed "lockdowns", similar to some US states I imagine. Norway didn't, and their strategy might be closer to the Swedish one than the Danish, as People in Norway has been able to go shopping or dine at restaurants all the time. I did however delete the following sentence: "Despite reporting only laboratory confirmed COVID-19 deaths Sweden had the highest 7 day rolling average death rate of any country as of 2 June 2020". I deleted this simply because it isn't true. Detailed stats on COVID-19 deaths are of course available to anyone: as of 1 June, there are 511 death certificates that states Covid as the cause of death, but without the disease having been confirmed in a laboratory. So your accusations of whitewashing basically comes down to me deleting a sentence that failed verification? bladjur (talk) 12:45, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

@StanfordPostDoc: I see now that a recent edit from you was removed. Again, I didn't do it.

I've written parts of the article, and I'll likely write more. So perhaps instead of being mean with baseless accusations, maybe you could be kind and give me some input on how to improve it.

• What are some questions regarding the pandemic in Sweden that can't be answered by Wikipedia?
• What information do you think is missing?
• Where do you think it reads like marketing?
• Can you point to any NPOV problems in the article? bladjur (talk) 13:06, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

This is an interesting conversation... thanks for your input everyone. I use Wikipedia as a resource everyday and donate $$ every year but I've only recently started editing, so I apologize for not knowing the right protocols. And Bladjur, sorry if I imputed motive where there was none.

The Swedish "no lockdown" policy has been a brave and important public health experiment. I realize that wasn't the motive of the Swedish Public Health Agency but nonetheless they have done what few other countries were willing to risk. As a biomedical scientist I strongly believe that the results of that policy, whether good or bad, are critically important information to share, not only with Swedish citizens but with public health professionals and citizens everywhere. And that Wikipedia is an excellent and universally accessible platform to share it. If the experiment goes badly and thousands of people die unnecessarily then public policy makers worldwide can use that lesson to save lives in their own countries and provinces. If the experiment goes well and Sweden's decision to avoid a lockdown has little impact on illness and mortality then governments everywhere can learn from that experience and minimize economic damage by keeping their economies open. Those are both really important outcomes that Wikipedia can influence.

Now that some hard data is in, it is obvious that Sweden currently has a COVID-19 death rate many times higher than neighboring countries. This situation may change for the better... perhaps next fall it will become apparent that Sweden has developed a kind of herd immunity... but as for now it's clear that Sweden's "no lockdown" policy has resulted in many more deaths per capita than in neighboring countries that chose to lock down. A reader of the Wikipedia "COVID-19 in Sweden" page would currently be hard pressed to discern these facts. Sure, they could find the total number of deaths and illnesses in Sweden but as far as I can tell there is nothing that puts those numbers in perspective relative to countries that locked down. Mainstream newspapers... the Washington Post and The Guardian... are reporting this information but for some reason the opening section of the Wikipedia page focuses instead on a lengthy discussion of Swedish ministerial policy and other information that seems unrelated to the critical questions of whether Sweden's no lock down policy cost lives, protected the economy or perhaps both.

My editorial posts over the past two days were intended to provide the latest reliably reported information on the question of whether Sweden's decision not to lock down has caused an increase in COVID-19 deaths. Both of my edits were deleted, or possibly moved somewhere obscure, almost immediately. I still think it's the most important question, and probably the prime reason that people are visiting this page. I'm open to suggestions as to how to best share this information, and hope that next fall maybe the news from Sweden will be better. It'd be great to report that too! Thanks for reading through this, if you made it this far!

StanfordPostDoc (talk) 22:08, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Help me review my draft before I resubmit it for approval

Hi,

The page I submitted for review (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:MBH_Corporation_Plc) was declined due to notability and that it reads more like an advertisement than a wiki entry. I've edited the page and I added some few references too. Please help me review it before I resubmit it for approval.

The references I used include: Financial Times, Bloomberg company profile, Health Business UK magazine, The National AE newspaper, Proactive Investors UK and Live trading news etc. All of which are not press releases and they discuss the subject in some detail and not passing mentions. Leckson (talk) 10:22, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

What are your connections to Paystack and Draft:MBH Corporation Plc? If paid, then WP:PAID requires you declare so on your User page. David notMD (talk) 10:42, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for reminding me. I'm not connected to Paystack in any form but I'm hired by MBH Plc to make wiki contributions on their behalf. I've updated my userpage to reflect this. Help me review my draft please and let me know if there's any more improvements that needs to be done before I resubmit it for approval. Many thanks, I appreciate.Leckson (talk) 19:55, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

When does a page go live?

I've made more than ten edits on the page I created, but it is yet to go live. What more can I do? Afolabi Jide 10:32, 5 June 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Afolabijide (talk • contribs)

That doesn't happen automatically. Someone else can address that for you, but I wanted to let you know I've moved your draft to User:Afolabijide/sandbox. Its previous location was your userpage, which isn't the correct place to draft an article. John from Idegon (talk) 11:16, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Afolabijide The text in your sandbox currently lists only 4 reference sources. The first is credited to the organization that Mr. Afolabi heads, and so is not independent of Mr. Afolabi. The second is by Mr. Afolabi himself. The third does not discuss Mr. Afolabi, but rather quotes him for a couple of paragraphs. The fourth is a report of a ceremony and social event on the occasion of the birth of two children to him and his wife, and is not really relevant to the reasons for his notability.

If this is ever to become a proper Wikipedia article, it needs to have multiple published independent reliable sources that discuss Mr. Afolabi in some detail, not things written by him or his affiliates, and not interviews or blogs or the like.

Also, the similarity of your user name to that of Mr. Afolabi suggests that you have some close connection to him. If that is so, please read our guideline on conflict of interest, and make the required declarations as described in that page. If it should happen that you are Mr. Afolabi, please also read our guideline on autobiography. Note that writing about yourself is strongly discouraged, and if done at all must be done very carefully. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 13:47, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

@Afolabijide: I think DESiegel was encouraging you to read Wikipedia:Autobiography. GoingBatty (talk) 00:47, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Request for names in South Africa of people who can help wth editing pages to go into WIKIPEDIA.

Good Day , I wonder if you can be of assistance. I am in need of a South African , preferably residents in Gauteng, who can assist with putting up pages of information into WIKIPEDIA. Your assistance will be greatly appreciated. Regards Lungi Siqebengu. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.144.88.71 (talk) 12:07, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello, you could try asking at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject South Africa. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:26, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Updates to an incorrect wiki page

Danny Bergara I have spent several hours correcting the discrepancies on the wiki page for Danny Bergara and have just seen that everything has been taken down again. As far as I am concerned I have used factual information regarding his playing and management career. I have provided a photo which I have specific permission to use by The Bergara Family. I have not used any personal bias in anything that I added to the page and the only thing that needed referencing I added a source (David Conn). I cannot understand how to complete a COI form but in honesty do not feel that there is one. (I will complete if required but there is no user friendly advice available). It appears that Wiki would rather have a page full of nonsense than a page full of interesting and factually correct writing. PhilB1883 (talk) 12:10, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello PhilB1883 and welcome to the Teahouse. As you can see at [7] you were reverted by Materialscientist, who provided a reason for the revert. If you disagree, your next step per WP:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle is to start a discussion with Materialscientist at Talk:Danny Bergara. Help:Introduction may be of use to you. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:20, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Even if everything you added is true, you either provided no references, or else referenced and promoted your own book. And yes, COI applies. If you cannot figure out the COI template, then on your User page describe that you are an authorized biographer of Bergara, etc. etc. David notMD (talk) 13:11, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Changing Colour in map

How can I change the color of a map? For Example File:Azad Kashmir Map.svg in this map, how can I change color of each province by different color Banksboomer (talk) 13:04, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Banksboomer, and welcome to the Teahouse. Azad Kashmir Map.svg is an image, specifically a vector graphics image. T o change the colors, one would have to download a copy, edit it with an image-editing programs locally, and upload the edited image, possibly to a different file name. I cannot give detailed instructions on the editing step, as it depends on the software available, and i am by no means an expert with any such software. If you do this, please remember to credit the source image, as yours will be a derivative work. Or you could request that another volunteer make such a change. the Graphics Lab accepts some such requests, I understand, but I cannot guide you through its process, as I have not used it myself. In any case it is stffed by volunteers, who may choose which tasks they will or won't work on, as is Wikipedia in general. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 13:25, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Oh, in future, please link to images here at thje Teahouse, rather than displaying them as one would in an article. Thank you. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 13:28, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Looking for Help on "Corporate Notability"

Hello,

Please see my article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Whale_Cloud_Technology

It continues to be declined with "corporate notability" as main reason, although I worked with an administrator to bring it up to speed with Wikipedia guidelines and removed all marketing buzz speak (as it appeared) and added independent, reliable, sources as references. After these edits, I posted the article for review but it was declined again with same reasons.

I am writing freelance for the company. I have read & followed all rules and also made a COI as advised by the administrator.

I would be highly grateful if someone would help me publish this article successfully and help me learn about the mistakes I'm making so that I can avoid them in future and contribute more constructively to Wikipedia, bringing information on topics that have not been covered here already.

