Jump to content

Wikipedia:Teahouse

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Cordless Larry (talk | contribs) at 20:39, 22 June 2020 (→‎ADMINS FROM INDIA MISUSING THEIR POWERS FOR MONEY TO PROMOTE BIASED PROPGANDAS ON WIKIPEDIA: Wording). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Skip to top
Skip to bottom

This is the teahouse
Shortcuts

Cassiopeia, a Teahouse host

Welcome to the Teahouse!
Your go-to place for friendly help with using and editing Wikipedia.
Question forumMeet your hostsArticles to improveBecome a host
New to Wikipedia? See our tutorial for new editors or introduction to contributing page.
Note: Newer questions appear at the bottom of the Teahouse. Completed questions are archived within 2-3 days.


Official documents

Hi!

When writing someone's biography, do official documents like school records and birth certificates constitute acceptable references?

NB: I've already been told several times what my draft's flaws are instead of answering the questions I had, and I've taken note of them and will make relevant edits as I go before resubmitting the article. Please just answer the specific question I've asked here, thanks ^^ AengusB (talk) 23:24, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, AengusB

, and welcome to the Teahouse. In general, no such sources are not acceptable. See WP:BLPPRIMARY which says:

Exercise extreme caution in using primary sources. Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person. Do not use public records that include personal details, such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses.
Does that answer your question? DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 23:30, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No. Unpublished documents are of no use to Wikipedia's verifiability; please read about reliable sources. --David Biddulph (talk) 23:33, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi DESiegel and David Biddulph, and thank you for answering.
This does answer my question. What is the next best thing in terms of proving when someone was born and what education someone has? I suppose reliable articles aren't more reliable than official records since the person the Wikipedia article is about could have just told them that info themselves.
DESiegel and David Biddulph, I will pose a related question. The text quoted above includes "... about a living person ..." Are such items therefore considered acceptable as sources in biographies of dead people? I often see birth certificates, death certificates, etc. cited in biographies of people who have died. I am tempted to remove them, but the specification of "living" in the rule makes me think I might be wrong to do so. Otherwise, why specify "living"? Eddie Blick (talk) 00:45, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The part about "living" people was in DESiegel's reply which was talking about primary sources, which are materials that are close to an event or written by people who are directly involved. WP:PRIMARY talks about the limitations under which "primary sources that have been reputably published" may be used. If, however, they have not been published, they are not of any use to Wikipedia (whether the person is alive or dead). --David Biddulph (talk) 07:15, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi DESiegel and David Biddulph, could I get an answer to my question, please?
Regards,
AengusB (talk)
AengusB the rules are stricter when dealing with living people in many areas, that is the difference between WP:BLPPRIMARY and WP:PRIMARY. Government documents are often not published at all, and when they are , are not published by a reliable source that a reader can verify. But when being used about a subject other than am living person, they may be used with care. They are best used when quoted by a secondary source to provide analysis and context. Individual official documents often fail to provide a complete story, being only a fragment of a chain of events. Errors in them may be hard to correct, so they may go uncorrected. I suspect that mostly you will see such sources cited when a secondary source has quoted or mentioned them, providing such analysis and context. Of course some articles cite things that they should not, which is one reason why WP:OSE is an argument to avoid. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 00:22, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
... and (in case I didn't make it clear enough earlier) if the school records and birth certificates are unpublished (see WP:SOURCES), they can't be used as references. --David Biddulph (talk) 04:53, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
AengusB, twice in this thread you've complained about not getting your question answered. I understand your bewilderment, but it's part of the environment here. Most folks are used to working in a structured defined environment. On Wikipedia, policies and guidelines are intentionally vague. They are interpreted and implemented on a case by case basis. Decisions are not made based on rules directly, but on the consensus of the interpretation of policy in that individual case. Hence, there usually isn't a specific "answer" to any queston. John from Idegon (talk) 12:45, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
David Biddulph Hi! This is not my question, but I am interested in the answer too. {{What is the next best thing in terms of proving when someone was born and what education someone has?}} I am guessing the differentiating criteria is what has been published, reputably and publicly, am I right? I intend to write on an academic I am interested in seeing on WP and I'm assuming the publication of their curricula vitae from their school would be considered a good source. Is that correct? What else? Interviews? Book reviews? Thank you so very much for what you all do here at the Teahouse. It's wonderful. You make WP a better less bewildering place.Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:40, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Wiki Article Declined "Statera"

Hello, I am new to wikipedia and submitted an article about Statera and index fund but backed by cryptocurrncies. it was declined due to not having "is submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Before any re submission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia." A third party audit is currently being conducted on stateras code and its project. Would this help as one for references. Would it be better to have this a sub heading on index funds page? Sort of as a subheading of another type of index fund. I know crypto currency is new. But it is gaining momentum. I was really interested in this project as i a am small personal investor and always liked index funds specifically vanguards voo then i saw this project and it caught my attention. I would really like help in the creation of this page or maybe as a subheading. Any help would be appreciated.

Thanks in advance Nottherealsatoshi (talk) 20:31, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Nottherealsatoshi: I reviewed the declined draft, and agree with that action. You're going to have a hard time getting an article for a new unsourced cryptocurrency instrument onto Wikipedia, especially since you are an investor, and as a brand new editor have a clear conflict of interest. Please see WP:COI. Editors spend a lot of time and effort on Wikipedia trying to police investors in new companies and instruments who are trying to add unsourced industry info. While the general consensus seems to be that having an article will give their company or instrument more credibility, and command a higher asking price, without proper sourcing your efforts will not succeed. With a quick Google search, I had a hard time finding a web site for Statera, let alone reliable media coverage. Sorry I can't be more positive - I want to save you the trouble you are going through, and the time other editors will spend maintaining the encyclopedia. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 21:35, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Hello, Mr Templeton, I appreciate the quick response and honesty. Yes the website is called or google "Statera token" or Stateratoken.com . A third party audit is currently being performed on this code to clear up any uncertainties. I will gather more outside sources as the project progresses as stated by wiki. I am gathering as much as a can and hopefully with the audit more data and sources will emerge in the following weeks. As mention in my post, since this is a variation of an index fund, is there any chance this can be part of the index fund page or a variation of it, once the audit is complete or more outside sources emerge confirming its credibitly. Thank you, in advance — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nottherealsatoshi (talk • contribs) 17:49, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Would this be considered a good outside reference, it is a third party audit on Statera's code and security, ensuring that it has no high or medium critical issues in its code or securty

Link to audit

https://github.com/StateraProject/statera-token/blob/master/Statera_SC_Audit_Report.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nottherealsatoshi (talk • contribs) 20:03, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

New Article: Raven (deity)

Hey Wikipedia -

I am interested in starting a new article to describe one of the most prominent deities of many of the language groups of the east Pacific coast, known commonly as "Raven" in English.

A quick search will reveal this deity doesn't appear to be recognized on Wikipedia, even though they are at the centre of the numerous cultures stretching from modern-day Alaska, through BC, to Washington state.

I would be depending on a handful of sources I am familiar with, and would necessarily start from the Haida perspective, as I am a Haida person. After the article's creation, however, I would very much hope to see the community start to add more and more information about this deity. "Raven" is recognized by numerous names along the coast, and has as many stories.

As a beginner, I just want to seek advice and direction before starting. Any feedback would be welcome.

Haawa! (Thanks!) Shoutsofvictory (talk) 07:08, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Shoutsofvictory, it seems to me the topic is already covered at Raven Tales and Haida mythology. Tsimshian mythology also seems to describe a possibly related or same raven myth. If those articles do not cover the topic sufficiently and there is information available on the topic that would be out of scope or undue for those articles, a standalone article may be deserved. If those articles are sufficient, one or more redirects may be created to make it easier for people looking for the topic to find those articles. You could help with that since you did look and concluded Wikipedia does not yet cover the topic.
I would recommend that you start this discussion at the talk page of one of those articles or at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America, which are some of the places where editors more familiar with the topic are likely to see and respond to your proposal. You could also go through the history of those articles and find an experienced editor who has significantly contributed to the topic and happens to be currently active and reach out at their user talk page for advice. Looking at the history of those articles, @Finnusertop and David Condrey: just may be two such editors. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 08:16, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Usedtobecool Ah, yes I see. Yes, Raven Tales seems to represent more of what I believe would be a worthy and thorough description of this topic.
Now that I know this topic is under Raven Tales, could I ask the more senior editors their opinions on another question?
It just seems to me that the article might be better off to simply recognize the deity by it's anglicized name, for standardization's sake. For example:
The Dionysus article is called 'Dionysus', rather than 'Tales of Dionysus'.
The Guanyin article is called 'Guanyin', rather than 'The Stories of Guanyin'.
Haawa (thanks), and I will go ahead and follow through with your prompts to look at the talk pages and reach out to primary editors of the Raven Tales page.
Indeed you will have to discuss the article's title with the editors who are familiar with it and have edited it. You can propose a rename, but obviously, raven is already taken. You can start an informal discussion asking about the title first; or you can formally propose a rename yourself as a starting point of a discussion. The former would be best, as a new editor unfamiliar with previous discussions and decisions and reasons for them. See WP:MOVE (because renaming is done by moving articles to a new title) for guidance. P.S. Please remember to sign posts by ending each of your comments with four tildes (~~~~). The signature helps others know who posted the comment and when, and bots to know when to archive a discussion. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 18:11, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Aaah I see, haawa haawa. Very helpful feedback. Yes, I am looking through the article's talk page now, and am seeing that the article title is already a topic of discussion. Thank you very much for all your help, and for your pointers. Shoutsofvictory (talk) 18:21, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
One last question on another topic - which type of WikiLoves are appropriate to send to people who help you out? I don't know if there's some sort of wikicultural significance to the kittens or barnstars... a goat doesn't seem very flattering, but hey - I've spent alot of time on farms, so they might mean something different to me...haawa. Shoutsofvictory (talk) 18:25, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Shoutsofvictory, sorry I missed this one earlier. I would say it's more the message that accompanies the stuff than the stuff per se. WP:Barnstars lists and explains the barnstars; the rest (animals, food, drinks, etc.) are probably only a matter of personal judgement, because if they are explained somewhere, I have yet to find it. I was once given a goat and was indeed a bit confused as to how to feel about it. In cultures that have completely separated farming and slaughtering from mass consumption, they are probably the same as pets. For others, goats may be livestock, financial asset or even food. Yet others would see goats as symbols of the devil or other evil spirits. As to the wikicultural significance, wikilove is simple friendly gesture for comraderie and mutual appreciation; barnstars in particular are more valued though. Most users showcase the barnstars they've received and they are often cited as evidence of a given editor's value and contributions to the project. I have seen experienced editors refuse to accept barnstars they felt were not given in good faith or were undeserved. To get back to the top, other than not giving nonsenical stuff like an "admin's barnstar" to a non-admin or "writer's barnstar" to someone who only patrols vandalism, a sincere accompanying message explaining what you appreciate and why, is probably the part you should put the most thought into. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 08:02, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Shoutsofvictory and welcome to the Teahouse. What I know of Haida comes from The Emberverse series, not exactly a WP:RS. Anyway, have you looked at the articles Cultural depictions of ravens and Raven Tales? They seem to at least mention the topic you're interested in. Consider using the reliable sources you have to improve those articles. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:18, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Gråbergs Gråa Sång Haawa! Feels good to have so much feedback. I looked at Raven Tales, and it satisfies what I imagined this popular deity deserves. The title of this article has led to another question, which I have posted above. I've never heard of the Emberverse Series. Looks like just my thing. Jeez, it's reminding me of a whole series I read as a kid The Tripods. Emberverse looks a lot more advanced, tho. Shoutsofvictory (talk) 18:21, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Shoutsofvictory, my opinion on the current title: It seems to fit the current content, and "Raven" in this context is not that easy to define, "deity" doesn't seem to always fit, though sometimes it does. However, I don't think anyone would mind if you made Raven (deity) a WP:REDIRECT to that article, like Tlingit creation myth and Raven in Creation. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:21, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Gråbergs Gråa Sång That's actually a terrific idea. That way the article would appear in a disambiguation for users that just search "Raven", as I did to start. I'll set about figuring out how to set that up. Haawa! Shoutsofvictory (talk) 20:55, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I guess this is the Raven portrayed at Justin_Trudeau#Physical_appearance?   Maproom (talk) 08:41, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Maproom Yes, this unlicensed use of a Haida designer's work is often considered a controversial example of cultural appropriation.
I almost wrote I found it in poor taste. The age old question of appropriation vs. appreciation; it's still a bit of a toughie. Usedtobecool ☎️ 18:11, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hah! Ya, it goes on in on. In this case the design was completely lifted without permission from a Haida artist, so it's pretty cut-and-dry. Are you very familiar with northwest coastal formline traditions? Shoutsofvictory (talk) 18:21, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Shoutsofvictory, unfortunately, no. But I found there is an article on it, at Formline art. It's barely a start, and would surely benefit from attention of editors like you. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 05:30, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
{{u|usedtobecool} Great prompt, I'll keep this page open as my next project. Haawa! Shoutsofvictory (talk) 20:55, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reference Citations are failing to "insert" themselves

This morning I tried to add some references to an article, yet when I pressed insert, it looks like it's going to add the reference as usual for a split second, but nothing appeared. I tried to create an automatic reference a few times, all of which failed, before creating a few manual references, which also failed to appear. So I left the page open, watched a few Youtube videos, did a few edits on IMDB, and forgot all about it, until just now when I tried to add references to a different article, which again failed. Why are citations failing to insert?

This is off topic but, the article I was trying to add references to, or more accurately, re-add references and information to, were for an actor from the City of Bradford, which were removed by someone in December 2019. Those facts which were removed a month after I added them, were regarding the fact he was born, educated and trained in the City of Bradford, yet all references to the City of Bradford were removed, and only his neighbourhood, which is adjacent to mine (2 miles from the city centre) was mentioned.

There seems to be an agenda against my city - the City of Bradford which is officially the 6th biggest city in the UK by population and the 6th biggest city in the UK by area (according to the Office of National Statistics, the Queen and the British Government) by the mainstream media, the tourism companies, the map makers etc and Wikipedia.