Many thanks in advance. Virtuista (talk) 14:52, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Virtuista, thank you for making necessary disclosures about your conflict of interest. It helps. Did you read the WP:NCORP page that the reviewer linked in their comment? The second section titled "Primary criteria" is quite insightful. The issue with notability is not fixed with editing. If the sources you have do not meet the criteria given at that page, the only way to remedy that is to find more, better sources.

The draft could read better. Consider the lead sentence: Whale Cloud Technology Co., Ltd, formerly ZTEsoft Technology Co. Ltd, is a digital transformation company selling services to various market segments including telecom operators, governments, and enterprises. "[D]igital transformation company selling services" does not tell me anything about what the company does. "Digital transformation" is linked but the article on it says it's the use of new technology to solve problems. So, what technologies does Whale cloud use to solve which problems in which companies? "[V]arious market segments" is also vague. You could just name the (kind of) companies it has actually worked with. And what does "vertical assets into its existing solutions" mean? And " has allowed Whale Cloud to forge new partnerships with" is needlessly laborious. MOS:WTW has some guidance on words to watch. Finally, please do not repeat "Whale Cloud" in every sentence. I am thinking some wise psycho-analyst told the marketeers that repeating a word many times is a brilliant strategy to get the brand etched into people's subconscious. And that is probably true for ads, but the lack of pronouns is one of the tell-tales of advertisements masquerading as articles on Wikipedia, and is easily identified by experienced patrollers and reviewers. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 16:22, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Can I Make An Article About Bugatti La Voiture Noir?

< PLEASE GIVE YOUR QUESTION A TITLE. Type this in the "Subject" box, above. -->

Hi Wikipedia! I was wanting to make an article and finally know how. I searched the Bugatti La Voiture Noir in the home page and there was nothing. It just redirected me to the Chiron Page. So finally I found out what I was going to write about. So happily I searched up how to make on in google. It actually led me to a Wikipedia article in itself! I was wondering and hoping (fingers crossed) that you would accept the article. Anyway if you would approve this great article I would be very happy. I would love it if you would tell me the next step at some point. I am new to this and not completely sure how it works so that would be very helpful.

James RabinowitzJamesrabinowitz (talk) 14:58, 5 June 2020 (UTC) Jamesrabinowitz (talk) 14:58, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello Jamesrabinowitz, to be able to write an article requires familiarity with Wikipedia's verifiability policy and its notability guidelines at the very least. There is also WP:NPRODUCT which gives additional guidance about whether it is desirable to create an article about a product. Beyond that, I could not say without being presented some reliable sources that you envision using to support the article you intend to write. But, may I suggest you visit the WikiProject Automobiles and its talk page at WT:WikiProject Automobiles? That is the hub for editors interested in writing about automobiles to discuss, coordinate and support each other's efforts. They may be able to tell you by themselves in a definite yes or no, whether it's a good idea to create an article for Bugatti La Voiture Noir. If and when you are ready to get started on the article, I recommend you start at WP:Your first article, which provides detailed guidance on starting new articles. Do please skim through the pages that the bluelinks I have given here lead to, and feel free to ask for clarifications if I've thrown too much at once in here. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 15:38, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hello, Jamesrabinowitz. Welcome to the Teahouise and Wikipedia. It does not appear that you hacve saved any article or draft to Wikipedia as yet, at least not under this account. I have left some messages on your user talk page with advice about creating new articles. But please understand that creating a new articled is a hard task, and that it is usually better to work on improving existing articles first, to get a better understanding of how Wikipedia works. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 15:43, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Stigmatizing of some of my contributions

Good morning; I have now and then contributed from my field of expertise, ophthalmology; and have created 5 pages: three about (living) major innovators in ophthalmology, one about a new surgical technique introduced by one of these three and another page on a syndrome described by another of these physicians; a term that has become widely acceepted in medical terminology over the last years.

The pages are: Josef Flammer, Daniel Mojon, Burkhard Dick, Flammer syndrome, Minimally invasive strabismus surgery

These 5 contributions have been marked with a COI notice by a major "Wikipedian" who goes as Doc James. I have tried to make clear that I do not have any connection to these individuals other than knowing them (ever eye doctor in Europe and many in the rest of the world do), have not worked for them, do not work for them etc. To no avail. The stigma - yes, that's what it is - remains on these pages and, frankly, it is a blot on the reputation of these scientists ! My declaration of having no conflict of interest on talk pages elicited no reaction, Doc James did not anser my emails. This is very frustrating and tempers the motivation to do something on Wikipedia EN. I would apprecitate your advice. Is there some place on W where I can file something like a complaint ? Best 15:04, 5 June 2020 (UTC)George G Milford (talk)

As you are the person who created the articles, not appropriate for you to remove the COI tags, even if your connection to the people and topics are related to your shared profession, and you have attempted to contribute via neutral point of view. You were correct in stating your lack of close connection on the Talk pages. In time, other editors with add/subtract to the articles, and in time an editor will decide the tags should be removed and will do so. A COI tag does not disparage either the creator/contributor nor the content of the article. It only cautions readers that the article may have conscious or unconscious bias because of the creator/contributor's connection to the topic. David notMD (talk) 16:08, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

@David notMD: is there any reason you posted about referencing on George's userpage, rather than on his talk page? That seems most unusual. Nick Moyes (talk) 19:06, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

@George G Milford: Just adding a big "thank you" for wanting to bring your expertise and knowledge to Wikipedia, and please don't in any way feel "stigmatized" by someone putting that notice on an article that you created. (It's even worse when someone puts it up for deletion on the grounds of non-notability - I know, as it has happened to me and to probably to every other experienced editor who has been around for some time here.) Just to reassure you: our Conflict of Interest page states right up at the top: "That someone has a conflict of interest is a description of a situation, not a judgement about that person's opinions, integrity, or good faith." But I do tend to agree with you that, at first sight, none of the articles you created or edited seem biased towards promoting someone or something, though, as suggested above, it is best if you let other editors remove the COI notice in due course. And I also agree with you that it is unlikely that anyone without specialist knowledge of some very technical areas is ever going to write about them with any competence. In my own capacity as an experienced editor, but a non-geologist, I have currently 'adopted' a retired professor of marine geophysics and we have worked together, with me helping them understand how we edit here so as to encourage them to mobilise the maximum knowledge with the minimum of pain. I've guided them in how to declare on their userpage (see here) their own specialist connection with people they know or the areas of their work they have contributed to; I'd be happy to show you how to do that too, if you would like me to. It really is nothing to feel insulted by, and declaring that one knows someone who one is writing about is perfectly OK, and quite normal. It takes just a few moments of adding a little template code to one's userpage to ensure full openness.

Finally, it's worth saying that directly emailing another editor is unlikely to elicit any more response than pinging them directly in a discussion. (One does have to include the other user's name and sign the post correctly in the same edit if they are to know that you've replied to them. See this for how notifications work). As you've probably also realised, Doc James, is a practicing ER doctor, so I think they can be forgiven if they missed seeing your replies, or were simply too busily engaged elsewhere to respond. If you're willing to leave it a while longer, I'll take a look at each of the articles you mentioned in more detail and see if we can resolve some of this. It would also be good to improve your citations, especially as including hyperlinks to the online articles really helps other people find the sources more efficiently, and would be a good thing to see in your future contributions here. Kind regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 19:06, 5 June 2020 (UTC).  

In answer to Nick's question, I commented on George's User page because my comment there did not have anything to do with his question here. David notMD (talk) 19:38, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm struggling to understand your answer to Nick's question. Isn't George's user page the place for him to tell us about himself or his Wikimedia-related activities, and his user talk page the place for other editors to communicate with him? Have I misunderstood? --David Biddulph (talk) 19:48, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa. Of course I meant to leave my comment on his Talk page. Have moved it there. David notMD (talk) 00:27, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Google search does not yield new Wikipedia article on the subject

I recently created the article on Esin Atıl. However, when I do a google search for the name, it does not list the Wikipedia article in the results. Is there any way to fix or speed up the process by which the article is "found" in a google search? Thanks. Mahrujan (talk) 15:06, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Mahrujan, and welcome to the Teahouse. New articles are marked with\ the NOINDEX flag until they have been reviewed by a member of the New Page Patrol or until they are 90 days old, whichever comes first. There is nothing you need to do to make this happen -- NPP works through new articles as best as the volunteers can, and volunteers choose which articles to patrol. The 90-day cutoff is automatic. Once the NOINDEX is gone Google and other search engines will index the page when they get to it. Wikipedia has no control over this beyond removing the NOINDEX flag. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 15:20, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

I have the sources now

John Junior draft - the submission got rejected and now I have the correct sources for the article, but I'm trying to do it myself, just need some help please thanks Johnjunior2020 (talk) 15:48, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Courtesy link: Draft:John Junior

Hello, Johnjunior2020, and welcome to teh Teahouse. Your draft was declined, not rejected. This is a subtle bgut important distinctio0n. As used by Articles for Creation "Declined" means "You haven't got this right yet, feel free to try again.", while "Rejected" means 'Stop! This won't be a Wikipedia article -- don't waste your time."