Why do I think that? I think that because every time I add information to Wikipedia articles of people, places or things, which were born, are situated in, or from the City of Bradford, to say that they are from the City of Bradford, they get removed by people claiming things like it isn't relevant it's not needed or they are doing it to clean up an article. More like you're removing things which Bradfordians can celebrate about the city, because you want to keep the stereotype that "It's full of crime, it's poor, and there's nothing worth visiting."

  • Why is the 6th biggest city in the UK missing as a filming location, from productions which were filmed in the City of Bradford aka the world's first UNESCO City of Film?
  • Why is the 6th biggest city in the UK missing from practically every single tourism website on the internet?
  • Why is the 6th biggest city in the UK missing from most maps of UK cities?
  • Why do the majority of the neighbourhoods, hamlets, villages and towns in the 6th biggest city in the UK, fail to mention they are situated in the City of Bradford in the first couple of lines of their Wikipedia articles, and sometimes in their infoboxes too? The majority of the ones which do mention the City of Bradford, say they're near Bradford rather than in Bradford. I've even seen TV shows filmed in neighbourhoods less than 2 miles from Bradford city centre, in the 227.4 miles squared City of Bradford say they're "near Bradford" rather than "in Bradford".
  • Why do a lot of Wikipedia articles about celebrities born and/or raised in the 6th biggest city in the UK fail to mention they're from the City of Bradford.

If someone is from Wythenshawe, Manchester, Greater Manchester you don't say they're from Wythenshawe the neighbourhood alone, you say they're from Manchester the city alone, Manchester the city along with Greater Manchester the county, or all 3 by mentioning the neighbourhood, the city and the county.

If you're talking about the village of Arthington, which is in the town of Otley, which is part of the City of Leeds, you don't forget to mention that it's in Leeds or say it's near Leeds, you mention all 3.

Yet those are just a couple of examples of what happens with City of Bradford related Wikipedia articles on a regular basis. I like being specific with my information and facts, especially with things like addresses and TV networks, as there's too many people in the world who don't know what a British city is, and think the BBC is the only TV network in the UK. While Wikipedia seems to have a policy of being vague, especially when it comes to facts about places in, and people from the City of Bradford. Danstarr69 (talk) 17:48, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Danstarr69. I'm with you on Bradford - I lived there for 25 years, and always talk it up when I hear people talking it down (You know the plaque in the pavement in Tyrell St that marks that Bradford Beck goes under it and commemmorates the 56? That's there because I crowdfunded it). But with my Wikipedia hat on, I want to remind you that Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Wikipedia is not for or against: it reports what the sources say. Also, Wikipedia works by consensus. So, for each of your edits that got undone: first, does the source say "City of Bradford" or does it give some more local name? Secondly, when somebody reverted you, did you start a discussion on the matter? --ColinFine (talk) 21:09, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I’ve posted a bug report here. Oddly, I can’t even copy-paste URLs within Wikipedia (iPad 2017). What device were you on, by the way? RedBulbBlueBlood9911Talk 05:11, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Forgot to ping you, @Danstarr69:. RedBulbBlueBlood9911Talk 05:13, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
ColinFine I wasn't reverted. My edits were simply changed. I came to the Wikipedia article yesterday, to easily get the links I had added, and use them as proof of his birth place on IMDB. That's when I noticed that:
  • The acronyms for the 2 City of Bradford acting schools he attended had been removed, even though they predominantly go by those acronyms, especially for things like shows, just like with organisations like NASA, the BBC or MI5 predominantly go by their acronyms. Those 2 schools are:
  1. Buttershaw St Paul's Amateur Operatic Dramatic Society (Buttershaw St Paul's AODS).
  2. The Yorkshire School of Acting (YSA) which is based at the Bradford Playhouse.

I used 3 references. One of those references mentioned his Buttershaw training. Two of those references mentioned his YSA training. One of those references said he was specifically from the neighbourhood of Wibsey. Yet all 3 of them said he was from the City of Bradford. Therefore I used some of those references multiple times, for different things, using the footnote thing. Now those references all only appear once.

RedBulbBlueBlood9911 As for my main problem, which is the ability to add references, I'm using an Acer Aspire laptop on Windows 8.1, as Windows corrupted my other laptop in October 2017 with their forced Windows 10 updates. It's possible I could add references by coping text for other references, and changing the text, but that's a lot of hard work for something which normally happens automatically. Yes I know automatic references don't always add everything, which is why I've recently started editing the occasional reference when I notice things like dates, website names, authors, page numbers etc are missing, or just to give the reference a better title.
Danstarr69 (talk) 07:49, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Danstarr69, I suppose that means the issue isn’t with Apple or Microsoft. Anyways, the bug report I’ve linked also doesn’t say that the issue is iPadOS or Windows, so we won’t have to change that. It really is odd when these bugs spontaneously happen for no apparent reason, and that too for people using different devices. RedBulbBlueBlood9911Talk 08:21, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Danstarr69 If it helps, I've been having issues with auto-citations recently (past couple days) within my edits so I guess it is a bug. Giraffer (munch) 08:28, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
RedBulbBlueBlood9911 Giraffer I don't know about you two, but I can now add citations again. I've just added my first couple of references, after 3 days of being unable to. Danstarr69 (talk) 18:46, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

RedBulbBlueBlood9911 Giraffer Actually, no I can't. I can add references in visual mode, but I still can't add references in source mode. Danstarr69 (talk) 19:00, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T55785
Pelagic ( messages ) Z – (08:33 Mon 22, AEST) 22:33, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Name is spelled wrong; I keep updating and am asked to "brandish" a source

I have updated the spelling of a basketball player's name (it is spelled Allen, his actual name is spelled Alan.) An editor keeps changing it back, despite the fact that it is incorrect. The only internet source I can find that is publicly available is his wife's obituary (which I do not feel comfortable linking to on his page.)

The article name is "Chuck Terry" Jenmloo (talk) 04:58, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Jenmloo. Wikipedia summarizes what published, reliable sources say, and there is only one source cited in the article. That source,

Basketball-Reference.com, says that "Allen Charles Terry" is his full name. In order to change the Wikipedia article, you can either provide a citation to a reliable source for the other spelling, or convince Basketball-Reference.com to change their database. On another matter, it would be great if you could provide links to reliable, published sources that provide more details and insights into Chuck Terry's pro basketball career. It is sad that the current article is so brief. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:15, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Even if the name spelling is wrong, do not change it again unless you can provide a valid reference. Same applies to adding more content to the article. The content of citations does not have to be accessible via internet as long as the ref content can identify where published. David notMD (talk) 09:49, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm the editor you're referencing with "brandish," and you must include a reliable source when you decide to change an article (especially something as consequential as a name). If you want to, you could send his wife's obituary to Basketball-Reference.com and see if they change it. I spent a bit of time looking for a source to confirm his full name but came up empty. Philotimo (talk) 15:40, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Jenmloo, why would you be reluctant to provide a source if you have it? That makes no sense. Do you have some sort of personal or business relationship with the subject of the article? The undertone of your posting here seems to be that you have personal knowledge of this person's name and are trying to find a source to verify that. When you add something to Wikipedia, it is an absolute requirement that what you add be verifiable to reliable sources. Any edit you make here should be paraphrased from reliable secondary sources. Was this one? Note I am not asking if the source you are refusing to provide for whatever perplexing reason verifies the content; until you provide it, its existence is moot. What I am asking is for the source of your original edit, and note that you are required to provide the source or remove the content. John from Idegon (talk) 11:02, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My first article

Hello there, I am new here so please show me some warm love. I know Wikipedia is a loving community. I just started my first article of a clothing brand I think deserve an article. Here is the draft: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Sebastian_Cruz_Couture# Please any help? Suggestions? Much needed. Thanks! Tripplehaze7 (talk) 15:41, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Tripplehaze7, and welcome to the Teahouse. I hope that you will find it a friendly place; but please be aware that plunging into creating an article as a new user is like going to your first music lesson and expecting to play a concerto, or starting French lessons and expecting to be able to write a magazine article in French. The particular problem is that if you write an article from what you know, you are doing it wrong: Wikipedia readers have no way of telling who you are, or whether what you know is reliable. For this reason we require that all Wikipedia articles are based on reliably published information, and mostly on sources unconnected with the subject. So the way to start your draft is to find several places where people completely unconnected with the company have chosen to write at some length about the company, and been published in places with a reputation for editorial control and fact-checking. (And note that information sourced to the company, such as interviews and press releases, does not figure in this). If you cannot find such sources, then the company is not notable in Wikipedia's sense, and you are wasting your time trying to write about it. If you can find the sources, then you are in a position to start writing your draft, by summarising what those sources say about it. Please see your first article for more guidance. But my advice would be to shelve it for now, and spend a few weeks or months improving some of our six million existing articles (many of them need it!) and learning how Wikipedia works. The Community portal is a good place to go. --ColinFine (talk) 16:10, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, ColinFine, that’s good to know. I am taking my time to go through the guidelines and I will definitely do well to contribute to existing articles. I think the article in my draft has many such reputable sources I will look at. I am willing to take time and work on this as I think it is exciting and challenging at the same time. Awesome! I think I will love it here on Wikipedia. Kindly keep an eye on things for me if you can. Thanks a lot for your time and assistance. I really appreciate it.

Cheers! --Tripplehaze7 (talk) 16:01, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your only reference is an interview with Mr. Cruz. In Wikipedia parlance, interviews do not count toward establishing notability. You need independent content about the company. David notMD (talk) 00:37, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I got to understand this. I am taking my time to work on it and dig up some notable sources. Thank you for the heads up. Cheers! --Tripplehaze7 (talk) 10:53, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately you prettified the draft with copyright photographs. I have not reviewed past that point, and have declined it n that basis Fiddle Faddle 14:23, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't our math (and other highly technical) articles be accessible to non-experts?

As the encyclopedia anyone can edit, I would hope it is also one that anyone* could read too...

I see math, physics and other articles in highly technical and specialized areas written in abstruse language an ordinary person without specialized knowledge or expertise in the field would have little hope of understanding. I have long considered this a problem and heard others express it too, but I am not familiar with efforts to address it. Are there past discussions about this?

I did just find the essay WP:READABLE recently written by CFCF.

See also article on readability.

* with a sixth-grade level reading level (or maybe slightly higher).

--David Tornheim (talk) 21:01, 19 June 2020 (UTC) --David Tornheim (talk) 21:01, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not editing much these days, but I saw your mention of this on CFCF's talk page, and I agree with you very much. I've been reading some math and physics pages for my own learning recently, and the un-readability is really awful. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:35, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is widely recognised as a problem in many areas, especially medicine. Writing accessible prose is harder than most people think, and our editors are mostly not very good at it. Many still don't recognise the problem. At the least, the lead should be easily accessible. Johnbod (talk) 21:51, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Hello, David Tornheim and welcome to the Teahouse.
There is a constant balancing act between having over-technical articles, and having over-simplified ones on technical topics. I do not think that all our articles on, for example, mathematical topics, can usefully be written to be readable on a sixth-grade level. However, Nobel Prize winner Richard Feynman said that if one cannot prepare a freshman (college) lecture on a topic, it isn't well understood. Of more direct relevance here is MOS:JARGON, which says: Some topics are intrinsically technical, but editors should try to make them understandable to as many readers as possible. Minimize jargon, or at least explain it or tag it using {{Technical}} or {{Technical-statement}} for other editors to fix. For unavoidably technical articles, a separate introductory article (like Introduction to general relativity) may be the best solution. ... Do not introduce new and specialized words simply to teach them to the reader when more common alternatives will do. ... For example, consider adding a brief background section with {{main}} tags pointing to the full treatment article(s) of the prerequisite notions; ...
For example Differential equation is in my view reasonably well-written and accessible, but I don't think it is at a 6th-grade reading level, nor could it be usefully rewritten without mathematical terminology and notation. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 22:30, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I wo0uld add that I disagree with much of the specific suggestions in WP:READABLE, although I approve of the goal of making every article as readable as possible. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 22:30, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for everyone's advice and feedback. I do agree that Richard Feynman's suggestion of making certain subjects readable to freshmen in college might be a good standard for advanced math, physics, chemistry, etc. articles. As a former math teacher, I must admit the 6th grade level standard (something I heard is used for newspapers) would make it almost impossible to cover almost any but the most basic math or arithmetic articles.
Also, having had the pleasure of studying Schrödinger's equation which is difficult to comprehend without a background in vector calculus and its operators, I am actually quite impressed with the WP:LEDE of that article. Although I have studied Einstein's work in numerous courses in college (and even in high school), I sometimes refer back to our relativity articles, and I believe I was impressed with them. Can't say I am in the mood to look at them right now, but thanks for the suggestion.
I will start adding the {{technical}} and {{Technical-statement}} templates and read up on MOS:JARGON. Rather than try to impose a standard from the community on those who work on the relevant articles, it might be more productive to get editors of the key articles to buy-in to a standard that both they and the community would be comfortable--a standard they would be willing to adhere to. I think only a minority of editors refuse to have anything but the most precise technical definition in the WP:LEDE--I have met them. I do appreciate and respect their uncompromising desire for such rigorous material. I do think those editors have expertise on the subject and have much to offer--as long as they don't interfere with our desire to make the articles useful to read who lack such expertise.
I actually don't mind a precise technical definition in the WP:LEDE, but not in the first paragraph--I think it should be the last visible paragraph a person sees when article comes up, paragraph 2, sidebar, or image, or placed such that lay people understand its not written for them and allow them to focus on material that is. Likewise I think it is good to rigorous definitions that are easy to find for those who want them. --David Tornheim (talk) 00:02, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I looked around for some examples of pages, some of them covering topics of reasonably broad interest as opposed to being on extremely specialized subjects, that seem to me to be written at a level that is way above what we should expect Wikipedia readers to have to deal with. I say this with the understanding that there are some people who naturally think mathematically, and may react to what I say here with something like what's confusing about that?. But I don't think that Wikipedia is the place for content that is only accessible to them. So here are: Eigenvalues and eigenvectors, Rigged Hilbert space, Sturm–Liouville theory, Lie algebra, Hamiltonian mechanics, Lagrangian (field theory), and Hermitian adjoint. When I compare these with the guidelines used for, for example, Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles, there's really no comparison. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:14, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The guideline many of us in the math and physics wikiprojects follow for readability is Wikipedia:Make technical articles understandable. In fact, that guideline has recently become part of the good article criteria. The two most important points in that guideline for me for me are (1) make the lead/intro as understandable as possible and (2) write one level down. Accessibility relative to the level of the topic is a more sensible approach than an absolute reading level because different topics have naturally different levels of source material. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 02:57, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Introduction to viruses approach may be useful in some cases. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:53, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As an editor who restricts himself to math articles I would say that most math articles are poorly written. I would hope that more of us could follow the guidelines that Mark has just mentioned, but they are aspirational and hard to follow in practice. I see two sources for the problem, one of which is Wikipedia policy. Our insistence on using Reliable Sources (which I wholeheartedly support) has the consequence of us having to rely on math texts that in turn are themselves poorly written, at least from the standpoint of a general reader. The general form of modern math texts (definition, lemma, theorem, corollary, example, repeat) is meant to convey the relevant information for a certain type of reader; one with sufficient background and an ability to parse very densely packed information. There are math books written for a general audience, but except for a very few they indulge in lies we tell children in lieu of dealing with sophisticated concepts, and even these do not exist for advanced topics. The second source that I see lies in the field itself. Editors who write math articles are of course influenced by the math teachers they have had in the past. If we have done our job right, our students have been indoctrinated to prize precision above all else. Words are messy, they can have more than one meaning and sometimes you can't even figure out that meaning without knowing the context in which they are used. It is no surprise that to achieve precision as few words as possible are to be used. This explains why mathematical writing is so infused with symbols having specialized meanings. Good for precision, but very reader unfriendly. I do not have solutions for these problems. On a personal note, I do revert edits that replace prose by formulae, especially in introductory sections. I have written (and have seen some other attempts as well) some introductions in a very reader friendly way, only to have them revised to more traditional "mathematical" prose. I do feel that I am making some small headway in improving the math articles, but it is an uphill battle.--Bill Cherowitzo (talk) 19:04, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Batch tagging and relinking tool