I am glad that you understand the need for multiple independent published reliable sources There is also the matter of tone. The current draft starts: who is on a mission to raise awareness for mental health and to end the stigma surrounding mental health problems. this seems rather promotional and rather informal in tone. The bit about fluffy friend Charlie is definitely too informal. Wikipedia articles should be formal and neutral in tone, and factual in content. They should not give opinions of the quality or worth of topics or people, although they may report the opinions that named people have expressed. Articles should neither endorse nor attack anyone or anything, although they may report facts considered positive or negative by most people, if these are supported in sources.

Alsom please read our guideline on autobioigraph, which is strongly discouraged here, and on Conflict of Interest.

I hope this is helpful. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 16:07, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Title change

I work for a museum that in 2016 changed it's name from Montclair Historical Society to Montclair History Center. Can't figure out how to change the title. Do I need to make a whole new page? I am authorized to do this by my director. Queendeedi (talk) 16:40, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Queendeedi, I took care of it for you (it something you could not have done yourself). However, it was done because it complies with our guidelines not because the director authorized it. I also urge you to read WP:COI. Because of your relationship to the subject you should not directly edit the article but propose changes on the article talk page. S Philbrick(Talk) 16:49, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Why my edits are deleted?

On a page George Floyd I added information about his career - he was an adult movie actor. Also, I gave sources to that information - https://iharare.com/george-floyd-was-a-porn-star/ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CUVtrcXt2vo . The user @Got a Smart Idea deleted my information and closed access to edit the page. His arguments https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Get_a_smart_idea#Why_are_you_covering_George_Floyd%3F That the page belongs to "the living people" category and it's not true because the person is already dead. Second his argument, that the source is not reliable. That's also not true because "iHarare Media" is Zimbabwe's newspaper - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_of_Zimbabwe . To clarify information, the page provides a video, proving that is true. So what's the problem? Please add my provided information to that page, because now - I can't. Maksimiuk (talk) 16:53, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

@Maksimiuk: First of all I reverted IP edits not account edits, unless they were you.Secondly,I think BLP involves recently deceased people from the description in WP:BLPDD. When reverting those edits, I took account those details. If there is any error feel free to re-do those edits but a rollbacker will clearly revert the edits.Thirdly,I am not an administrator to protect a page, so clearly the administrator also realized the Disruptive edits Got a Smart Idea^{tell me about it} 17:27, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Maksimiuk. The article George Floyd has been "semi-protected" so it can only be edited by autoconfirmed users, that is, users whose accounts are at least 4 days old and have made at least 10 edits to the encyclopedia. This is not imposed on you specifically, but on all newish users, to avoid vandalism on this very high profile article. As to your source, you could discuss it on tALK:George Floyd or on the reliable source noticeboard. I am no expert on newspapers from Zimbabwe, but the link you provides looks rather tabloidish to me, and seems to include a lot of speculation. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 17:35, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Oh and our Biographies of living People policy does indeed apply to people who have recently died, as well as those still alive. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 17:40, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

DES Thank you very much! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maksimiuk (talk • contribs) 17:54, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Anna Richards Brewster bio contains error

The last line of text in paragraph three of American artist Anna Brewster Richards' biography section, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anna_Richards_Brewster, states that "The success of these publications led to a commission for illustrations in a 1906 edition of Bill Nye's Comic History of England (1896).[6]" The link on Bill Nye's name goes to the Bill Nye the Science Guy bio, which means this is an impossibility as Bill Nye the Science Guy was not alive in 1906, nor did he publish a book in 1896. The link should instead go to Edgar Wilson "Bill" Nye (1850 – 1896), who was a distinguished American journalist and who later became widely known as a humorist. I am not an editor, but would hope someone is able to resolve this. The footnote it references is: Brewter McClatchy, Susan (2008). Maxwell, Judith (ed.). Anna Richards Brewster American Impressionist. Berkeley, Los Angeles, London: University of California Press. pp. 11. ISBN 978-0-520-25749-8.

Cjjasper (talk) 17:38, 5 June 2020 (UTC) Cjjasper (talk) 17:38, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Cjjasper and welcome to the Teahouse and to Wikipedia. I have made the change to the Anna Richards Brewster article in these edits. Thank you for finding and reporting that error. You could have made that change yourself -- another time feel free to be bold and correct errors when you find them. Then you will be an editor. If you are able to spot and report such an error so precisely, you know more than many first-time editors do about how this site works. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 17:51, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

A question about copyvio

Picture this scenario: Website A creates a page about something or someone, and User A copies that to make a new page. No one notices. A few months later, Website A changes its information to make it look almost completely different to the page. After this, User B comes along and realises that the text in an old version of the article was copied from Website A (which no longer looks like how it does in the article). Would User B need to use {{Copyvio-revdel}}, and if so, how would they know what revisions to mark as requiring redaction? User:Thatoneweirdwikier | Oh, Toodles! 17:58, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

It is a copyright violation to copy a website, even if that website changes later. RudolfRed (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:18, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hello, Thatoneweirdwikier, and welcome to the Teahouse. In your scenario, the original article was copied from Site A, and was therefor a copyright infringement of site A. Then site A was significantly changed. If all revisions of the article were copies of the text previously shown on Site A, the article would simply be deleted under WP:CSD#G12. If the article had been edited so that it no longer infringed the previous version of Site A (nor the new version either) then all the versions that did infringe would need to be revision deleted. Looking to see which revisions are close to the first one can often help an editor determine which ones need to be revdel'd. Often the Internet Archive's "Wayback Machine" service will show snapshots of Site A's earlier version, which can help. I have dealt with such situations -- they can require a lot of time to get the set of revisions to delete properly sorted out. It is one reason why we try to deal with copyvios asap, before they get deeply embedded into an article. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 18:24, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

(I'll answer too, because hypotheticals are like games I can't resist) Thatoneweirdwikier, if the evidence proving the violation is still there, say, in the wayback machine, that evidence can be presented in the revdel request and the request will be acted upon. The same can be used to narrow down the revisions to revdel. But I think admins decline to revdel revisions when they can't compare the source pages with the article themselves. If there are no significant edits from other editors, User A could simply request speedy deletion under WP:G7, otherwise, User A should clean up the article removing all the content that they know is a violation. The copyvios will remain in history until the evidence to justify revdel becomes available. But I am thinking you meant to ask whether User B would need to use the "copyvio-revdel" template. Again, if B is simply acting from their personal knowledge but has no evidence to attach to the revdel request, it will be declined anyway, so revdel request itself is out of the question; if they do have the source, they can just use that to narrow down the revisions. User B can not request G7 because it was A who created the page, and B can not request G12 (copyvio-speedy deletion) either because they have no evidence. All they can do is remove the copyvio from the article and request that no one reinstate it, and hope that others will take them at their word. Many instances of copyvios are recognisable from the text itself, since very few writings are written like an Wikipedia article. In such cases, again though revdel can't be done, presumptive removal of infringing text is possible. So, if in your hypothetical scenario too, the infringing text reads suspicious enough, it is more likely that other editors will take User B at their word, and honor their request not to reinstate it. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 19:27, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

I was referring to User B for the use of copyvio-revdel. Thanks for noticing my mistake! User:Thatoneweirdwikier | Oh, Toodles! 19:49, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Thatoneweirdwikier, Adding my two cents because I do a fair number of revision deletions. If you see such a scenario I encourage you to request a revision deletion. It is obviously helpful if you can identify the beginning revision, and I admit I swear under my breath when someone requests a revision deletion without identifying the revisions but I can usually figure it out so I'd rather have the request without the identification of the specific revisions than not to have anything. I'll also agree that it can be tricky to do a revision deletion if you cannot see the original website, but if the original website was identified as a source is almost certainly in the Internet archive, so it can be found that way. S Philbrick(Talk) 20:22, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi everyone, thanks for the suggestions. Unfortunately, with the page I am looking to use the template on (Draft:Jack Stauber), the website it copied from is not available on the Wayback Machine. This is likely because it is a fan wiki. Any other suggestions? User:Thatoneweirdwikier | Oh, Toodles! 12:49, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Article rejection - Angelika Bischof-Delaloye

Hello,

Another article that I wrote on Draft:Angelika_Bischof-Delaloye got declined by Atlantic306 for a reason "Needs some references directly about her". The submitted article was based on point 4 and 8, as in the article Wikipedia:Notability (academics).

Point 8 - Editor-In-Chief of a scientific journal
https://ejnmmires.springeropen.com/about/editorial-board

I cannot find a direct resource talking about her, other than that she was mentioned in the following book

Book mention
History of Nuclear Medicine in Europe, By Michael Feld, Michel de Roo

and at these websites

websites
https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/bischof-delaloye-cv.pdf https://applicationspub.unil.ch/interpub/noauth/php/Un/UnPers.php?PerNum=3090&LanCode=8 https://publons.com/researcher/3367891/angelika-bischof-delaloye/

I thought point 8 would cover the notability. Is this list not enough? Thanks

Earthianyogi (talk) 19:11, 5 June 2020 (UTC) Earthianyogi (talk) 19:11, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Note that your draft was "declined", not "rejected". Rejected means that the reviewer believes that there is no chance of the draft being accepted; Declined means that it could be accepted if the draft were improved. --David Biddulph (talk) 19:19, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Welcome back Earthianyogi, From your contributions, I don't see that you've made any attempts to contact the reviewer. It is conceivable that the reviewer only considered the draft for WP:GNG. Have they indicated anywhere that they considered WP:NACADEMIC too? If you contacted them and let them know that her claim to notability is one of the points of one of the special notability guidelines, the reviewer may reconsider. Or they could provide you further guidance as to how/why your analysis is wrong. That would probably be the juncture at which to seek a third opinion. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 19:40, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

@Usedtobecool:, thanks for your reply. When you say that I have not made any attempt to contact the reviewer, does it mean that I have to write a message on their talk page? I did tag Atlantic306 in my message above, is that not considered appropriate? I am still learning how does it all work here. Earthianyogi (talk) 20:00, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

The fact that you've tagged them does indeed mean you've started a conversation but if you intended to discuss it with just them, it would have been more appropriate at their talk page or the draft's talk page. The fact that you've posted here at a public forum also kind of implies that you've sought outside opinion on the issue; and it kind of seems like you've skipped an opportunity at discussing it one on one with the reviewer. See a thread a few posts above, #What to do when an editor attempts to whitewash unfortunate realities, for example, where the OP did also tag the other editor. It's a teeny tiny bit like taking a magistrate to your local grocer's about a shortchange, isn't it? They could tell you both it's illegal to shortchange, and no one is going to get arrested over a shortchange anyway, but do you really need witnesses to sort out a shortchange at your local grocer's? And, coming from your local grocer, isn't that more likely an honest mistake anyway? And if you were to later find out that it was all because you put a bill in the other pocket, would you not that it were in a room instead of the town square. Forgive my poor analogising, metaphor or simile or whatever it is that I was just trying, but you do get the point, right? With this kind of responses seeming like a good idea to me, and I about to hit publish knowing that you've already gone to the reviewer's talk page and had a conversation, I should probably be going to bed now. Good night, Earthianyogi! Usedtobecool ☎️ 21:13, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

@Usedtobecool:, thank you. Your analogy is great, and I see the point. I just felt that it was appropriate to talk of the editor's page, so I did. But I appreciate your response, as I learned something new. G'nite Earthianyogi (talk) 21:40, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Someone has died

An anon user posted this to my bot's talk page. -- GreenC 19:57, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, GreenC. I'm not sure how to respond to this, as it's not really a question; except to suggest that you could post on the IP's usertalk page, thanking them for the alert, and maybe asking why they thought you needed to know. But if you can't think of any particular reason, just the acknowledgement on your own page seems sufficient. Nick Moyes (talk) 21:04, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi GreenC. The IP probably read that this person had died (maybe they even knew the person), and then checked Wikipedia to see if there was an article written about them or if the existing article had been updated. The IP probably didn’t know how to update the article or didn’t want to try and update the article themselves because they were worried about making a mistake. So, the looked for someone who recently edited the article and that happened by chance to be you. Ideally, it would’ve been OK for the IP to be WP:BOLD and update the article because even if they made a mistake in the process it would’ve probably caused the article to be flagged for review and the mistake might’ve been caught by someone. For future reference, the same applies to you as well in that it’s OK for you to be BOLD and update articles if you feel you can; if you make a mistake, someone should catch it. Sometimes when the claim being made is unsourced, Googling the subject’s name (particularly for people who’ve recently died) can lead to reliable sources which can be cited.

Anyway, thanks for bringing this to the Teahouse’s attention. Someone has already updated the article, perhaps after seeing your post. — Marchjuly (talk) 21:25, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Changing font type and size

I copied and pasted text fron notepad into an existing Wikipedia page, and the font typeand/or size that I pasted in was incorrect. How can I change the font type and size? Brianmarkle (talk) 20:24, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Brianmarkle and welcome to the Teahouse. Notepad edits generic plain text, and never exports any font settings when text is copied from it. The font family (Mono-spaced, sans-serif, or serif) used by the Wikipedia editing window is controlled in a user's Wikipedia Preferences, on the Editing tab. The exact font and the font size are controlled by a user's browser settings.

It is possible to use HTML tags to change the displayed font of rendered pages (that is after a save, not during editing) but it is almost always wrong to do so. By not trying to control these, one lets the user select appropriate settings for the user's own device. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 21:02, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi Brianmarkle. The formatting and syntax used by the Wikipedia software for pages often seems to move in mysterious ways, but I believe it does what it does by design. So, instead of directly copying-and-pasting content you’ve been working on using other types of software onto a Wikipedia page, perhaps try adding it to your user sandbox first. You can work out any formatting or syntax issues in your sandbox, and then add it to the relevant Wikipedia page when things seem good to go. — Marchjuly (talk) 21:40, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Layafette Square article has become a venue for discussing "2020 Attack on Protestors"

Concerning the Appropriateness of the section "2020 attack on protesters" in the Layafette Park article

The following was posted to the Layafette Park talk page on 05:26, 5 June 2020 (UTC). It presents my concern and a suggestion to resolve my concern.

I think this issue needs attention but in the Wikimonolith I am not sure where to address it. So I seek out the Teahouse council.

I was interested in information about Lafayette Square in order to "get the lay of the land". That is, I wanted to understand what Lafayette Square is to better understand the situation involved with the situation of June 1, 2020.

I read the article, and at the end, there was a section entitled "2020 attack on protestors" (NOTE added today, June 5: On June 5, the section title was revised today to "2020 Protestors" by an anonymous editor who "noted" in the edit summary that "This was not an “attack" (lacking any support for this claim considering it is a fact recorded in many reputable sources.)

The section's initial sentence is "Main article: Donald Trump photo-op at St. John's Church" followed by a brief very dense Synopsys of what occurred concerning the "photo-op" situation.

The event of June 1 is noteworthy; however, the addition of the section "2020 attack on protesters" in the Layafette Square Wikipedia article is not appropriate.

In lieu of a dedicated section, a reference to this attack on protesters (which is contained in an existing Wikipedia article in detail) should be used to note and provide the explanation of the attack. Most likely a "2020 attack" section, if retained, in order to keep up-to-date, will need to be revised and revised and revised which undoubtedly is not a desirable Wikipedia method (I don't have a reference for this particular situation but I imagine there is one somewhere.)

I looked to the Wikipedia article about Pearl Harbor as a "template" of how a notable historic event that occurred at Pearl Harbor was handled. The "Day of Infamy" attack on Pearl Harbor was not presented in a section of its own, but as follows in a section entitled "See Also".

Pearl Harbor attack

I propose that the Layafette Square article be modified so that the subject "2020 attack on protesters" is handled in the same manner as the "1941 Attack on Pearl Harbor" was handled in the Pearl Harbor article.

This change would be to remove the "2020 attack on protesters" section and replace it with a new "See Also" section containing the following reference link.

See Donald Trump photo-op at St. John's Church which provides information concerning police and National Guard troops using tear gas to clear peaceful protesters from Lafayette Square and surrounding streets in Washington, D.C., to create a path for President Donald Trump to walk from the White House to St. John's Episcopal Church on June 1, 2020.

(Hmmm. Perhaps this long explanatory sentence could be edited into something a bit briefer.)

Normally, before making this edit, I would contact the editor of the original entry of this "2020 attack on protestors" information to obtain a consensus to the best course of action. Unfortunately, the editors ShayShayd and 73.85.202.217 do "not exist" so no direct communication is possible.

I could make the change I propose but might encounter a undo revert. So I make this Talk Page entry in anticipation that an Editor or Editors would assist in obtaining consensus help in drawing the appropriate action.

Lacking dissent or other comments, at some point, I will return and implement my proposed revision.

Osomite (talk) 05:26, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

No one seems to read or write on the Layafette Park talk page. Today, June 5, so far there have been five edits made on this section. As I pointed out above, this section will be continuously revised and revised per the whim of anonymous editors. Layafette Park, as a Wikipedia article, does not need to be a literal field of attack and parry.

Restating my resolution briefly: If a "See Also" section reference is good enough for Pearl Harbor, a "See Also" section reference will certainly be good enough for Layafette Park.

Please help me on how to proceed. Osomite (talk) 21:38, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi Osomite. My suggestion to you would be to post your concerns about this at Talk:Lafayette Square, Washington, D.C. because that’s really going to be the best place to try and resolve this. The Teahouse isn’t really a suitable place to try and sort out things like this and it might actually make it a bit harder for others interested in subject matter to participate.