Hello everyone! I was looking through Wikipedia and I found a backlog of about 4000 files that needed to be converted into SVG format. I could probability convert a few hundred and many a thousand. But, I cannot/will not manually tag hundreds of files and to relink every instance of the image to the new svg file. Is there a tool/bot that could do that? Thank you! The creeper2007Talk! 05:48, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@The creeper2007: Thanks for wanting to help out with image conversions. Most images in Wikipedia articles are actually located on Commons. I'm assuming the list is actually of such files (you didn't link to it). You might want to ask at c:Commons:Village pump/Technical. You might also look at c:Commons:Graphic Lab for any guidelines or input on the subject. If it is a list of images that are actually (only) on Wikipedia, try WP:VPT. (If you don't get an answer here, of course). —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 07:14, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging Benstown for advice about how to do this quickly. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 14:34, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@The creeper2007: Most images in that category are logos, and each one has to be manually reviewed, as far as copyright goes. Also, many of the images are of poor quality, or have gradients, which make vectorizing difficult. If it is not too much work, you can upload a trial batch as a zip file here (or any other service you prefer), and I'll gladly work on it. Thanks for the initiative! --Ben Stone 07:14, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Benstown: I am alright with reviewing files for copyright and reviewing the results to compare agenst the originals. I am also not sure what you mean by I’ll gladly work on it. Thank you! The creeper2007Talk! 17:15, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@The creeper2007: I don't know if there is a bot/tool to automate uploads. If there isn't, I can do it manually. --Ben Stone 04:29, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Danish withdrawal from the European Union in Danish language

Know somebody in our Wikipedia World who can start this article in Danish language?

You can see here some first possibilities: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danish_withdrawal_from_the_European_Union and https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danexit. Wname1 (talk) 06:09, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wname1, consider asking at Danish WP, [1] may be as good a place as any. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:50, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wname1, this is a help forum on and for en.wiki. Other than both being owned by the Wikimedia Foundation, we have no relationship with Danish Wikipedia. Each different language Wikipedia is an entirely independent organization. John from Idegon (talk) 09:57, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What

What is a vector skin on touchscreen device. Tbiw (talk) 09:09, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tbiw, that is the default interface style (or skin, as Wikipedia terms it). The other skins can be accessed from the appearance section of your preferences page. RedBulbBlueBlood9911Talk 09:19, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
After going there how will you view the twinkle menu.Tbiw (talk) 09:25, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Tbiw: Twinkle is enabled in the Gadget tab of your Preferences settings (the 13th tickbox down, if I remember correctly) From then on, you can find Twinkle's menu in the main tabs at the top of the page. This answer relates to using Wikipedia in desktop view, which I almost always use on my own touchscreen device (a tiny iPhone) in preference to mobile view. Nick Moyes (talk) 10:37, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Like Nick Moyes, I do most of my editing on a mobile device using the fully functional desktop site instead of the amateurush mobile site. Where we differ is that I use Android on a Google Pixel 2XL, instead of an Apple device. Plus, I am American and he is British. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:33, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How to join discord

How will i join discord. Tbiw (talk) 09:26, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably Discord (software), which seems to have jumped in popularity in the last couple of months following the release of a new version and by the social conditions resulting from Covid lockdown making it particularly useful. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.203.10.153 (talk) 10:01, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks 87 or 90! Assuming that is your question, Tbiw, it is beyond our scope here. We answer questions pertaining to how to edit en.wikipedia. That would be a question for the Reference desk. John from Idegon (talk) 10:43, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Editor of the week

How is editor of the week picked. Tbiw (talk) 09:27, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Editor of the week is an honor given by WP:Wikiproject Editor Retention. Anyone can nominate an editor. The criteria are listed on the award's page, linked at the beginning of my reply. Once an editor is nominated and someone has seconded the nomination, a very small group of editors vets the nomination and assuming the nomination was in good faith and that the nominee doesn't fail any of the criteria, they are put into a queue and will recieve the award in chronological order. Further details can be found by following the links in this reply. Thanks for the interesting and different question, Tbiw! John from Idegon (talk) 09:50, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why is my article contested and how do I get the draft approved?

Hi there, I created this draft about "Sklavenkasse"/slave funds and would like to have it published as I think it is finished. It is also not promotional, but a mere translation of the German Wiki article for the term.

Question1: The draft has been marked for "sppedy deletion" as you can see on my talk page. Who did that, why has that been done and how can I get this undone? Or at least: What is the reason why the draft has been marked as "unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view"? Because it simply is not - otherwise it would be the same for the term in the German Wikipedia.

Question2: Where exactly do I have to go to for the apporval of the article - or where do I find the responsible administrator in charge of the approval process?

Thank you very much. Mannikosblog (talk) 11:09, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mannikosblog Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. The speedy deletion tag was removed from your draft by another editor according to the edit history, so it will not be speedy deleted at least right now. There is no administrator in charge of approving or disapproving articles, if you submit your draft for review(which I will add the appropriate information to permit in a moment) any new page reviewer will look at it(and they are not just administrators).
Be advised that what is acceptable on another language version of Wikipedia is not necessarily acceptable here. 331dot (talk) 11:14, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
331dot Thank you for you help. How long do you think will it take to publish/reject the article? Mannikosblog (talk) 14:07, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The draft Draft:Sklavenkasse has several paragraphs without references. Once existing references are properly formatted and more refs added, the draft can be submitted. The review process is typically days to weeks, but can be months. David notMD (talk) 14:09, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey wikipedia

Hey Wikipedia is there any volunteer who can understand Bengali here so that I can get guidance from them on my draft:Laal Kothi Paak Darbaar Sharif— Preceding unsigned comment added by Majun e Baqi (talk • contribs)

Majun e Baqi Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. If your preference is to converse in Bengali, there is a Bengali Wikipedia. You may find someone who understands Bengali at either the Bangladesh WikiProject or the Indian WikiProject. 331dot (talk) 11:20, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Help us from getting targeted!

Hi! We run a non profit for kids with cancer http://joinourfam.org and we are growing at a rapid pace. We recently did The Ellen Show, and have many big events coming forward. Due to the sensitive nature of the kids information we like to keep all of our stuff online as accurate as possible. Since getting this national exposure so many companies are in our inbox daily asking to make a Wikipedia page and charge us money. While we 100% want to be on Wikipedia and have had that on our goals list since 2018, we want to make sure we do it the right way. Any and all help would be greatly appreciated! Thanks 199.59.195.179 (talk) 13:43, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Whether an organization wants to be on Wikipedia or not is immaterial(there are actually good reasons to not want to be on Wikipedia). An organization does not get to determine if there is a Wikipedia article about it or not. Articles are typically written by independent editors, who take note of a subject in independent reliable sources and choose on their own to write about it. We cannot stop you from hiring someone to do so, but they cannot make any guarantees(such as writing an article that will not be deleted). You should not hand over one penny until you see the finished result. Anyone you hire will need to make the Terms of Use-required paid editing declaration and be familiar with conflict of interest.(you too will need to do this as you state that you run the nonprofit) If your organization meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable organization and you have significant coverage in independent reliable sources to support it, it would be best to simply allow independent editors to take note of your organization and write about it on their own.
Wikipedia is completely unconcerned with your "online presence" or helping spread the word about the good work your organization does. We're only here to write an encyclopedia. You are free to use social media or a website owned and operated by your organization to tell the world about what you do. 331dot (talk) 14:11, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I found very, very little on-line about the organization other than what the organization says about itself. This may be WP:TOOSOON. If so, even a paid editor skilled in creating articles will not find the required references to make this work. David notMD (talk) 15:22, 20 June 2020 (UTC) No problem, thanks guys, appreciate you taking the time to respond! Time to work harder! Cheers to all[reply]

All of the info in my doc was verifiable; can i resubmit the page if i change the sources to 3rd parties

Hey all,

My page was recently deleted. First, I would like to get back the code and work to better it based on third party sources ---> I had 3rd party sources for everything I just used company announcements and linked the 3rd party stuff in additional readings. Second, I am an employee of the company. I realized after publishing I need to disclose COI but I have revied the piece and none of it is advertisement, it is purely factual. Can I link to the site if they are a retailer and they alone have a list of their partners? And can I use them as the source for the company mission? They alone have published it.

Thanks WaltJsmith (talk) 15:13, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WaltJsmith Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. You seem to have a common misunderstanding as to what Wikipedia is. It is not a place for companies to tell the world about themselves. This is an encyclopedia, which summarizes what independent reliable sources with significant coverage say about a company, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. Wikipedia is not interested in what a company wants to say about itself. That includes what a company considers to be its "mission", which is impossible to independently verify as a company can change its "mission" at any time. The sources you had in your draft seem to be press release type stories or routine business announcements, which do not establish notability. As you describe your company as a "startup", it is likely too soon for an article about your company. In essence, your company must already be established in its field and be more than a "startup" to merit an article, so independent sources have had the chance to (on their own) take note of your company and choose to write about it. 331dot (talk) 15:19, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Thanks for the quick response talk. Just wondering if it is notable because multiple third party sources have covered the topic and they are all publishing cryptocurrency news sites like Coindesk, theblock, and Cointelegraph. I linked them in the additional readings section and realize I should use them for sources. I falsely thought that press releases from the company itself were better because of its primary. I realize now how to change some of the stuff --> what you said about the mission statement totally makes sense. I am planning on making changes and submitting through article wizard... thoughts on that course of action? Again, thanks! WaltJsmith (talk) 15:26, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WaltJsmith That is the way to go about resubmitting it. If the independent reliable sources are more than a simple announcement of a business transaction, as the sources in your first draft were, it may be possible for there to be an article. The coverage by the source needs to go beyond merely telling about something the company did.
Keep in mind that if your draft is accepted, you will no longer be able to edit it directly(with a few exceptions), and will need to make formal edit requests on the article talk page for future changes. 331dot (talk) 15:33, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@WaltJsmith:, to expand slightly on what 331dot said above, the weird definition we use for "notability" includes a qualification that coverage not merely be in third-party sources but also that those sources be ones which are generally considered "reliable". This is a very squishy quality to assess so the assessment is reached by editors talking about it. There is a list of sources that have been often-discusses to help centralize these prior assessments. Coindesk is not considered reliable: There is consensus that CoinDesk should not be used to establish notability for article topics... I would suggest that any coverage of your company there should not be used as it will be rejected by other editors. I hope this helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:04, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Lolli (company) was Speedy deleted. David notMD (talk) 23:50, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a link to all of their coverage of the company:https://www.coindesk.com/tag/lolli. Also, Coindesk is not the only source, was just an example of one of the one's that does cover it. Thanks, WaltJsmith (talk) 17:17, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

George Stinney

I seem to have unintentionally stepped into a series of edit wars on the George Stinney page. I think I was right in removing graphic content that isn't sourced but also don't want to step into the 3RR. What should I do? Astropiloto (talk) 15:37, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have requested page protection in this case, since it appears more like back-and-forth of unexplained removal of sourced content at best, and removing content if false edit summaries at worst. The edit today that contravened WP:V was more the drop that caused the barrel to overflow. Victor Schmidt (talk) 16:23, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks so much! Astropiloto (talk) 16:26, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How can I write about a new thing on Wikipedia?