Editors interested in the park will most likely have its Wikipedia article on their watchlists, not the Teahouse; in addition, future editors interested in the square’s article will most likely be checking its talk page, not the Teahouse archives, for previous discussions about the article. Even if you think nobody is going to respond to a post on the article’s talk page, it’s still generally better to start there and make that your “base of operations” so to speak. Give the discussion a little time to breathe and others a chance to respond; if after a few days nobody does, then you can be WP:BOLD and make the changes that need to be made or you can seek opinions elsewhere per WP:CANVASS#Appropriate notification.

Now, if you do decide to be BOLD, just mention the talk page discussion in your edit summary since that will let others know why you made the edit. If someone disagrees with what you did and reverts you, they’ll be able to explain why in the discussion you started. — Marchjuly (talk) 22:01, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Marchjuly I appreciate the rapid reply to my query.

However, it seems you missed the crux of my issue while giving me a lecture about Talk Page etiquette.

What I posted here on the TeaHouse today was what I already posted to the Layafette Park talk page yesterday on June 4. I did not intend for the TeaHouse archive to become the "Location of Record" for my concern. I just wanted advice on how to proceed as the current situation of the Layafette Park page is really really annoying (yes, it might just be my ACD issues).

I came here for advice because the current "Layafette Park" "editors" are merrily editing without any attention to the niceties of the Talk Page purpose or of the overall intent for the article. And by the way, there really aren't any "Layafette Park" Editors involved in this recent spate of "2020 Protestors" event edits; it seems these anonymous editors are only interested in creating a second, substandard account for of the situation involving the "Trump Photo-op with a bible" contretemps that only they can explain. Clearly, as they are anonymous, they won't be providing the rationale.

So at some point, I will be WP:BOLD. In the meanwhile, the league of anonymous editors will continue to spin their wheels, round like a circle in a spiral, like a wheel within a wheel. Never-ending or beginning on an ever spinning reel. . .Yada. . .Yada. . .Yada.

Osomite (talk) 22:50, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

My apologies to you (Osomite) if my reply appeared to be lecturing to you. Lots of new editors come to the Teahouse for help so sometimes replies are also written with that in mind since others might also find the extra information, by chance, to be helpful. Anyway, I missed that you’d already posted on the article’s talk page about; so, again my apologies for not realizing you were just copying-and-pasting what you posted there into your post here (for future reference just in case you don’t know, it’s often sufficient to just post a wikilink to the discussion instead). I mistook that part of your post for being something you wanted to ask, not something you’d already asked. An oversight on my part that I wouldn’t have made if I had checked your contributions history. Anyway, I’m glad another host came along and was better able to answer your question. Hopefully, things will now be resolved through talk page discussion. Best of luck to you. — Marchjuly (talk) 00:10, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

PS: Just for reference in case you didn’t know or for anyone else who might not know this, both ShayShayd and 73.85.202.217 do exist and you can post messages to them on their user talk pages if you like. They might not answer, but they may. Some registered editors have red linked user pages simply because they haven’t created one. You can also WP:PING ShayShayd to the article talk page discussion if you want (ping doesn’t work for IP accounts unfortunately) and perhaps they will see the notification the next time they log in and will respond on the article’s talk page. — Marchjuly (talk) 00:20, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@Osomite: You did the right thing posting on the talk page. Give it a chance for feedback. I like the way it is now, with a summary and also pointing people to the Trump photo op article. (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.) TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:03, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

TimTempleton Thanks for the advise, I will give it a chance for feedback and will try to calm my ACD tendencies.

Osomite (talk) 22:54, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Easy way out

Hey there, Teahousers! I know this is the easy way out. But every time I ask a question, the experienced editors point the way and I get lost right off the bat. So I'll just ask: can someone just do this for me? Thanks. I know it's possible - because it's all over WP. But somehow I know if I do it, another editor will come along and say I didn't upload it correctly. I need to upload this image: Andrew Wyeth's Maidenhair to Wiki Commons similar to these: Winter 1946, Christina's World, etc. I know it's under Fair Use - For visual identification of the object of the article. The article as a whole is dedicated specifically to a discussion of this work. Non-free use rationale 2. But I just don't know how to get there. I've written an article in my sandbox that I'd love to use in the inbox. Thanks in advance. Maineartists (talk) 23:00, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi, Maineartists. I'm afraid the answer is No, at the moment. Fair use images are uploaded to Wikipedia, not to Commons (Commons onoy accepts freely-licensed material); and according to WP:NFCC, non-free images must be used in at least one article, but may not be used in a draft. So, you'll need to wait until your draft is accepted in main space. --ColinFine (talk) 23:24, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

ColinFine Hey, thanks a lot. I'm still learning all the hoops, you know? even after all these years and articles. I'll post the article to the main space and go from there. Thanks again. Maineartists (talk) 23:37, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Font size too large in downloaded pdf file

Brianmarkle (talk) 23:59, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

I edited existing text, initially by cut & paste from notepad. I deleted that text, and directly typed the new text. It looks good online, but the generated pdf has font too large. Brianmarkle (talk) 22:37, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

@Brianmarkle: Please provide a link. I assume this is about List of scientific publications by Albert Einstein. Can you be more specific about what the issue is? TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 23:01, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

The text "There is also a separate reprint of Appendix II, it being the first published separate edition." is too large on the downloaded pdf of the article [List of scientific publications by Albert Einstein]. The online version looks ok.

The same applies to the text "Einstein: Antwort auf vorstehende Betrachtung", — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brianmarkle (talk • contribs) 23:51, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm new, so just testing on how to sign a comment. ~~Brianmarkle~~

Brianmarkle (talk) 00:05, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

@TimTempleton

Please see my additions above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brianmarkle (talk • contribs) 00:06, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi Brianmarkle. If you want to practice how to WP:SIGN a post, please do so in your user sandbox; you can find your user sandbox at [[:User:Marchjuly/Brianmarkle}}. In addition, when you post new comments to any Wikipedia take page, please try and be careful to not accidentally edit or remove posts left by others like did here. Sometimes when we're in a hurry to post something, we may mistakenly edit or even worse remove post left by others. We don't mean to do so, but our edit might cause confusion or even worse been seen as a conscious attempt to change or delete someone else comments. There are some cases where we're allowed to edit another's posts (even remove them), but usually these have to do with serious policy or guideline violations, or because there are formatting or syntax errors that are affecting the ability of others to read the page properly. Probably a good way to check that you're not accidentally editing someone else's post is to click "Show changes" before clicking "Publish changes" so that you can actually see what's being added and what's being removed.

As for your question to @Timtempleton:, I've WP:PINGed him for you and perhaps he will come by and answer it or try and help you figure out the issues you still seem to be having. Please note for future reference that for a "ping" notification to work properly, you need to make sure the username is spelled correctly; so, in this case you'd ping "Timtempleton" not "TimTempleton" using the syntax {{ping|Timtempleton}}. This can sometimes be confusing because some editors have customized their signatures to appear a certain way even though their account names are different in someway; so, the thing to do would be to click on their signature and see check the name of their account.

Some more things about pinging someone. You don't need to overdo it: if they respond asap or at all, then great; if they don't, be patient, give them a chance to do so and don't keep "tapping on the bell" to try and get their attention. Some editors aren't online 24/7 and might not be around to notice you're pinging them, whereas some editors simply don't like to be pinged and just ignore them. Another thing to remember is that a ping will only work if you properly sign your post at the time of the ping. Pings won't work for unsigned posts even if you go back and try to add your missing signature later. So, you might want to click "Show preview" before clicking "Publish changes" just to verify that you've properly signed your posts. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:33, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

I had a look at List of scientific publications by Albert Einstein, and was puzzled by all the empty span tags. <span id="schilpp_133"></span> even appears twice. What are these for? Are they necessary? Maproom (talk) 07:30, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Maidenhair

OK. Real quick. I'm creating an article on the painting Maidenhair [8] by Andrew Wyeth. However, when one types in "Maidenhair" into WP they get: Maidenhair plants. Not even a disambiguation page of the word. I can't list an article on a painting on this "page". How do I get around this? Making it into a disambiguation page or listing it on the page correctly? Thanks in advance. Maineartists (talk) 00:16, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Maineartists. At the draft stage don't worry about this. When the time comes to move it to the main article space, disambiguation can be applied, with the new article perhaps, going to Maidenhair (Wyeth picture) or some such title. As it happens I am a big fan of Wyeth, and I am working (slowly) on Draft:Betsy James Wyeth, and in pursuit of this acquired copies of An American Vision, Andrew Wyeth: A Secret Life and The Helga Pictures, and I have Wyeth at Kurners on order. If you do not have any of these and would like me to look up some point in one of them, I would be happy to do so.