 Nora nayeri (talk) 16:09, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nora nayeri Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. It depends on what you want to write about, but Wikipedia is not necessarily for writing about "new things". Wikipedia has articles about subjects that have significant coverage in independent reliable sources showing how they meet Wikipedia's special definition of notability. A subject usually needs to be well established to merit an article, otherwise it could be too soon to write about it. 331dot (talk) 16:14, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) @Nora nayeri: You don't. Or better, you probbably should not, unless that "new thing" has significant coverage in reliable sources independent of that thing. In addition, please be advised that createing a new article is the absolute hardest task you can undertake on Wikipedia. If you still want to create an article, you can find advice at Your first article. Victor Schmidt (talk) 16:16, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 117.20.115.176 (talk) 16:21, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Nora nayeri! I suggest looking at already written articles on topics related to those you are interested in and looking for red links. Red links are all without articles yet. Good luck! Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:49, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am going to contradict Jenhawk777. You have just registered as an editor. Your only article edits have been reverted. I strongly recommend you learn more about editing Wikipedia by working to improve existing articles rather than attempting a new article. On your Talk page I left some connections (blue wording) to tutorials and guidelines. Also, while some editors use their true name as their User name, Wikipedia advises young editors to not do this. Consider no longer using this account and registered a new one with a different User name. David notMD (talk) 18:58, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
David notMD Sorry. Mea culpa. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:44, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Images

I need to include copyright proofs in images and I can't remember how. Can you point me in the right direction? Also on the inclusion of alternative descriptions for the blind, is that just alt=? Does it have posts around it? Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:31, 20 June 2020 (UTC) Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:31, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Jenhawk777: Search in WP:IMAGE. If you meant permissions, you want WP:OTRS. Victor Schmidt (talk) 17:33, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Okay Victor Schmidt, let's just assume I'm not very bright and that having already read that, I was unable to find something that said "put 'a' here by doing 'b'." In good WP fashion I got a description, and it went as far as saying "a tag should be on its own line." Where good Victor? Where? I thought all info on an image was supposed to be included inside the brackets of the file citation itself. Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:47, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Jenhawk777. Regarding accessibility for the blind and visually impaired, please read Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility/Alternative text for images. You simply type in a description of what is in the image into the "alt" field, such as "a still life painting of a vase of flowers, two pears and a plate of cheese ". This gives more information for blind people using a screen reader than a typical caption which might be "1879 painting by Jane Jones". As for copyright and licensing information, that goes in the file for the image itself, which may be hosted either here on English Wikipedia, or at Wikimedia Commons. That does not go in the wikicode that displays the image on an individual page. You can access the image file page by double clicking the image itself, and then clicking "details". You can edit the file page if you need to. I hope this helps. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 18:09, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Cullen328 So I go in and edit the information on the image itself?!!!! Yikes! I don't think I've ever done that! These images I am using have their copyright info posted with the "details"--is that what you're referring to? That would mean someone else has already done that edit, and I am good to go with those, right? One says I need a tag for the US. I guess I can follow and find that. Thank you thank you thank you!! You guys are great! Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:18, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Jenhawk777, images are a tough subject to help people with. Some images are hosted on en.wiki, but most are hosted on Wikimedia Commons. Although most hosts here can help you with basics on Commons, it is a separate entity from en.wiki, with different policies and guidelines and Commons help is really outside our purview here. Additionally, policies both here and on Commons are purposely vague and are meant to be interpreted on a case by case basis. If you could point specifically to the file or files in question, we'd probably be able able to help you much better. John from Idegon (talk) 18:26, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Jenhawk777, I agree with John from Idegon that it is best to describe your specific problem with a specific named image, because there is such a wide range of possible problems with the licensing status of images that generic answers are not likely to address the particular situation you are dealing with. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 18:32, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Cullen328 and John from Idegon I didn't realize this was foreign territory to you too. :-) These are the images I'm using on [History of Christian thought on persecution and tolerance]: [2]. Europe [3] Occitane [4]expulsions--disputed due to translation [5] Baltic tribes [6] central Europe, and this is the only one with copyright info posted on its licensing details. If I recall correctly--it's been a while--I think I have to hunt down the copyright info and be sure it meets criteria and then post it like you said, on the licensing info. Thanx for trying to help even though it's outside your wheelhouse. I'll stumble through and figure it out, this has given me a direction, so thanx again! Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:41, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Jenhawk777, thanks for linking to specific images. I do not see problems with the licensing of any of those images, and you are free to use them anywhere you want on Wikipedia as you see fit. Why do you think that you need to do anything about copyright? What problems do you see? Neither John from Idegon nor I said that image usage is "out of our wheelhouse". We just asked for specific details so that we could give you a specific answer. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 22:22, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Cullen328 Sorry if I misunderstood, but I thought that's what John meant when he said {{it is a separate entity from en.wiki, with different policies and guidelines and Commons help is really outside our purview here.}} When getting an article ready for review for FA, I was told in the past that not having the copyright tags on the image licensing--I think that's where anyway--would be cause to fail the article. I get every image I use from Wiki commons and thought the statements of free use were sufficient, but I was told I was wrong. Does FA have different rules? Jenhawk777 (talk) 02:41, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Jenhawk777, of course incorrect or incomplete image licensing or unresolved copyright problems would be a major issue in an FA review, but I see no such problems with those images. So, I will ask again so that we can be clear about this matter. Specifically what problems do you see? What concerns you? Cullen328 [[User talk:[7]] |Let's discuss it]] 03:50, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cullen328 Copyright tags are supposed to be on images. I found them here: [8]

I was able to put them on this image--[9] --but was unable to do so on the others as they had no information on the original sources. That means there is no actual way to ensure that the person that uploaded it here and who says 'sure use it freely' actually has the right to say that. I think I have to go to Flicker and see if I can find where they came from originally.Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:36, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jenhawk777, the CIA image is a work of the United States federal government and is therefore copyright free. Indisputably. The other images have valid GNU or Creative Commons licenses. The uploaders made a legal declaration that the images were properly licensed and could be used freely. Why would you go to Flikr to research these images, which are maps and charts, not photos? What evidence do you have that any of these images has copyright or license problems? Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:23, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It looks to me, Jenhawk777, that you have mistagged File:Europe 814.svg. That image was not published before 1925. It is a contemporary image that used the pre-1925 atlas image as a source. That is an image licensed for free use under Creative Commons. It is not an image whose copyright has expired. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:30, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Cullen328 It says it's original source was "The Public Schools Historical Atlas" by Charles Colbeck. Longmans, Green; New York; London; Bombay. 1905. I may have misunderstood, but that's the copyright I was told to go by. So anyway, that has answered my question. Thank you Jenhawk777 (talk) 07:56, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Constructive Edits

Hello Teahouse,

I recently tried editing an existing wikipedia article with updated and corrected information on the subject, and I received a message from an editor saying that my edits "did not appear constructive." What does that mean exactly? I've looked through the various help pages but can not find any specific information as to what constitutes constructive edits.

Thank you!

Aladinsane 1972 Aladinsane 1972 (talk) 17:38, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aladinsane 1972, it appears to me that your edits to Zerobridge were intended as constructive. However, you supplied no reference in support of any of them, which I assume is why CommanderWaterford reverted them and posted to your talk page. Maproom (talk) 17:53, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Aladinsane 1972, first of all welcome to the Teahouse, good place to ask - but you could have also asked me directly on my talk page. Your edits were completely without any given source, you will need to give a reference for your allegations, that’s all. Thanks Maproom for pinging me. CommanderWaterford (talk) 17:59, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
CommanderWaterford, you could be sanctioned for an WP:NPA violation. Explain here now how the OP's edits constituted WP:VANDALISM, which is what you called them. John from Idegon (talk) 18:07, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@John from Idegon: Where do you see the word "vandalism" used? —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 02:01, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Getting too old to multitask. Sorry, I've struck that. John from Idegon (talk) 02:59, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
John from Idegon, AlanM1, I see that word used in CommanderWaterford's edit summary at Zerobridge: "Reverted to revision 929691772 by Bonnie13J (talk): Vandalism (TW)". Maproom (talk) 08:02, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Maproom: Yeah – there's an inconsistency between the template naming/description and the content, which I've raised at Wikipedia talk:Twinkle#uw-vandalism1 template. After choosing that template and reading the preview, a TW user can reasonably expect the softened terminology, and not "vandalism", to appear in the result. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 12:41, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Submission for Draft:Enyo Sam declined

Draft:Enyo Sam

I have provided reference to available sources of the draft which is legit. What should I do? Samsave (talk) 17:54, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

First: much of the content of the draft is a copy or close paraphrasing of ref #1, which makes it a copyright violation. Second: many of the references are not considered reliable sources by Wikipedia, including #1 (the artist's own website). Third: you have submitted this for a fourth time, with only minor changes from the declined third submission. David notMD (talk) 19:17, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The thing to realise, Samsave, is that Wikipedia is basically not interested in what the subject of an article says about themselves, or what their associates say about them. It is only interested in what people who have no connection with the subject have said about them (and been published in reliable places). The only one of the fifteen references which might meet that criterian is the Od7Music article (assuming that Od7Music are independent of Sam, and not, for example, his managers) - but there's not very much information about him in that. It would help establish notability, but is not enough on its own. None of the rest of the references contribute in any way to his notability. There's also the question of Fidarr: anybody can start a company and call themselves an entrepreneur. The complete lack of independent sources talkihng about Fidarr and his role in it say to me that even if sources can be found that establish his notability as a musician, his venture with Fidarr should not be mentioned at present.
So, Samsave, what you need to do is
  1. Find at least three places where people wholly unconnected with Sam, and not prompted by an interview or press release, have chosen to write at some length about him, and been published somewhere with a reputation for editorial control and fact-checking.
  2. If you cannot find three such sources, give up: he is not currently notable by Wikipedia's standard.
  3. If you can find them, throw away most of what you have written, forget what you know about him, and start again, summarising, in your own words, only what these sources have written.
  4. When you have done that, you can add a certain amount of uncontroversial factual information from non-independent sources (see PRIMARY for details.
  5. Drop all the citations to lyric sources, Apple Music, and Google
  6. Citations to archived sites are fine, but they should have the original URL, and (much much much more importantly) information such as the date, title, writer if identified, and publisher or website directly visible in the citation. If the original URL is no longer valid, you can use archive-url = for the archive.com URL.
Finally: the fact that you have "Sam" in your username, and you uploaded the photo, claiming it as "own work" makes me wonder if you work for Sam Enyo. If you do, you are in breach of Wikipedia's terms of use until you declare your status as a paid editor on your user page and the talk page of your draft. --ColinFine (talk) 19:55, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy: Draft:Enyo Sam David notMD (talk) 20:55, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Revision removed - but I can't tell what (not why)

I recently put a revision onto a site (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Peckett_and_Sons_railway_locomotives). It was one of several on that site that I have made. I am actively researching this subject and there are lots of errors on this particular wikipedia site. When I check the history it says one of my edits has been subsequently removed with the comment "identified as test/vandalism using STiki". It certainly wasn't vandalism. It may have been one where I was trying to work out how to achieve a particular change and wasn't sure how to but I was pretty sure everything I saved as a final edit was accurate.

Is there a way to identify which amendment was removed?

Thanks

David Daphne737 (talk) 18:18, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Daphne737, welcome to the Teahouse. Sure - have a look at this link https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Peckett_and_Sons_railway_locomotives&type=revision&diff=942739491&oldid=942739168&diffmode=source - there you will see the two different versions where Materialscientist reverted the Edit. Hope that helps. CommanderWaterford (talk) 18:22, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Daphne737. The warning template (FYI, its boilerplate) you received in February gave you the best advice on this. By your own statement here, that was a test edit. Minimally, when you make a technical edit you are not sure of, be sure to inspect it when done and if it doesn't render how you wanted it, self revert and seek help. We do encourage our editors to WP:BEBOLD, but you need to keep in mind we are making a product, and we shouldn't leave it looking worse than when we started. User:Daphne737/sandbox would be the proper title for your sandbox. Test edit there until you figure out how to use the code. The article you edited is a really good example of when tables are effective, but in general we overuse them. Don't feel bad about being confused...I've made over 100,000 edits here and the only way I can create or expand a table is to copy the code from another entry or table and change the data. Happy editing! John from Idegon (talk) 18:40, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link CommanderWaterford that is exactly what I needed - can't see why it was removed from that though nor why the system would have identified it as a test. There terminology used in the "boilerplate" response is either patronizing or aggressive depending on your sensitivity and not likely to encourage people to contribute. Glad to hear even the experts can struggle at times - I will perservereDaphne737 (talk) 18:55, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Daphne737. I'm sorry you have had that experience. I can guess what happened (though only Materialscientist could tell us for sure). Stiki is a tool to help editors find and revert vandalism - which, as you probably know, is a significant problem on Wikipedia. It identifies suspect edits, but a human editor decides whether to act on those or not. I guess that your edit looked like many examples of vandalism because 1) it introduced a strange word into an article; 2) there was no source given for the addition; and 3) there was no edit summary explaining the addition. (In fact, I notice that that entry is one of many in the table which is unsourced). A STiki user will typically be viewing dozens of suspect edits, and hasn't very much time to spend on each.
So in short - sorry it happened; but you can make it less likely to happen again by using an edit summary, and citing references where possible. --ColinFine (talk) 20:11, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think actor Jacopo Rampini is notable enough to have a Wikipedia page?

welcome to the Teahouse, IP editor. I'm afraid not, based upon the sources you've given and which I've annotated above. But maybe there are other, better, in-depth, reliable sources out there. You would need to find them to have any success. See WP:NBIO and WP:NACTOR for details of our notability criteria. Nick Moyes (talk) 21:09, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia age

How old is Wikipedia? QwertyDummy (talk) 00:14, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@QwertyDummy: Welcome to Wikipedia. I added a header to your question. According to the article, Wikipedia was founded in Jan 2001. RudolfRed (talk) 00:21, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@QwertyDummy: And see also History of Wikipedia. Deor (talk) 16:18, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Best-Practice for Rewriting an Article

Hi,

I've discovered that the article on Freeline skates is in pretty bad shape; it might be easiest to start with a clean slate. I'm hoping that someone can help guide me on what the best-practices are when considering re-writing an article.

Here are some specific questions that I have:

  1. Is it advisable to re-write the article? How can I best respect the article history?
    • Should I do a re-write in my sandbox, then release the content all at once, or write a section at a time in the live article? Maybe some combination of the two?
    • In the talk page another user, Th0rgall already drafted a rewrite in their sandbox. It's a good start, but it still needs work. Perhaps the article should be re-written in their sandbox?
  2. I think that the page should be moved so that instead of using the brand name Freeline Skates, it uses the generic name Freeskates.
    • Is a page move advisable here?
    • Would that be done before, during, or after updating the content?
    • This brings up ambiguity between the hypothetical Freeskates article, and the Free Skate article on the form of ice skating. I think that a Hatnote would be sufficient for that case. Does that sound right?
  3. For such a niche sport, I'm concerned about finding really solid sources. It looks like most sources are supplier "about" pages, blogs, and YouTube videos. My plan right now is to try to not get research paralysis and get something on the page, with the intent to find really good sources later. Does that sound like an okay plan?

Thanks so much for your help! I really appreciate your patience with my beginner's questions. I want to ensure that I follow best-practice for a scenario like this. Let me know if there's anything I can clarify for you!

Thanks, Raspberry Curator (talk) 00:35, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is a page warranted?

After scrolling through some of the other teahouse comments, maybe the sporting equipment isn't well-known enough to warrant a Wikipedia page? If necessary, I can provide links to some vendors that might provide evidence for popularity... let me know! 00:40, 21 June 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raspberry Curator (talk • contribs)

@Raspberry Curator: Welcome to Teahouse. After reading your whole Questions and the articles you are talking about like Freeline skates and Free skate. In between you want to move Freeline skates to Freeskates. And your another question is should you rewrite the article or not.
*Taking the first point of Page Move, first all you should be clear that whether Freeline skates and Free skate are similar or on same thing? If yes, then you have to Merge not Move.
*Now another question is rewrite. If you think it should be rewritten and you have the more valid sources (most preferred reliable sources) then you are welcome to rewrite. You can rewrite in sandbox and then copy and paste it in main article. Also you said I will add reference later, it would be better if you rewrite the article and don't not copy-paste it to main article until you get some valid references for your edits.
  • Now Conclusion:
  1. We discussed page move, where I suggested 'Merge if topic is on same thing, and you believe that it should be in Free skate instead of having separate article.
  2. Rewrite: You can rewrite in your sandbox as Sandbox is a experimental page. But try add valid references to your editing, otherwise it can be reverted by other editors.
Hope you got some help from these points, if you have any confusion, kindly reply here, I or any other editor will be there to assist you. Thanks and regards — The Chunky urf Al Kashmiri (Speak🗣️ or Write✍️) 03:05, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Raspberry Curator, let's assume for a moment that an independent page (however titled, and whether concentrating on a concept or on a trademarked product) that would replace the (very feeble) Freeline skates is warranted and that User:Th0rgall/sandbox/Freeskates is worthwhile as a start. I'd suggest that you copy the content of User:Th0rgall/sandbox/Freeskates to User:Raspberry Curator/sandbox/Freeskates (or somewhere else in your userspace), your very first edit to it (your creation of it) having the edit summary "copied from User:Th0rgall/sandbox/Freeskates". Then edit it ruthlessly. When you're happy with it, announce at Talk:Freeline skates your intention to replace Freeline skates with it. Wait two weeks. If there's no objection, first move Freeline skates to the new title (if you're giving its replacement a new title) and then ask an admin to move your draft there to replace the old (non-) article. -- Hoary (talk) 05:20, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hoary and TheChunky, your replies really helped to clear things up for me. I feel like I have a clear path forward with the article now. I look forward to contributing to this article and others into the future. Thank you so much! Raspberry Curator (talk) 07:07, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Raspberry Curator. In answer to one part of your question: "For such a niche sport, I'm concerned about finding really solid sources. It looks like most sources are supplier "about" pages, blogs, and YouTube videos. My plan right now is to try to not get research paralysis and get something on the page, with the intent to find really good sources later. Does that sound like an okay plan?", I would say, No, that's a bad plan. If you can't find independent sources, then an article on the subject will never be accepted, and any time you put into writing it will be wasted. Articles start with the good sources, not with "getting something on the page". --ColinFine (talk) 08:35, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Understood. Thanks, ColinFine! --Raspberry Curator (talk) 16:58, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Status of submission

How do I track the status of my submission? How soon do I get to know whether it's accepted and published or not? AvinashBollywood (talk) 01:25, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AvinashBollywood Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. You have not actually submitted your draft for review; you need to click the blue "Submit your draft for review!" button to do that. However, if you were to do so at this time, your draft would almost certainly be rejected, as you offer no independent reliable sources to support the content of the article. Successfully writing a new article is the absolute hardest thing to do on Wikipedia, it takes much effort and practice. Instead of submitting your draft, I would first suggest that you use the new user tutorial and read Your First Article.
In order to merit an article, this author needs to be shown with significant coverage in independent reliable sources to meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable author. Social media accounts and a book listing are not such sources. 331dot (talk) 01:34, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up to How to upload an write up

i have a request,i should upload a writeup regarding of "How an ESP can design in high viscosity oil wells" . This is my write up. this would help others . please let me know if this topic is acceptable. Ellipzys (talk) 01:57, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ellipzys: Welcome to Wikipedia. As mentioned in the previous replies, Wikipedia does not accept original research. See WP:OR. RudolfRed (talk) 02:17, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

its not original research, research already done but the informations are limited in internet. SO i planned to upload in wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ellipzys (talk • contribs) 02:20, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You can use WP:YFA to see the instructions for writing an article and use the wizard there to create a draft for review. RudolfRed (talk) 02:23, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You were advised on your Talk page that your User page is not a place to create an article (hence deleted). Also, the existence of information accessible via internet searches does not mean that those sources meet Wikipedia's definition of reliable sources WP:RS. Looks to me that ESP refers to Electrical Submersible Pump. Submersible pump exists as an article. Perhaps - if you can identify valid references - you can add to that article. David notMD (talk) 11:08, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Adding property ownership of Nehru Maidan

I have added names of the Nehru Maidan property owners who vested the property with city corporation. Is mentioning the name of title holders in violation? Please clarify Joelwin (talk) 02:56, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Joelwin: Welcome to the Teahouse! I see you made an edit to the Nehru Maidan article, which was reverted by another editor, who explained the reason for the reversion on your talk page. Per the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, I suggest you start a discussion at the article's talk page - Talk:Nehru Maidan - and provide a reliable source for the information you would like to be added to the article. While the word "Altruistic" may be true, it's not the type of encyclopedic language we use in Wikipedia articles. Your edit also had improper capitalization and used "it's" instead of "its". Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 03:24, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Hello, Joelwin and welcome to the Teahouse. It would not be unreasonable to add a statement of the former ownership of the facility to Nehru Maidan, provided that you cite this information to an independent published reliable source.
I see that you added the information in this edit and SuperGoose007 reverted. In such a case, the best course ism to follow mthe Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle and start a discussion on Talk:Nehru Maidan. Please give your reasons for the edit and why you think it should be included in the article. I note that your edit did not provide any source, which may be why it was reverted by the other editor. I also note that it described the givers as an Altruistic Mangalorean Konkani Catholic family which is WP:POV and WP:PUFFERY, especially when unsourced. Please do not include such opnions in Wikipedia's voide in future. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 03:33, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How to add picture in someone's page

How to add picture in someone's page Mugdho Dutta (talk) 04:48, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Mugdho Dutta, Welcome to the Teahouse. You can use the tool "upload file" from left hand side bar. Before uploading, please make sure the picture is not a copyrighted material(i.e. it should be free to use in Wikipedia). More information about this can be found at WP:UPIMG - Timbaaa -> ping me 05:07, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Mugdho Dutta: Welcome to Teahouse! You are also welcome to contribute Wikipedia and it's sister project. If you want to add a picture to any page, first you should be clear that the picture is important there on that page. You can read WP:Commons for uploading pics. And you can upload pic, audio, video files at this link . For adding them to Wikipedia article, you can see this page. — The Chunky urf Al Kashmiri (Speak🗣️ or Write✍️) 05:07, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To move from Sandbox to Publish

I posted A Profile which is in my SANDBOX titled A profile of Dr. Ulaganathan sankar under the category 20th Century Indian Economists in February 2020. When will it be published? Mythili2020 (talk) 06:45, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Mythili2020: Welcome to Teahouse, you are new user, if you have completed your article in Sandbox then you should create a draft. See WP:Drafts . You must create a draft and them submit it for review. To know about creating new article see Help:Your first article#Create your draft. Hope this helps, if any problem kindly reply here. — The Chunky urf Al Kashmiri (Speak🗣️ or Write✍️) 06:59, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have posted matter in the SANDBOX. It is a profile of a person. How do I come to know if the material is still in process or dismissed? Please help Mythili2020 (talk) 07:10, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How to move the content from SANDBOX to DRAFT? Mythili2020 (talk) 07:23, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing's going to happen to that draft until you ask for an evaluation. For now, don't do this. Please remember that Wikipedia doesn't have profiles; it has articles. And that everything said (and not just a sizable minority of what's said) in an article has to be referenced. And that the way to reference is not "<sup>[3]</sup>" but instead something like "<ref>Author, '[http://www.domainname.in/wherever/pagename.html Page title]', Website, date. Accessed accessdate.</ref>". -- Hoary (talk) 07:26, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't start multiple threads, each asking the same thing. (I have merged your second and third into this first one.) -- Hoary (talk) 07:28, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

to create draft

 Mythili2020 (talk) 07:35, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Mythili2020: Please tell us about the topic you are considering for your new article, and whether you've attempted to determine if it meets Wikipedia's peculiar definition of notability. This trips up a lot of people. (BTW, if you really want to help, you can work on fixing problems with existing articles. There's always plenty of articles that need fixing.) Fabrickator (talk) 07:58, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fabrickator, see User:Mythili2020/sandbox. Mythili2020, if you have a new question, please put it in this section; please don't put it in a new one. -- Hoary (talk) 08:48, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An editor moved it from your Sandbox to Draft:Ulaganathan Sankar. I created section headings. Once you create proper referencing, you can click on the submit button. Once submitted, can be days to months before it is reviewed, and either accepted or declined (with advice on what is needed), or in worst cases, rejected. David notMD (talk) 11:21, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up to Using images on a wikipedia article about a living artist Specify links to images and works of an artist in her article

I recently asked about putting images of an artist and her works in a Wikipedia article and found that it would be difficult to get copyright permission. My follow-up question is about putting links in an article to an external site that had a photo and showed some artworks. Often the reference list will have links to external articles or sites that will show photos and artworks but I wonder if it's Ok to put something explicit in the body of an article such as "

A photo of Jane Bloggs can be found on the University of Utopia page and her artworks can be seen at the Beautiful Gallery page". The links would be from the names of the institutions. This happens incidentally anyway sometimes when there are external links in the article, but could it be a specific sentence to direct readers to the images or even a subheading section to make it easier to find? LPascal (talk) 07:51, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi LPascal. Generally, external links shouldn't be embedded into the bodies of articles per WP:CS#Avoid embedded links and item 19 of WP:ELNO. Moreover, text directing readers to external websites (e.g. "To see some examples of Bloggs' work, check this website.") shouldn't really be added the bodies of articles as well. If you feel the links aren't a problem per WP:ELNO, then the best place to add them would be to the "External links" section; however, be aware that Wikipedia encourages us to try and limit external links to "official" websites as much as possible per WP:ELMINOFFICIAL. Ideally, the only links which should really be added to directly to the body of an article should be WP:WIKILINKS (i.e. internal links) to other relevant Wikipedia articles. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:11, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Some other suggestions based upon looking at some of your edits to Elizabeth Gower
  1. Please don't add citations to section headings per MOS:HEAD. You add should add citations inline near the content that it's intended to support. If you want add a citation for a specific entry in a table of list, add it directly to that entry. If the citation is intended to support the all of the content in the table of list, then add an introductory type sentence before the table or list and add the citation to that.
  2. Please don't use "level-1" section heading syntax for sections of articles as explained in WP:SECT#Creation and numbering of sections. Level-1 section headings are reserved for the titles of articles.
  3. Please be aware of WP:NOTEVERYTHING and WP:NOTCV when making edits like this. One of the problems with such content is that the article can become quite bottom heavy where in that the encyclopedic content at the top of the article written in WP:PROSE is being overwhelmed by the excessively detailed/comprehensive list sections at the bottom of the article. Try to focus only on major exhibitions/awards of things which might even have Wikipedia articles written about them. Such detailed information might be fine for the artist's official website, but Wikipedia articles aren't really intended to be a detailed or comprehensive as official websites.
  4. Try to write out short sections like Elizabeth Gower#Education in prose instead of simple tables or lists if possible.
  5. If you're going to add content like Elizabeth Gower#Public commissions, then you should add supporting citations as well per WP:BLPSOURCES. The more unsourced content you add to an article, the more likely it's going to be tagged with a maintenance template like {{More citations needed}} or {{Unreferenced section}}. Unsourced content can be removed at any time per WP:BURDEN, and this especially true for articles about living persons per WP:BLPSOURCES.
  6. I'm sure your converting of the bullet lists (shown here in the version prior to your editing of the article) to tables was really an improvement. That could just be my personal preference. Sometimes when you make a big change like that it might be a good idea to be WP:CAUTIOUS and propose it on the article's talk page first.
-- Marchjuly (talk) 08:40, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Marchjuly, all of those comments are very helpful and I will re-edit the EG page later with them in mind. As a new editor I;m finding it difficult to find the instructions/policies quickly on for every issue I have so that's why I ask questions on the Talk page. I will try and read more of that guidance material now that you reference before I do a lot more editing. LPascal (talk) 10:34, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The site : Hans Andre, some more info

https://www.artribune.com/artista-mostre-biografia/hans-andre/ is a good decription of Hans Andrés work, but in italian. 80.216.193.97 (talk) 09:09, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The best place for you to suggest its addition is Talk:Hans Andre. -- Hoary (talk) 11:02, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Which sources or cites are considered legit?