Pf course you will remember that not every painting, even from as well-known an artist as Andrew Wyeth is separately notable. But I wouldn't be surprised if this one is. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 00:43, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, DES. I'm quite sure Maidenhair is notable among Wyeth's works enough to create an article at WP. That being said, is it really necessary to place a secondary title extension (Wyeth picture) off the title? Considering typing in the original word brings you to this page: Maidenhair plants? I just wanted to see how I could discern the page from being all "plants" and making it into a disambiguation page of the general name. PS KUDOS! to you on creating a page on Betsy! Maineartists (talk) 00:57, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

It may b e that Maidenhair, currently a redirect to Maiden's hair, can become the place for the article on the painting. But that decision can wait until the draft is ready for mainspace. It is a judgement call as to what the typical reader here would be looking for most often when s/he typed "Maidenhair" into the site search engine. See Wikipedia:Disambiguation for lots of details and cases. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 01:04, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Gotcha! Thanks. Maineartists (talk) 01:21, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Unblock request

Can you please unblock me from all articles? Sammyboy2009 (talk) 00:32, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

@Sammyboy2009: The Teahouse is not the correct place to request unblock. Furthermore, I don't see a block on this account. Is it possible you have an account that is blocked? If so, you will need to get that account unblocked before editing with this one. Interstellarity (talk) 00:52, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Sammyboy2009 you are not blocked from any articles, or you wouldn't have been able to post this. (I double checked your block log, and you have never been blocked.) However your account is not yet autoconfirmed. Some articles (but only a few) are "semi-protected to that only autoconfirmed users may edit them. And only autoconfirmed users may create new articles directly in the main article space. You may create pages in the Draft space (such as Draft:Example topic) or in your user space (such as User:Sammyboy2009/Example topic) and work on a draft until it is ready for the main article space. I would advise you to submit any such draft to the Articles for Creation process, where an experienced editor will review the4 draft, but that is not required.

You will become autoconfirmed after you have made at least 10 LOGGED-IN edits, and your account is at least 4 days old. This is automatic, hence the name AUTOconfirmed. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 00:52, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Hollywood Music in Media Awards

2009 Volunteer I have had discussions with the Found Brent Harvey and The Hollywood Music in Media Awards about edits to Wiki article.

I need help on how to reconstruct an article. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_Music_in_Media_Awards

Jrocksgibson (talk) 03:02, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

@Jrocksgibson: if you need help with an article, please start a discucssion on that article's talk page. If you have a WP:COI you can use {{Edit request}} if you have a specific edit you need help with. RudolfRed (talk) 03:21, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

User:RudolfRed|RudolfRed I have posted {{Edit request}} in the talk of this article. Though the requests are not listed anymore. I am not sure if that is typical while someone reviews or not. My discussion I have started on the talk page lists WP:COI and states the conversation of money was offered though I wish not to accept such terms. I find it more valuable to be able to learn with the wiki community about the accepted practices in editing articles. My most sincere apology if I am posting specific questions or edits in the wrong places and having conversations in the wrong areas. It seems like the talk page is where I should be talking though the some conversations seems to be posted directly to the article deletion page when answered. Thank you for you communication. I will try to follow your requests.Jrocksgibson (talk) 16:36, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Jrocksgibson. I gather thjat Hollywood Music in Media Awards (HMMA) is currently nominated for deletion, and the AfD discussion is in progress. I further gather that you would like help in demonstrating the notability of the organization using some of the links yuou posted above. I further understand that you have previously been a volunteer with the HMMA organization, but are now a paid freelancer for it, and have made a declaration to that effect. Is all that correct?

IF it is, , well I for one am not inclinced to read through more than 25 news stories to try to fine ones that would help establish notability, particularly not for a paid editor, who should be able to do the basic research unaided. What I advise is that you read through your own list looking for stories that discuss the organization in some detail say at least three paragraphs, and more if possible. Note this should not be just a list of winners and losers, nor even analysis of why they won and lost, but writing about the organization itself or the awards as am institution. Find the best three sources, or if you are unsure, up to five, and list them at the AfD. Then if you want, post a brief message hre linking to the discussion. Do not copy the links heree again, please. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 03:42, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

User:DESiegel|DES Thanks for your reply. You are correct that I was a volunteer in 2009. I have listed myself as CoI because I had a brief conversation with Brent Harvey founder about The Hollywood Music in Media Awards. I saw his request at this link.https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:6673339306809155584/ Which I replied to him via private message and let him know that I shared some interest in helping with the edits. During our conversation via phone Brent explained me that the article was nominated for deletion and he asked if there was a way to edit the article. I told him I had no experience editing wiki before and this would be my first contribution to the community. He mentioned "I will pay you for your time" but we never went into details since. After exploring the Wiki I noticed some of the rules and procedures which I felt inclined as a new user to share my infomation about myself to keep the beliefs valid in the community. I am not a paid CoI and I will refuse payments furthermore to represent this article. Though I am willing to be transparent to anyone since I wish to learn and grow in this experience. I apologize about posting sources here! I did not realize it would not be accepted. I will review these links again and try to follow your suggestions. I restate again in you are incorrect that I am a paid CoI or paid freelancer. I am a volunteer here on wiki though I was a volunteer for the organization in 2009. No afflictions since a few days ago when I had a conversation and began my own research. But I do offer communication in any concerns about my involvement and I understand the importance that I do not conflict in the article and I hope this is clear. I will try to do the basic research unaided at this time. I welcome more discussion that may help since I am still learning! I will list them AfD and I will link the discussion here once done. Thanks again for you willingness to review my questions. I appreciate all feedback.Jrocksgibson (talk) 16:36, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

User page

Hello! I created a user page when I first made an account but then someone found the contents to be promotional and blocked me for days. I did not mean for it to be promotional, it was just the wording that made it seem that way. How can I make a user page without it seeming promotional? I don’t want to be blocked again. Is it safer to just not make a talk page? Thank you! Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 04:04, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

@Lima Bean Farmer: Welcome to the Teahouse! On your user page, you could write about what you like to do on Wikipedia and/or fill it up with userboxes. There are many more suggestions on Wikipedia:User pages. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 04:14, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

@Lima Bean Farmer: Or you can have no user page at all – it's not required. Note your "user page" is User:Lima Bean Farmer while your "talk page" is User talk:Lima Bean Farmer. The user page is primarily for content that is from you for the purposes outlined at WP:UP while your talk page is for other users to post messages to you (and you may respond). If you don't want to get blocked or have your user page deleted, don't use it for promotion and do use it for the purposes in WP:UP and you'll be fine. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 04:44, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

• @Lima Bean Farmer: The problem was really the page combined with the former username you had. Since your previous username was a radio station's call sign, the userpage you created seemed to be advertising for that station. (BTW, if you work with or for them, you need to see WP:COI and WP:PAID and must disclose your employment on your user page). Telling people to pay attention to their elections by itself isn't promotional -- if your account isn't named after a company distributing information of any sort. Ian.thomson (talk) 06:49, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

I have no affiliation with WJRZ. I used to listen to the radio at my grandmother’s house by the shore in New Jersey. Being new to Wikipedia, I needed an account name and this came to mind. I am not paid by anyone and not here for any promotional purpose. Just wanted to clarify. I appreciate the help about a user page! I will be creating one soon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lima Bean Farmer (talk • contribs) 18:51, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

On vital articles and merges

Hello. I'm currently adding short descriptions to vital articles, and I came across Concordat of Worms which is still listed as a vital article despite appearing to have been merged with a different article and is currently just a redirect. Should its vital article status be removed or kept? – MonAll ^t·c 12:27, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello, MonAll. Judging by the lack of responses, I suspect I'm not the only one here who has never heard of Vital articles. I suggest that the place to ask is WT:WikiProject Vital Articles, as that is the project that maintains them. --ColinFine (talk) 19:30, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

hi

 Zindor (talk) 13:16, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Do you have a question about using and editing Wikipedia? --David Biddulph (talk) 14:15, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

yes, where 2 start? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zindor (talk • contribs) 15:07, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Go to an article on a topic you know about, and think about how it could be better. That could be as minor as grammar, as major as deleting or adding content. Keep in mind that truth needs verification, i.e., references. I put a Welcome box on your Talk page. David notMD (talk) 15:51, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

is review supposed to take this long?

My page, Languages of Central Asia, is taking a very long time to be reviewed. Also, just a few days ago ago, in the review box thing, it said "This may take more than 5 weeks". Now it says "six months". Is this intentional? Bumsowee (talk) 14:32, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Bumsowee Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. The estimated time for reviews is just that- an estimate- and it can fluctuate depending on how many drafts are pending review. As this is a volunteer project where people do what they can when they can, reviews are not always performed in as timely a manner as we might like. Reviews are also not performed in any particular order. You will need to be patient. 331dot (talk) 14:35, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

The duration estimate depends on how many drafts are in which of the age categories at Category:AfC pending submissions by age. --David Biddulph (talk) 14:49, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

And, Poof! it was reviewed and declined today. See reviewer's comment. The map has been nominated for deletion, as there appears to be a copyright issue. David notMD (talk) 15:58, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

https://gulf2000.columbia.edu/maps.shtml has a very clear statement on the copyright status of the map. It is not in the public domain. (A pity – it's an excellent map.) Maproom (talk) 16:42, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Continous Deletion: Please Help!