Hello fellow Wikis :) I'm a new editor on Wikipedia and was wondering if I could get some help. I want to create a Wikipedia page for an entertainment entrepreneur but seem to keep hitting a wall for not having "notability", despite being published in some of the best magazines in the world (Entrepreneur, Vogue, ELLE, and so on). I reached out to an experienced editor on Upwork and she suggested that we create a wikitia page, and that this would guarantee notability. Two questions here: Will the wikitia page help in getting my Wikipedia article published? If not, what sources are considered "reliable", given that none of the said sources are press releases or merely interviews? May Rostom (talk) 11:05, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The only article (not 'page') you appear to be working on is Draft:Rabih Mokbel. The 'Declined' comment was "Please read the Manual of Style and format this piece to match it. It requires headings. Also, for clarity, avoid long paragraphs. I have not reviewed this piece further because it requires a substantial edit to be readable." If this is not the draft you are referring to, please provide a link to the one you mean. David notMD (talk) 11:26, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what you mean by "Wikitia", and wonder if you mean Wikia. Would a Wikia page help getting a draft promoted to an article? No, it certainly wouldn't. Can your draft be promoted in anything like its current form? No it can't. To take a sample at random: Mokbel is not only leaving his mark -- what mark? -- in the Music industry in Egypt but he changed the whole world’s perception of Egypt’s huge hidden potential -- Potential for what? And the whole world, really? -- and caught international attention when he encouraged huge international names -- by "huge international names", do you mean celebs? -- to fly over to perform in Egypt, creating memorable events for the Egyptian crowd -- by "the Egyptian crowd", do you mean the spectators? And where are your sources for this? Incidentally, your mention of Upwork is surprising: could you say something about where the money is flowing from? -- Hoary (talk) 11:41, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Meaning, do you intend to pay Upwork for work on this article? That implies you are being paid, which must be declared on your User page. David notMD (talk) 12:08, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@May Rostom: I am sure you will hit notability issues during Draft:Rabih Mokbel's life, but I declined it simply based on WP:MOS and legibility. I did not review further. It's far easier to solve one issue at a time.
The subject of your draft is living. For a living person we have a high standard of referencing. Every substantive fact you assert, especially one that is susceptible to potential challenge, requires a citation with a reference that is about them, and is independent of them, and is in WP:RS, and is significant coverage. Please also see WP:PRIMARY which details the limited permitted usage of primary sources and WP:SELFPUB which has clear limitations on self published sources. Providing sufficient references, ideally one per fact cited, that meet these tough criteria is likely to make this draft a clear acceptance (0.9 probability). Lack of them or an inability to find them is likely to mean that the person is not suitable for inclusion, certainly today.
Wikia cannot help assert nor verify notability, nor can any self generated vehicle. Equally, if it is your hope that an article in Wikipedia will grant notability to the subject, it can not and does not. It reports that verified elsewhere instead. Fiddle Faddle 12:16, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The year should be 2015 and not 2010

The photograph (File:28apr10.jpg) which was taken by me during the festival in 28 April 2015 is found in the article Brihadisvara Temple, Thanjavur with the caption "Temple festival procession, 2010". This procession happened on (28th April) 2015, and not in 2010. Actually this photo was taken by me on 28th April 2015, prior to the day of Thanjavur Chariot festival on 29th April 2015. As part of Chariot festival held on 29th April 2015, many programmes were held on the previous day (28th April 2015) and this procession was one among them. Necessary correction may please be made in the caption as "Thanjavur Chariot Festival related procession, 28th April 2015" or "Temple related procession, 2015" or "Temple festival procession, 2015". Regards. --B Jambulingam (talk) 11:52, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for pointing this out. I've made the change. -- Hoary (talk) 12:05, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Help me edit an article

Please someone should help me edit this article 2019–20 Nigeria Professional Football League, I've asked for help earlier concerning this but the reply I got was unsatisfactory.

I made a mistake; I'm trying to note that the match was originally played by Delta Force but it turned out to be a citation  Josedimaria237 (talk) 12:58, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What you are asking now doesn't seem to be related to the question you've linked to in the section heading. What exactly is your problem now, or can you give us a link to the relevant previous question if there was one? --David Biddulph (talk) 13:24, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the link to the previous question on archive 1065
b:FFE48329Someone_should_help_me_on_thisSomeone should help me on this

David Biddulph — Preceding unsigned comment added by Josedimaria237 (talk • contribs) 13:58, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you've removed the link which you originally gave, but not provided a new link. --David Biddulph (talk) 14:36, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Porn site linked in references instead of article about cockroaches

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surinam_cockroach http://edu-net.nl/Flora%20en%20fauna/Boeken/Cockroache;%20Ecology,%20behavior%20&%20history%20-%20W.J.%20Bell.pdf SebastianGałecki (talk) 13:00, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]


@SebastianGałecki: I updated the cite with an archived version and marked the url as unfit, along with the other two uses of that site on Wikipedia. Blacklisting next. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 13:27, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Question on draft

I'm sorry for this very basic question, but I'm a Wiki-neophyte: is my draft still pending a review?

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

I suspect it is but I just wanted to be sure.

Thank you. Journalism prof 68 (talk) 13:05, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It had not been reviewed. Now it has. These things take a while sometimes. Fiddle Faddle 13:10, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think my drafted article is ready to be published. Help needed please.

Hello, my drafted article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Sebastian_Cruz_Couture is complete and I would like help with publishing it finally. Thank you very much.--Tripplehaze7 (talk) 13:14, 21 June 2020 (UTC) Tripplehaze7 (talk) 13:14, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tripplehaze7 I have added the tag to allow you to submit the draft; however, I believe that if you were to submit it now, it would likely be rejected. Your draft just tells about the brand and is sourced to sources that do not establish notability, as they mostly consist of interviews with company staff, mostly describing why they think the company is successful. Wikipedia articles must summarize what independent reliable sources say about a company, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. I would ask if you are associated with this brand in some way. 331dot (talk) 13:20, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
331dot thank you for adding the tag. I am not associated with the brand in anyway. I just thought it looked like it deserved an article as a prominent fashion brand. Nevertheless, it seems they do not have much online articles from independent sources. I want to see how my first article goes and learn from that as I believe in learning from experience. Thanks a lot.--Tripplehaze7 (talk) 13:44, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Declined because you included copyright protected images (which are in the process of being deleted from Commons). David notMD (talk) 14:30, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

After images removed, review approved, and moved to main space. David notMD (talk) 00:00, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How do I create a redirect?

Treaty of Ramla seems sure to be a mistake, it's one and the same as the Treaty of Jaffa (1192), some editor just picked up the wrong title. I want to remove it altogether and place a redirect, in case some user still does look the topic up under this name. Please help with advice. I'm not a new editor, I just haven't cared for technical stuff until now. Thank you, Arminden (talk) 13:21, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Arminden Blank the page and replace with #redirect [[Treaty of Jaffa (1192)]] Hillelfrei talk 13:31, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
But don't do that without adding something to Treaty of Jaffa (1192) that will explain why you have been redirected there, Arminden! There is no mention of Ramla in that article. --ColinFine (talk) 14:17, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - done, many thanks! What about an "autodirect"? That one means that there isn't any more redirect page with the old name at the top, instead the user searching for the specific name is automatically directed to the correct page? Thanks. Arminden (talk) 14:56, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That is what you have created, Arminden. --ColinFine (talk) 15:24, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How to wrote a plot of the movie?

 Oliverdrinkstars57 (talk) 14:07, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Oliverdrinkstars57, and welcome to the Teahouse. The guidance for that is at MOS:PLOT. However, if you are talking about User:Oliverdrinkstars57/sandbox, worring about a plot summary at this point is like trying to paint the windows of your house before you have got the foundations laid. Creating a Wikipedia article starts with the independent reliable sources. It is a waste of your time writing anything at all in the draft before you have found these sources; first, because if you cannot find suitable sources to establish notability, then the draft will never be accepted, and all the time you spend on it will be wasted; and secondly because if you do find sources, anything you have written which is not in a reliable published source will need to be removed. Please read WP:CITE and WP:YFA if you haven't already. --ColinFine (talk) 14:33, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)Hello Oliverdrinkstars57, WP:FILMPLOT has some advice. Looking at examples in some high quality articles on movies might be a good idea. For example, The Shawshank Redemption has a straightforward plot and the article on it happens to be a featured article, the best of the best Wikipedia has to offer. Memento has an unconventional plot, and our article on it happens to be a good article. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 14:37, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How to edit article without being copyright or blocked?

 Oliverdrinkstars57 (talk) 15:48, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This may sound obvious but do not add copyright material that you have found elsewhere to Wikipedia. That is the very best way of avoiding it, and of being blocked (eventually) for it Fiddle Faddle 16:26, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does The Sign film meet standards for being notable?

We made a feature length documentary film called The Sign about a confederate marker of Confederate General John H Winder in Salisbury MD in 2017 and 2018. It premiered at the Ocean City MD Film Festival News on premier . News on Film 2 News 3 News 4 News 5 Full disclosure I was the Executive Producer and one of the Directors. Dan O'Hare

In the last few weeks the film was viewed over 1,500 times and then the confederate marker was removed by the county government. Winder Sign Removed News 2

Link to film

Would you consider The Sign film notable enough for it's own page? I thought I would ask before going through the work of trying to create it.  Warriorsvoice (talk) 15:50, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Warriorsvoice: Welcome to the Teahouse! The references you provided don't seem to meet the "significant coverage" criteria explained at Wikipedia:Notability (films). Even if they did, creating a new article is one of the hardest things to do on Wikipedia, especially if you don't have much Wikipedia experience and have a conflict of interest. I see the film is already mentioned at John H. Winder. GoingBatty (talk) 16:41, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@GoingBatty Thank you, the link really helped explain the criteria. Thanks again for taking the time to elucidate. Warriorsvoice (talk) 16:59, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What tools can we use to stop the forgery of history right in front of our own very eyes?

I am a new Wikipedia comer, the interest to join happened after noticing articles that are missing key facts about the Palestinian Israeli conflict. A recent article I came about is the shooting of Eyad Al_Hallaq an autistic Palestinian man murdered by the Israeli border police in East Jerusalem. Apparently there are attempt to water down the incident and mislead the public about what happened, for example someone added the word "warning" to describe the shots fired at the man without any reference, there is no mention of the testimonial of the caregiver who witnessed the police shooting the man while lying on the ground injured from close range or UN resolutions that dictate that East Jerusalem is an occupied Palestinian territory that suffers continuous and systematic human right violations, furthermore the one who created the page never bothered to put a face to the man or any of his family. I wanted to help so I added changes to the article with solid references, shortly they were removed by UnequivocalAmbivalence because they violate the 500 edit 30 day tenure on articles related to this topic. I left UnequivocalAmbivalencea [message] and waiting to hear back?

What other options do I have to make fair to this innocent man at least for the history to remember ? MYS1979 (talk) 16:16, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has a difficult role. It can look like authoritative history, but what it does in reality is reports what others are saying. If only one 'side' of history is saying something and getting significant coverage of that thing in reliable sources, Wikipedia reports that coverage. What editors can not do, may not do, is form opinions of their own and put those into articles. Our role is to record faithfully facts (even 'untrue' facts) that have references. We are recorders, not opinion formers. We have no part to play in the creation of history, nor in fighting manipulation of history. Fiddle Faddle 16:22, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would add that the UN General Assembly does not have any authority to back up its resolutions or opinions(unlike the UN Security Council), so its resolutions are just one more viewpoint added to the pile. Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources with significant coverage say about subjects that meet Wikipedia's special definition of notability. If you have missing information supported by an independent source, you may make an edit request on the article talk page, detailing the changes you feel are needed, given that articles related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict are under special restrictions. However, I think that the edit you attempted to make is extremely unlikely to be accepted as it is clearly intended to push a particular viewpoint.
Please understand that Wikipedia is a collaborative effort to write an encyclopedia with a neutral point of view. If you are only interested in advocating for a particular viewpoint or side, you are going to have a difficult time here. If you want to work with others who may feel differently from you in improving articles and their content, then please start on the article talk page. We will not solve the conflict here on Wikipedia, but we must work together to maintain articles related to it. 331dot (talk) 16:30, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I need to add village in Wikipedia .How can I do it?

 The truthful falcon (talk) 16:20, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please visit WP:AFC which will give you all the tools that you need Fiddle Faddle 16:23, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@The truthful falcon: Welcome to the Teahouse! I also suggest that you read Help:Your first article. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 16:50, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Specific help wanted on articles?

Beyond things like [citation needed] or basic grammar, is there any way to see exactly what help people want for a specific article? e.g. "elaborate on this idea further" Loafiewa (talk) 16:43, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Loafiewa, sometimes you can fnd relevant discussions on the article's talkpage. Wikipedia:Community portal may have some of what you want. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:48, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Loafiewa: Welcome to the Teahouse! On the article talk page, you can also look at WikiProject ratings and read the associated quality assessment scale to see how the article could be improved. For example, if you go to Talk:Submachine gun and click the "show" link next to each WikiProject, you'll see the links to the quality scales. For the WikiProject Military history template, if you click the "show" link next to "Additional information...", you'll see that an editor noted it needs improved Referencing and citation. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 17:16, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What is the correct formatting for election result table titles for UK constituencies?

Should table titles for UK constituencies election results be formatted as <year> general election: <constituency> as per the formatting of article titles? Or should it be General election <year>: <constituency>? There seemed to be no consistency among articles or clear guidelines. It seemed to me the most sense would be to go from general to specific information. So, General election <year>: <constituency>. Keeping <constituency> means that table can be easily copied and still retain information specific enough to differentiate it from any other table.

Can anyone give any input on which is the most acceptable? Gharbhain (talk) 17:27, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WikiProject UK Parliament constituencies refers to WP:WikiProject UK Parliament constituencies/Style, but also to the template {{Election box}} which apparently contradicts the style subpage. It may be worth raising the question on one of the talk pages, perhaps WT:WikiProject UK Parliament constituencies/Style. --David Biddulph (talk) 17:38, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Amazing, thank you! I am still new to navigating Wikipedia, so didn't know how to find these. Gharbhain (talk) 17:42, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The talk page for each article will usually give you a clue as to which Wikipedia projects are applicable for that article. --David Biddulph (talk) 17:49, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can anyone review this Draft

I have submitted a draft some days ago which is about a "region" namely Draft:Saraz region . Can anyone please review it? As I have seen interaction of people with Sarazi which is a language of this region. So kindly approve. So that other editors can copyedit and contribute more. Thank you. — The Chunky urf Al Kashmiri (Speak🗣️ or Write✍️) 17:52, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What is says in the box at the foot of the draft is: "Review waiting, please be patient. This may take 5 weeks or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 2,090 pending submissions waiting for review." --David Biddulph (talk) 18:20, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there - draft reviews sometimes take a good amount of time to go over, as the number of reviewers we have is sort of low in comparison to the number of draft articles that need reviewing. I can give you a few pointers so far, however:
  • "hilly region" - re-word this as "mountainous region", or whatever is appropriate. (I don't know anything about the area myself.)
  • I would put the word pargana into a {{lang}} (language) template. This template ensures that people who use technology to help them read on computers - usually because of poor eyesight - have the word, in this case pargana, pronounced correctly. So, even though it's written in an English Wikipedia article, it's pronounced correctly, and not using English syllables.
If you edit this section, you can see how I've used the language template to do this in my comment, and copy it over. I think the word is Bengali, so I've used the Bengali language code "bn" here. However, the Wikipedia article on pargana also lists Hindi and Urdu spellings - the language codes for these are "hi" and "ur" respectively. If the word is Hindi, then the language template looks like this: {{lang|hi|pargana}}. If it's Urdu, then it looks like this: {{lang|ur|pargana}}
  • next to pargana - a small definition of what a pargana is in brackets would be useful. You've already put the definition for a pargana in the notes section, so you can use some of the information you've put there in a small sentence next to it.
  • "Saraz is a backward area" - perhaps you mean that it's rural or mostly undeveloped? Those would be better word choices. There's a small typo within this section as well: "includes it's district headquarter" should be "includes its district headquarter". The same typo appears later on, in the sentence "by it's local language" - it should be "by its local language".
  • Try not to write "settled here" - you may be from this area, but other Wikipedia editors come from around the world. Other tips on language - the word "muslim" needs to be capitalised to "Muslim", "kashmiri" needs to be capitalised to "Kashmiri", and so on. Basically - if it's a place name or the name for a certain people, it needs capitalising.
  • The rest of the article looks really good, and it's really well-referenced. Try and find some more varied sources, such as local newspapers talking about the area, and so on. Your sources don't have to be exclusively web links; lots of people use books that aren't available online to write Wikipedia articles with. This will help it to be recognised as WP:NOTABLE enough to be written about on Wikipedia.
I hope this is helpful - your draft is one of the better ones that I've seen. Good luck! --Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) 18:39, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ineffablebookkeeper, although I agree with most of what you say, a couple of your points puzzle me. (i) "hilly region" - re-word this as "mountainous region", or whatever is appropriate. (I don't know anything about the area myself.) Me neither; but "hilly" seems a perfectly good word to me. If the area's hilly, how is "hilly region" not appropriate? (ii) Try not to write "settled here" - you may be from this area, but other Wikipedia editors come from around the world. Must "here" always be deictic; can it no longer be used anaphorically? -- Hoary (talk) 22:07, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Access to page

Hello Teahouse. I was wondering if I could get access to List of Sex Symbol page since its semi-protected and what I have to do to access it. I understand the policies on Wikipedia and I hope you could get this message as soon as possible. Have a very nice day. Thank you. (Junoongrill (talk) 19:37, 21 June 2020 (UTC)) Junoongrill (talk) 19:37, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Junoongrill. That article is semi-protected so you cannot edit it at this time. You can submit an edit request at Talk:List of sex symbols. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 19:48, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)@Junoongrill: Welcome to the Teahouse! If you click on the lock icon at the top right of List of sex symbols, you'll be taken to Wikipedia:Protection policy#semi, which explains the policy and how to request edits. GoingBatty (talk) 19:53, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My edit disappeared

My edit disappeared

Hello! I made edits to this page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seventeen_(South_Korean_band) last night. Changes appear last night but was gone this morning. Can someone share what likely happened? BarbaraUkulele (talk) 01:42, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Barabara. If you look at the history of page revisions, you will see that the edit was removed by Abdotorg. Here is the permanent link (diff). El_C 01:45, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You can ask Abdotorg why at User talk:Abdotorg and/or post a comment on the Talk page of the article. David notMD (talk) 02:29, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, BarbaraUkulele, and welcome to the Teahouse. While I cannot speak for Abdotorg, do note that, with some limited exceptions, twitter is not usually considered a reliable source and statements supported only by citations to Twitter are often removed. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 03:42, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ayurveda, Traditional Medicine from India, termed as "Pseudo science". Help needed to edit!

Hi,

I am appalled to see a major traditional medicine of the Indian subcontinent being defined as pseudoscience in its introduction of the wiki page. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayurveda

TCM, which is of the same class is referred to as 'traditional medicine' and so are Siddha, Unani traditional medicines. And this is the right and proper way to classify. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traditional_Chinese_medicine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siddha https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unani_medicine

Editing is disabled and from the history of edits, I see that there is a dedicated group intent on reverting it back to their claim of Ayurveda being a "pseudoscience".

How do I get this resolved to reflect factual information based on historical facts and available literature, not opinions of individuals? Salilasukumaran (talk) 04:25, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The proper place to dispute whether the article presents a bias versus a neutral point of view is on the Talk page of the article. I recommend that you look at prior discussions on this very question at the Talk page, including what is presently there and in the archived earlier discussions. David notMD (talk) 10:45, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The article is "semi-protected," meaning that editors must have accounts that are at least four days old and have made more than ten edits. There are some other restrictions listed at the top of the Talk page. David notMD (talk) 11:36, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please take a moment and help. Thank you

Hello, and thank you for taking a moment to help with this project. I'm trying to make this (link below) into a live article that can be approved for public view. Would someone with experience in Wikipedia please let me know if something is missing or not completed correctly. Any time is greatly appreciated and I thank you for your consideration. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft%3ADerek_Victoric_Picard 96.237.188.80 (talk) 04:39, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. The draft was rejected because it lacks reliable sources to independent reporting on the person. Wikipedia only has articles on subjects that other people have written about. I had a look in a search for sources and I don't think this subject is notable enough to have an article here, as I could not find articles that had been written about the subject. However, if you can find numerous reliable sources and add them to the article, that could change. Without them, the article very likely will remain in draft. I hope that helps. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:50, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How do I start? Are there any earning opportunities? What do I get back? What does the society get back?

Trying to understand the basics, but I notice there is so much read. Do I need to complete all that before starting?

@Gub Sub Dub: welcome to Wikipedia, and to the Teahouse! There is indeed a lot to read and the rules and guidelines can feel a bit overwhelming at times. You do not have to read everything before you start, but if you have familiarised yourself with some of the most important things, it will help you avoid some mistakes. Help:Introduction is a series of very short tutorials which is a good place to start, and you can also try The Wikipedia Adventure, a training programme built like a game.
After that, feel free to dive in – the tutorials also include tips about editing activities to start with. It is a good idea to begin small, and not try to create new articles until you have quite a bit of experience.
Wikipedia editing is a volunteer activity, and none of us makes any money from it. (Some people try to make money from editing Wikipedia, but that is almost always a bad idea, for several reasons.) Different people get different things out of editing Wikipedia, I think, but for most of us it is mainly about the satisfaction of adding to and improving this huge body of information. As long as the information is factual and can be verified, this is also beneficial to society. --bonadea contributions talk 07:24, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How to create a disambiguation page

Hey everyone, I changed the names for Pablo Marquez to Pablo Márquez (wrestler) and Pablo Márquez to Pablo Márquez (guitarist). I'd like to create a disambiguation page for both Pablo Marquez and Pablo Márquez, which allows Pablo Márquez (wrestler) and Pablo Márquez (guitarist) to be prompted. I've never established a disambiguation page, and I'd like to know how, especially, given the internal links present. Or, could someone just set them up? Philotimo (talk) 05:35, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:Dab (not to be confused with a dab.  :) --David Tornheim (talk) 05:38, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the instructional link. Also, I loved your dab pun ;) Philotimo (talk) 05:43, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Philotimo: You might want to take a look at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Disambiguation pages for specific formatting. ◢   Ganbaruby!   (Say hi!) 05:48, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Great, I'll look at that too :) Philotimo (talk) 05:50, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Philotimo:  :) The easiest way to code it is to look at code for existing WP:DAB, e.g. foo.
But you should look over Page moving procedures if you haven't already.
Once you are done, you can ping me, or ask someone here if they can review your work. --David Tornheim (talk) 05:51, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Good to know, I'll work on it now. I'll ping both of you when I'm done and feel free to critique them. Thank you, Philotimo (talk) 05:59, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Philotimo: Another set of examples more similar to yours with both missing diacriticals and misspellings:
--David Tornheim (talk) 06:05, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@David Tornheim: and @Ganbaruby: I believe it Pablo Márquez (disambiguation) is now complete. I think all of the internal links are correct, including their associated talk pages. If I missed something, please let me know. Philotimo (talk) 06:27, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Philotimo: The disambiguation page should be at Pablo Márquez, and Pablo Márquez (disambiguation) should redirect to it. You also dont need the "People" header. Everything else looks good! ◢   Ganbaruby!   (Say hi!) 06:45, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I'll work on that. Philotimo (talk) 06:49, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Philotimo: Did you go through the section Page moving procedures I referred you to above? --David Tornheim (talk) 06:57, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@David Tornheim: Yes, I believe it is correctly done. It was honestly more convoluted than I was expecting. Thank you, Philotimo (talk) 07:09, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Ganbaruby: Nice. I learned something too. I think it is correct now. Should Juan Guaido and Pablo Marquez contain the same language about diacriticals found in Nicolas Maduro? --David Tornheim (talk) 06:57, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Ganbaruby: also, is there a guide to follow with regards to diacritics? Philotimo (talk) 07:09, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Philotimo and David Tornheim: I'm pretty sure WP:COMMONNAME applies here as well, meaning that the most common usage is the article title (in this case, with the diacritic). The other one redirects the disambiguation page and are tagged with Template:R to diacritic or Template:R from diacritic, depending on if the disambiguation page has a diacritic. ◢   Ganbaruby!   (Say hi!) 08:39, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and two more minor things. First, Pablo Márquez (disambiguation) should be tagged with Template:R to disambiguation page. Second, the disambiguation talk page at Talk:Pablo Márquez shouldn't be created if it will only contain Template:WikiProject Disambiguation. The WikiProject should only be added if the talk page already exists, which happens if the page "Pablo Márquez" was originally an article but became a disambiguation page later because there's no primary topic, but a talk page had already been created. It's a bit confusing, I know. ◢   Ganbaruby!   (Say hi!) 08:45, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Ganbaruby: Thank you for putting up the template. What needs to be done about Pablo Márquez's talk page? Philotimo (talk) 09:02, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Philotimo: Just leave it. It's really not that big of a deal. ◢   Ganbaruby!   (Say hi!) 09:42, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good, I appropriate all of the help from both of you! Philotimo (talk) 12:04, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Wiki Article Declined. Please need help.

Please help anyone to get publish my article about 'Geever Puthuparambil'. I have given an external link https://www.keralaviews.com/geever-puthuparambil-janadhipathya-kerala-youth-front-ernakulam-state-president/. Please help me to publish this article. Anupriya0123 (talk) 05:54, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Anupriya0123 and welcome to the Teahouse. Your draft has currently no chance to be published in its state - you did not add any reliable sources or references, your external link is not considered a reliable source. Please study Help:Your_first_article and Wikipedia:Reliable_sources before submitting it again. CommanderWaterford (talk) 07:33, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

lack of perspective

a wiki article will typically give all the known uses of a concept when what I want is the most reasonable up-to-date understanding. it's like reading fifty books on a topic, instead of one book agreed to by fifty experts. also, when I think of power, I think of the ocean, a flood, a cyclone, a whale, an elephant, etc. this ancient and natural concept does not appear on your 'power' page. for me, power is more about ability than it is to control. as such, wiki seems to have an "established institutional" feel to it. yours sincerely, john John j weyland (talk) 06:49, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi John j weyland, welcome to the Teahouse. The page Power is not an article but what we call a disambiguation page. Its purpose is not to give information by itself but to lead readers to the article they are interested in. We deliberately try to list all potential articles for somebody searching on "power". The most likely articles are often listed first but it can be difficult to predict. I have added Strength (disambiguation) to Power#See also. If there is a clear primary meaning of a term then the base name is about that like Gold and it links to Gold (disambiguation) at the top for other meanings. PrimeHunter (talk) 08:15, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

photos and logos

I want to learn how to add photos to update wiki bios, is it different for logos and brand for a company? MaycockR (talk) 07:43, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Have you tried Wikipedia:Uploading images yet? 217.68.167.73 (talk) 08:01, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@MaycockR: See Wikipedia:Logos#Uploading non-free logos. ◢   Ganbaruby!   (Say hi!) 08:48, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

hi!

I worked it out - thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by MaycockR (talk • contribs) 13:50, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

hello!

If we are writing our own article and want to include pictures, can they be off the internet, or does it have to be your own work?

 Class 66 and 67 and 68 (talk) 09:08, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Class 66 and 67 and 68 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Please understand that accounts are for the exclusive use of a single individual and may not be shared; if you are a single person, you will need to change the name of your account at Special:GlobalRenameRequest or WP:CHUS.
The answer to your question depends on where you get the image; not all images on the internet can be used here. Please read policy on using images for more information. 331dot (talk) 09:29, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Class 66 and 67 and 68, and welcome to the Teahouse! In short, any random pic you find on the net is probably copyrighted and can't be used. However, you can check for images at Commons, and there you can also upload photos you have taken yourselves, but read the guidance carefully [10]. Also, if you are several people using this username, see WP:NOSHARE. Good luck! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:36, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of article

Please how can I delete this mistakenly published article 2019–20 Ligue 1 (Ivory Coast). thanks Josedimaria237 (talk) 09:41, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome Josedimaria237.
You can request speedy deletion of the article you created by nominating it for speedy deletion per G7.
In order to do that, you just add {{db-g7}} to the top of it. - Flori4nK t • c 10:03, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

New page review

Hello! I've received great help publishing the page TCO Certified. Now I wonder what the next step would be to improve it further? I've seen that it has not been reviewed by the New Page Patrol. Is there a way to request a review? Since there is a COI I don't want to edit the page too heavily myself. Ellasoderberg (talk) 09:57, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ellasoderberg Basically, a review will come when it will come. I've on occasion been given one in hours, today I had one that's been waiting since March 4. Like anything else on WP, it needs a volunteer who thinks it's a good idea to spend time on it (and Reviewers aren't that many). You can try to ask nicely at WT:WikiProject Sweden or WT:WikiProject Organized Labour. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:41, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Gråbergs Gråa Sång! Ellasoderberg (talk) 12:48, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tips on small edits, to improve articles.

Does anybody have any tips on small edits, that will just help to improve credibility? I'm not to big on adding info as much as improving whats there. GhostWRLD (talk) 11:57, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GhostWRLD Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. If you mean that you want tips on finding such edits to make, the Community Portal is a good place to start. 331dot (talk) 11:59, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
331dot Thanks so much, I'll go check that out right now! — Preceding unsigned comment added by GhostWRLD (talk • contribs) 12:14, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A problem regarding a category of pages

I've noticed many pages in the "in other media" category, tend to be filled to the brim with grammatical errors, and nothing is being done about it.

these pages are often poorly worded, in a more essay type of writing than documentation, and they have a few other problems.