Hi everyone, I created an article Draft:Tolu' A Akinyemi and it's getting nominated for deletion for the second time by the same editor because she suspected a WP:COI but i sincerely don't have any COI with the subject. Can anyone help on how the article's tone can be re-improved? The article meets WP:GNG and was infact voted to be relisted at DRV but it was deleted anyway as per the consensus.--Olatunde Brain (talk) 15:36, 6 June 2020 (UTC) Olatunde Brain (talk) 15:36, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Brain7days, it appears from reviewing the history of the article that the article has not been nominated for deletion twice. It was however deleted via an AFD process and you apparently took it to a deletion review where the consensus to delete was upheld & it furthermore appears as though you unsuccessfully tried to convince the closing admin to restore the deleted page back to your draftspace but apparently they didn’t & you went on to recreate the article again via an AFC process where it was declined & now a CSD G4 tag has been placed on the article due to the fact that the article in question was initially deleted via an AFD process. Celestina007 (talk) 16:25, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

why do you continue to make false allegations against me? When and Where did i try to convince the closing admin? The article was voted to be relist at DRV. Why? Why? Why? are you doing all this? Do you have anything agaisnt me? I think it's about time i head over to WP:AC you can not continue to intimidate me on wiki because you have the tools and resources.--Olatunde Brain (talk) 16:35, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Brain7days, the consensus at DRV was not to relist, although some editors favored that course. I have declined the G4 speedy, and you may now, if you choose, edit the draft to improve it so that it would not be deleted in a possible future AfD. You will need to find and cite several independent published reliable sources that discuss the subject in significant detail. Unless several such sources are found and added, the draft will eventually be deleted. I urge you to sop worrying about the previous discussions and focus on this chance to improve the draft. Note that if the needed sources do not exist, no amount of rewriting will help. Please do not submit Draft:Tolu' A Akinyemi for re-review until and unless significant improvements have been made. It was perhaps unwise for Celestina007 to have reviewed this at AfC after that editor had nominated it for deletion at AfD. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 17:16, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

@Brain7days, hello dear colleague, I have nothing against you & appreciate your efforts thus far. I have made no false accusations against you so don’t say that which is untrue. As in this very diff you approached Sandstein querying him as to why he upheld the delete consensus of the previous AFD at the DRV. He did so because contrary to what you said on his talk page, all the editors who participated did not !vote to relist, rather it was a combination of editors !voting to relist & other editors endorsing the delete rationale. Apparently the editors endorsing the deletion had a better argument hence it was closed as a delete hence like I earlier stated; upholding the delete rationale of the original AFD. Feel free to take this to the ANI & see how it plays out. No one is intimidating you my dear brother & colleague also like I said if you feel intimidated do go to the ANI & make an official complaint there & provide diffs to substantiate your claims that I, or anyone for that matter has intimidated you thus far. You simply cannot keep on recreating articles on non notable persons. You created an article on yourself, which was deleted & now you are creating an article on someone you are close to. Being a single purpose account for promotion on yourself & close friend isn’t permitted on this collaborative project & may lead to your account being blocked. Feel free to ask me any questions when in doubt as I am always readily available & a ping away. Cheers! Celestina007 (talk) 17:20, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

DESiegel, I was performing my AFC related work when I stumbled at the article yet again & in my opinion I felt nothing had significantly changed from the original one hence the G4. Furthermore your reson for declining the G4 is very much apt & accurate. Celestina007 (talk) 17:36, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Celestina007 I think you for doing AfC reviews, which is a tedious and often thankless job. (I have done some, put not as many as most regular reviewers.) I did not mean to suggest that there was anything improper in your actions. But it m,ight be wise for reviewers not to review drafts that they have previously nominated for deletion. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 18:27, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

editing the article on methylene (compound)

I am Philip R. Bunker and was much involved in the spectroscopic study of the methylene radical. This radical was discovered by Herzberg and Shoosmoth in 1959 in the laboratory in which I have worked for the last 55 years. I know what I am talking about here(!) and my improvements to the article that correctly give the reference to its discovery and to the latest experimental determination of its structure and singlet triplet splitting seem to be edited out by somebody who is not as knowledgeable. What can I do? Bunkerpr (talk) 15:49, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Bunkerpr, welcome to the Teahouse. First of all the place to discuss any diversions round the article is usually the Talk Page of the Article, so if you have any concerns you should address them over there. The sysop El C reverted your edits a several times because you have been deleting and modifying contents without explaining why you did so. Usually Modifications should be referenced, have look over here Help:Introduction_to_referencing_with_Wiki_Markup/1, meaning you will need to add a reliable secondary source. Every User can state that he has been working of this topic, for Wikipedia Readers it is not verifiable if this true or not. If you continued on reverting like the way you did this might be interpreted like Edit Warring, have a look over here Wikipedia:Edit_warring. Best would be to address and discuss your concerns at the Talk Page Talk:Methylene_(compound) of the Article. Feel free to ask me if you have any further questions/concers. CommanderWaterford (talk) 16:33, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

I have blocked the user for editing disruptively and for ignoring multiple warnings to that effect. Sorry, but competence and communication are required on Wikipedia. El_C 16:38, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Advantages of Editing?

Sir what are the advantages of editing Wikipedia pages will we be benefited somehow and are there ranks given to experienced editors and Also how can I change my Wikipedia username, and how can we create new Wikipedia pages like some local MLA's or MP's whose pages are not present now? Khanjanneog (talk) 16:08, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Khanjanneog. Welcome to the Teahouse, and to Wikipedia. May I answer your very sensible questions in bullet form?:

• The 6,000,000 articles on Wikipedia are all created and maintained by volunteer editors. They receive no payment, except the immense satisfaction that they are contributing to the worlds greatest, free encyclopaedia, and are helping to share knowledge around the world. Wikipedia has now grown up, and is no longer the place where unreliable information is found in abundance. In these days of fake news and terrible viruses, it has become a valuable place for good information to be collated. Helping to build that encyclopaedia can become an all-enveloping hobby for many of us here.
• We do not explicitly rank editors by the experience. After 10 edits and four days here, you are AUTOCONFIRMED, and can edit most articles. (that link also explains other 'access levels' on Wikipedia.
• You have made so few edits since you joined us today that, rather than going to the effort of requesting a username change, you are probably best advised sinple to abandon this account, forget the password, and never ever use it again. Then just create a brand new account with a name of your choice. But be aware that editing with from accounts at the same time is not acceptable, so just forget the old one and only use the new one.
• I don't know what an MLA is, but national members of parliament are likely to be notable (an essential criterion for having an article here), but local politicians may not be notable just because they were elected to a local government. Other factors would need to come into play. See WP:NPOLITICIAN for what the criteria for eligibility. One key sentence there is "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the general notability guideline."

I hope this has answered all your questions. Nick Moyes (talk) 16:38, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Khanjanneog, the closest Wikipedia comes to "ranking" editors is Wikipedia:Service awards, but that should not be taken very seriously. Syill some editors do enjoy moving up that ladder, but the prime motivation should be having helped create soemtong of value to others. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 16:53, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

I understand Sir, but as I am new in this field so I wanted to learn about it in details. Doesnt mean to hurt any feelings of others. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khanjanneog (talk • contribs) 16:59, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

No problem. Hosts (also volunteers) here at Teahouse have infinite patience. Except when they don't. P.S. 'Sign' your comments by typing four of ~ at the end.

why my article isn't approve?

Im confused!!Why my article isn't aprrove. Hexa Pyro (talk) 16:19, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Hexa Pyro, No need for being confused at all - your draft does not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, it does not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Your draft is lacking of any source at all, please have a look at Wikipedia:Notability_(people) and Help:Your_first_article. Hope it helps, CommanderWaterford (talk) 16:23, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Adding all of a user's contributions to my watchlist

Hi, I was wondering how I could get a user's contributions to show up on my watchlist nomatter what page their edit is on. Thanks!  Darth Flappy ^«Talk» 16:20, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

That sort of feels like stalking. Easier to see an editor's past edits, just by clicking on their Contribution at any article. David notMD (talk) 17:41, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Most viewed videos on youtube in 24 hours

 223.235.155.157 (talk) 16:47, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Did you have a question about how to use Wikipedia? RudolfRed (talk) 18:11, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

How Can a Wikipedia page be Created?

Can Wikipedia pages be created by editors? Khanjanneog (talk) 17:00, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Khanjanneog, and welcome to the Teahouse. Here are some steps which, when followed, often load to success.DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 17:21, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

• First, review our guideline on notability, our policy on Verifiability, and our general notability guideline (GNG). Consider whether your subject clearly meets the standards listed there. Also, check if the topic is already covered, perhaps under a different spelling or in a section of an article about a wider topic. You will waste a lot of time, if you create a new article, and then find that the encyclopedia already has an article about that.
• Second, read how to create Your First Article and referencing for beginners and again consider if you want to go ahead.
• Third, If you have any connection or affiliation with the subject, disclose it in accordance with our guideline on Conflict of interest. If you have been or expect to be paid for making edits, or are making them as part of your job, disclose this according to the strict rules of the Paid-contribution disclosure. This is absolutely required; omitting it can result in you being blocked from further editing.
• Fourth, gather sources. You want independent, professionally published, reliable sources with each discussing the subject in some detail. If you can't find several such sources, stop; an article will not be created! Sources do NOT need to be online, or in English, although it is helpful if at least some are. The "independent" part is vital. Wikipedia does not consider as independent sources such as press releases, or news stories based on press releases, or anything published by the subject itself or an affiliate of the subject. Strictly local coverage is also not preferred. Regional or national newspapers or magazines, books published by mainstream publishers (not self-published), or scholarly journals are usually good. So are online equivalents of these. (Additional sources may verify particular statements but not discuss the subject in detail. But those significant detailed sources are needed first.)
• Fifth, use the article wizard to create a draft under the articles for creation project. This is always a good idea for an inexperienced editor, but in the case of an editor with a conflict of interest it is essential.
• Sixth, use the sources gathered before (and other sources you may find along the way) to write the article. Cite all significant statements to sources. Do not express opinions or judgements, unless they are explicitly attributed to named people or entities, preferably in a direct quotation, and cited to a source. Do not use puffery or marketing-speak. Provide page numbers, dates, authors and titles for sources to the extent these are available. A title is always needed. Submit the draft when you think it is ready for review. Be prepared to wait a while for a review (several weeks or more).
• Seventh, when (well perhaps if) your draft is declined, pay attention to the comments of the reviewer, and correct the draft and resubmit it. During this whole process, if you face any unresolvable editing hurdles, or cannot comprehend any editing issue, feel free to post a request here or at the help desk and ask the regulars. Repeat this until the draft passes review.

Congratulations, you have now created a valid Wikipedia article. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 17:21, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Where Happened To My Custom Page

For a great many years when I brought up the initial Wikipedia page it was a (mildly) custom page, tied to my account. About a week ago it no longer comes up. A stock page comes up. Did something change with Wikipedia's use of custom pages? Or? Mrreed1939 (talk) 17:49, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Mrreed1939, and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm not sure what page you were seeing, that was "mildly custom". I wondered if you might have had a user page that has now been deleted, but I can find no record that you ever created one: indeed, this appears to be your first ever edit, almost exactly ten years after creating your account: congratulations. So I'm not sure how you could have customised any page without making edits. I don't think anything changed on the Main page last week. Sorry. --ColinFine (talk) 19:49, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Cannot find the page I created yesterday

New Page: Georges Kugelmann Created a page, clicked 'publish' and closed the computer. Cannot find it today. Never happened before. Where is it? Svarshavsky (talk) 18:24, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Svarshavsky, and welcome top the Teahouse. You have not saved any edit to Wikipedia since 12 November 2019, at least not under this account, until the above Teahouse post. It is possible that there was a communication failure between your amd the Wikipedia servers, or that you misclicked. computer. I can't tell, but it was never saved. (nor was i9t saved and then deledted.) I am sorry for any time and effort lost, but there is nothing that I can do to help. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 18:34, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

In cite journal template, how to use page number as identifier

Suppose I want to cite a piece of information that appears on p. 355 of the following article:

John Doe, "Of some big bones in Yorkshire", Journal of Natural History, volume 2, issue 1, pp. 344-366 (1823).

Suppose the article has not been digitized and doesn't have a doi or any other identifier; it can only be found in bound volumes in libraries.

How do I cite this using the cite journal template?

What is confusing me is this. In the documentation for the cite journal template, it is stated that the parameters page, pages, and at denote the page or pages in the source that support the content. Only one of the three can be used within a single citation. Another relevant parameter is id, described in the documentation as ‘a unique identifier, used where none of the specialized identifiers are applicable; wikilink or use a template as applicable’.

So according to the template, it looks like I should put page=355. The problem is that normally one should use the starting page, here p. 344, to identify an article such as this. As far as I know, this rule is just about universal in academic writing: an article is normally identified by specifying the last names and first and middle initials of the authors, the abbreviated journal name, the volume number, the beginning page number, and the year. In the sciences, the issue number is optional except in the rare cases of journals for which each issue restarts page numbering from 1. The title of the article is also often optional.

What is the best way to format the above citation? Is it page=355 and id=P. 344? That produces the following awkward result: 2: 355. P. 344. It is awkward because what should follow the volume number is, according to every academic style I know, the page number of the beginning page of the article. It certainly seems to make sense to first identify the article, and only then pinpoint where exactly within the article is the relevant information to be found.

More recently, some science journals started identifying their articles by an ‘article number’ and numbering each individual article from 1. In this case, too, the article identifier should come before the specific page number. Reuqr (talk) 18:32, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Reuqr If a journal article has not been digitized nor indexed in some publicly available database with a unique ID, please simply do not enter anything for |id=. Thart parameter is not required, and for older pre-internet journals will almost never have a useful value (unless they have been scanned and assigned IDs). As to the use of the page parameter, do note that Wikipedia's citation templates generate citations in style CS1 or CS2, which is not exactly like any academic style, but is similar to the CMOS style. There is currently debate at Help talk:Citation Style 1#Use of Pages in Cite Journal on this issue. (feel free to join the debate) Some support what the documentation says, and hold that the actual page where the relevant text appears should be listed. Others favor the standard of using the first page, or first and last pages, of the article. Several editors called for the creation of one or more additional parameters so that both pieces of metadata can be captured. For now, I would urge complying with the documentation a,d providing the page where the actual supporting facts are to be found, but not every editor here would agree, as the discussion plainly shows. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 18:46, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

I would advise against using the "article number" here, until it is more widely adopted, and our systems support it. Also, in Wikipedia citations the article title is not optional, it is strictly required for CS1/CS2 citations, and I think all other citation styles in current use here. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 18:51, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi DESiegel, thanks for the reply! It is interesting to note that there is this debate going on. --Reuqr (talk) 19:00, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Reuqr, your example could be cited as {{Cite journal |year=1823 |first=John |last=Doe |title=Of some big bones in Yorkshire |Work=Journal of Natural History |volume=2 |issue=1 |page=355}} or as {{Cite journal |year=1823 |first=John |last=Doe |title=Of some big bones in Yorkshire |Work=Journal of Natural History |volume=2 |issue=1 |pages=344-366 [355]}} Does that help? DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 19:06, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

How to rename a page?

Hi, I think the pages for S&P futures and E-minis should be renamed 'S&P 500 futures' and 'E-mini S&P 500 futures', since those pages are referring to those particular futures contracts, whereas a larger class of "S&P" futures contracts (although usually variants on S&P 500 like 'S&P 500 Value' 'S&P 500 Growth' futures contracts) exists, and a larger class of "E-mini" futures contracts exist ('E-mini S&P 500', 'E-mini Russell 1000', 'E-mini Nasdaq 100' etc.) exists. How would I rename them? Do I just move them to new pages? The talk pages on those pages, and the talk page on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Finance & Investment seems to be dead so I couldn't get an opinion. Eric.c.zhang (talk) 18:39, 6 June 2020 (UTC) Eric.c.zhang (talk) 18:39, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Eric.c.zhang. Yes, the proper procedure is to move the articles to the more accurate titles. Please read Help:How to move a page for details. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:47, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

@Eric.c.zhang: The article E-minis already discusses several different types of options. No need to rename it to something specific. RudolfRed (talk) 19:01, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

@RudolfRed: my mistake I meant the E-mini S&P page. Yes the E-mini page discusses various futures, but E-mini S&P seems to refer specifically to E-mini S&P500, but not with the proper name, which also precludes other contracts like E-mini S&P 400, E-mini S&P500 ESG, for example. I think E-mini is fine but E-mini S&P should be renamed. Eric.c.zhang (talk) 19:07, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Help me review my draft before I resubmit it for approval

Hi,

The page I submitted for review (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:MBH_Corporation_Plc) was declined due to notability and that it reads more like an advertisement than a wiki entry. I've edited the page and I added some few references too. Please help me review it before I resubmit it for approval.

The references I used include: Financial Times, Bloomberg company profile, Health Business UK magazine, The National AE newspaper, Proactive Investors UK and Live trading news etc. All of which are not press releases and they discuss the subject in some detail and not passing mentions.

I resubmitted it and it got declined again, and the reviewer referred me to the Teahouse to seek for help. Please help me out as I don't know what action to take next. Thank you very much and regards. Leckson (talk) 20:00, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Firstly, DO NOT remove AfC comments, even if you feel that you have addressed what was being commented about. Secondly, wording "the firm enables small and medium sized enterprises to scale their businesses without selling out." is clearly promotional. Thirdly, most of the refs are acqusition announcements - these are not article about what MBH is, only what it has been doing, i.e., buying companies. That does not contribute to notability. My personal opinion is that the company does not yet meet Wikipedia's definition of notability, and you should report back to MBH that you have failed. David notMD (talk) 20:10, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for reviewing my draft. I've returned the Afc comment but I'll like to point out something. MBH is a venture capital firm that acquires companies and helps them grow. So that's what they do which is why some of the references are acquisition announcements. The draft also contains references that talks about what they do in detail which you can see before the last paragraph that talked about their investment portfolio.

Regarding the promotional sentence you mentioned earlier, what should I use instead as I'm out of ideas. Thank you very much for your time. Leckson (talk) 20:35, 6 June 2020 (UTC)