Sbob99 (talk) 12:27, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We will look forwarded to seeing your improvements to the articles in question. --David Biddulph (talk) 12:37, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

not to come off as lazy, but i think improving these articles is gonna have to be a group effort. it's that widespread. Sbob99 (talk) 12:59, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sbob99 Thanks for the information, but if you want others helping you, the best way to start is to begin making the changes you want to see yourself. This is a volunteer project where people do what they can when they can, and it's more persuasive for others to help when they see the person asking for help doing the requested activity. 331dot (talk) 13:33, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I went to look, Sbob99, to see if there was an obvious Wikiproject to suggest you try, but since there is no Category:In other media, I don't know which articles you are talking about. --ColinFine (talk) 18:05, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Articles being deleted

Why Wikipedia volunteers is deleting my articles? Help me Shahnwaz aalam (talk) 12:52, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have created no articles. For other pages which have been deleted you can see the deletion logs: Draft:Elfin ruler, User:Shahnwaz aalam, and for your sandbox. There are links to explain the criteria such as U1, U5, and G11. There has been further advice on your user talk page. --David Biddulph (talk) 13:18, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Hello, Shahnwaz aalam, and welcome to the Teahouse. Have you read the notices on your talk page? And at WP:ANI#User:Shahnwaz aalam. Those pages have been deleted because they were not suitable for Wikipedia. Your latest attempt (Draft:Abhishek Kumar Yadav looks more appropriate - though it is not clear yet whether Yadav is notable in Wikipedia's sense), and your Draft:Why people want Wikipedia Biography page, though not suitable for a Wikipedia article, seems to show that you have begun to understand a bit more about Wikipedia. It might some day be expanded into an ESSAY, though I would wait until you have more experience before you try. Have you taken The Wikipedia Adventure? Or read WP:Your first article? --ColinFine (talk) 13:19, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Shahnwaz aalam indefinitely blocked on 22 June. David notMD (talk) 16:28, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request

The Lakhahi Raj Wikipedia article has not original infobox settlement how to make that original one i.e what exactly infobox settlement looks like 2405:204:A51A:7492:4441:6FF:FE9B:900F (talk) 13:27, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you are asking where to find details of the template infobox settlement, you'll find them at Template:infobox settlement. --David Biddulph (talk) 13:32, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What should I do when I notice paid/COI editing?

Hi, One of the pages that I have on my watchlist has some recent editing that is clearly COI or paid. The username is the name of the organization in question. But their edits aren’t incorrect or anything. They also haven’t created a user page. What should my next step be? Is there someone I report it to, or do I create their page so I can comment about COI, or do I undo their edits? Apathyash (talk) 13:43, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Apathyash and welcome to the Teahouse - please have a close look at Wikipedia:Plain_and_simple_conflict_of_interest_guide, there you should find all the answers to your questions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 14:00, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the link, CommanderWaterford. If I should discuss with the user on their talk page, but they don’t have a talk page, should I create one so that I can comment? Or is it better practice to just try to have the discussion on the article’s talk page? Apathyash (talk) 14:08, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Every User has a Talk Page on Wikipedia - in your case it will just be blank I guess, so you are free to create a new entry on its talk page. But of course you can also discuss this on the article talk page as well. CommanderWaterford (talk) 14:14, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Apathyash: Usernames representing an organisation are not permitted, even if they are editing in good faith and not adding blatant promotion. If you report such user names to Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention, the user will receive a block notice explaining about allowed usernames and COI editing. --bonadea contributions talk 14:56, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

hey fellas

whats' everybody been up to lately? Herschel Goldman (talk) 13:47, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Herschel Goldman Hello. Do you have a question about using Wikipedia? 331dot (talk) 14:01, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
HG registered an account and started editing on 22 June, and was indefinitely blocked one hour and six minutes later. Probably not a record, but still.... David notMD (talk) 16:34, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On Past Vandalism

I would like to apologize for making edits that were just blatant vandalism. I've read up a lot on the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia in the recent days, and I would love to become a helpful and constructive member of this community. I guess my question is where I can post this. Xtat1c (talk) 13:56, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Xtat1c Hello. You could post such a statement on your user page if you wished. 331dot (talk) 14:06, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Help creating page

What if I want help on creating like a new page about someone that has not been created yet? WHere could I go for someone to help me?Brysonjett (talk) 13:56, 22 June 2020 (UTC) Brysonjett (talk) 13:56, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Brysonjett Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Successfully creating a new article(not just a "page") is the absolute hardest task to perform on Wikipedia. It takes much time and practice. If you are new to creating articles, you will greatly increase your chances of success if you spend a lot of time first editing existing articles in areas that interest you, to get a feel for how Wikipedia operates and what is expected of article content and sources. It's also a good idea to use the new user tutorial to learn more about Wikipedia.
If you still want to attempt to create an article, you should read Your First Article and then visit Articles for Creation, which has more information and a process to allow you to create and submit a draft for other editors to see before it is formally placed in the encyclopedia. This way you find out any problems first, instead of afterwards, when it will be treated more critically. 331dot (talk) 14:05, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is the topic for article significant enought?

Greetings! I'm new on wiki project and have some doubts about about future article, which i want to create. I want to create an article about university. It's official partner of Polytechnic University of Turin and i think some people could be interested to know about it. I want to know is this topic significant enough to be published as an article? I also collected some sources to confirm provided information, but information in some of this sources not in English language. Would it be a problem? If yes, what can you suggest me to solve it?

Thank you for attention! Turquoisecacke (talk) 14:46, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Turquoisecacke, and welcome to the Teahouse. Many universities are notable and are suitable topics for a Wikipedia article, but not all. Sources aree essential. They do not have to be in English, althoguh if some are tht is helpful. There should be multiple independent published reliable sources that discuss the topic in some detail and depth. "Independent" is key, this excludes sources published by the university itself, or its affiliates or partners, and by its employees. If there are not at least three or four such sources, don't waste your time trying to start an article. News sources are often good, but other kinds of sources are fine. In the case of sources not in English, it is possible to provide a translation o0f the title of the source, which can be helpful. (If using citation templates, the |trans-title= parameter serves this purpose.)
Please review Your First Article and our guideline on the notability of organizations before starting. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 15:03, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for reply, DESiegel! I'll try to follow your suggestions!
With regards, Turquoisecacke (talk) 17:35, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect Mayor's name - appears to be intentional

City of Darien - the Mayor's name was correct; however, the below link shows it to be Mayor Joseph Mama - instead of Mayor Joseph Marchese for the below link - unable to correct. https://www.google.com/search?q=city+of+darien&rlz=1C1GCEU_enUS821US821&oq=city+of+darien&aqs=chrome.0.69i59j46j69i59j0j46l2j0l2.4975j0j8&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 173.9.248.233 (talk) 16:13, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IP user. The Wikipedia page Darien, Illinois is correct, unfortunately that Google search is not. That information is provided by Google, and not controlled by Wikipedia. So you would need to contact them directly to fix it. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:18, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Whole30 articles edits always being removed

Hi All! I am a student editor who just completed an assignment adding on to a wikipedia article. I chose to update the Whole30 Wikipedia page as it was on the shorter side and was clearly biased against The Whole30 Program. However, for some reason as soon as I publish an edit it is immediately taken down. Can someone look into this? SallyLittle (talk) 16:41, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

At Whole30, two editors who are deeply experienced in editing medicine/health/diet articles each reverted your edits, giving their reasons in their Edit summaries. The next step in disputes about content is to start a discussion on the Talk page of the article to make your case for your proposed changes, perhaps inviting those editors to discuss with you their reasons for reverting your changes. David notMD (talk) 16:50, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, SallyLittle. Your most recent sequence of edits was thjis. It added non-independent, promotional sources, and what looks to me like promotional language. It removed the businessinsider and delawareonline sources, which look reliable on a first glance. Discussing this on Talk:Whole30 would be the way to go. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 16:56, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Could an impartial editor please check out a page?

Hello, Could an impartial editor please check out Patricia_Olynyk and possibly remove the banners? I had many discussions on the talk page Talk:Patricia_Olynyk with the editor who put the banners on, [[User:DGG|DGG]. Ultimately, they put up more banners after discussion on the talk page; and they changed the subject sections, which made the article more convoluted, making it appear as if the artist's art projects were separate from her career. I tried to work with that but decided to rework the article since it seemed convoluted. On top of that the original subject format https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Patricia_Olynyk&oldid=904565898 is pretty standard for artist's listing as far as I can tell and much easier to parse, which is why I reverted the page back to that format. Any suggestions to improve the page would be great too. I would appreciate an impartial editors insight and help on this. Thank you. Ogmany (talk) 16:45, 22 June 2020 (UTC) Ogmany (talk) 16:45, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ogmany and welcome to the Teahouse - as far as I see you already are in discussion with DGG, which is by the way sysop and a long experienced editor - the Talk Page is absolutely the correct place to handle this issue, by far better than the Teahouse over here. CommanderWaterford (talk) 18:58, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello CommanderWaterford, I did continue discussing it with [[User:DGG|DGG] on the talk page and they never replied. That was last year. I will post there again. Also, I think they did not get that an artist's career encompasses the art work and scholarly work together, they broke it into separate sections, which is why I asked for an impartial editor to review it. (By the way, I did edit this question: the title line to make the issue clearer, and because I forgot to make the links active.) Thank you.

How to edit more substantially in a specific subject

Hello! I am interested in tropical cyclones, and would like to edit more substantially in that realm. Can you give me tips on how to make large edits to tropical cyclone articles? I sometimes feel unsure of myself when making large edits. NOOBSKINSPAMMER (talk) 17:01, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@NOOBSKINSPAMMER: Welcome to Wikipedia and thanks for wanting to make it better. I suggest starting with smaller edits until you become more confortable. Also, for large changes, it is a good idea to post your idea to the article's talk page to get input from other editors who are also interested in that article. RudolfRed (talk) 17:16, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@RudolfRed: Thank you! I will try to do what you suggested. NOOBSKINSPAMMER (talk) 17:18, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@NOOBSKINSPAMMER:, Hello! The article is a so called WP:Featured article, meaning it's supposed to be one of WP:s best. Best does not mean perfect, and it became FA in 2008, which is quite some time ago. However, like RudolfRed says, you can be WP:BOLD but try not to be reckless. If you add stuff, cite good sources. Note that many sections mention a "main article", and sometimes details fit better there. Try to focus on one section at a time, and see how that goes. Good luck! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:09, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Adding my draft to article

I have recently created this draft

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Ruan_Galdino

I want to add this to Articles but because this is my first article I am weary of the process in terms of whether or not the article is up to scratch. I do not understand what I should do. Please an we talk. Thank you DanceEnthusiast (talk) 17:23, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft Draft:Ruan Galdino has not been submitted. There is a submit place to click. Once you do that, a reviewer will review it in days to months. David notMD (talk) 18:11, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Consider removing double brackets [[ ]] that you have placed around names which cause those names to show up as red. Red Wikilinks are used to indicate topics that might be article-worthy. You have created many, and some of these may not be justified as potentially article-worthy. David notMD (talk) 18:17, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong info from WIKI article in Google knowledge box. How to fix or update?

Hello!

I am an editor of article Mykola Lebid. After article was posted in first editions - in Google search automatically appeared this knowledge box [[11]]. First problem is that the person died in 70 y.o. age, but box said he is 84yo (as he still alive), despite that both born and death dates are metioned in the article and in Wikidata item. Second - no photo appeared in box, despite that it is in the article and in wikidata. These changes were made in wiki months ago, so google had plenty of time to update box, but until today (22/jun/2020) nothing happened. Please, give me advice. Thank you! El nomad (talk) 18:07, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Google indexes pages reasonably regularly but does not index every page in every web site. This information is in Google's hands, not Wikipedia's. My best advice is that you ignore it. Fiddle Faddle 18:13, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi El nomad, welcome to the Teahouse. Here is our standard reply for similar posts (which often fail to mention they saw the problem at Google):
Are you by any chance referring to a photo or text shown to the right of a Google search? Google's Knowledge Graph uses a wide variety of sources. There may be a text paragraph ending with "Wikipedia" to indicate that particular text was copied from Wikipedia. An image and other text before or after the Wikipedia excerpt may be from sources completely unrelated to Wikipedia. We have no control over how Google presents our information, but Google's Knowledge Graph has a "Feedback" link where anyone can mark a field as wrong. The same feedback facility is also provided on Bing and some other search engines. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:37, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ADMINS FROM INDIA MISUSING THEIR POWERS FOR MONEY TO PROMOTE BIASED PROPGANDAS ON WIKIPEDIA

HI RECENTLY A GROUP OF PEOPLE FROM INDIA STARTED EDITING ARTICLES IN BIASED WAY PARTICULARLY TO MALIGN reputation and spread disinformation to wikipedia users . their team has two admins with other simple users too. they works on monetary purposes . then they block the users without no reason when someone exposes them . they also do blacklisting of news websites on wikipedia and add protection to wiki pages they even undo other admins revisions or restoration Loneltrussia (talk) 18:50, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Loneltrussia sounds pretty strange to my ears but anyway: Can you give an example? User/Article?! If so sysops could check this over here. CommanderWaterford (talk) 18:53, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Loneltrussia. If you are talking about English Wikipedia, then please give us some examples. If you are talking about another language Wikipedia, then nobody here has any control or influence: different language Wikipedias are entirely separate. --ColinFine (talk) 19:11, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
HI SURELY THERE IS ALREADY A NEWS ARTICLE ABOUT THE GUYS AND ITS ON english wikipedia mainly. here is detailed info  about the members of the group.  the guy named newslinger IN THIS blog there is twitter thread  in detailed  way must see the blog .they blocked website which exposes them from wikipedia and added it in blacklist . iam using landing page to allow it so you can see their misdeeds. they blacklisted or blocked everyone who raised voice. please srr

this link here [1] Loneltrussia (talk) 20:30, 22 June 2020 (UTC) i have info about another guy who vandals history pages of india on english wikipedia they are team of two first one vandals the page the second one thanks and if anyone revert their change the second guy revert again and made article to vandalised version again . they are causing edit wars on wikipedia too . i can provide their info too if you need for taking the action and inpection. Loneltrussia (talk) 20:30, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://linktr.ee/landingpagewikiissue
Note that the article is on a site called OpIndia, which our article suggests has a reputation for publishing fake news and spreading hatred. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:38, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Catatonia Greatest Hits

Good day to everyone viewing this page,

I was wondering if someone could help me with an issue I've just come across.

I recently joined Wikipedia to make a (small) contribution to the project, mainly for articles relating to musical artists, and mainly in cases where a page has been edited rather haphazardly and doesn't meet the high standard to which most other pages on this project adhere. This 'hapzard editing' also applies to releases by musical artists, such as the one in the title here.

Catatonia have never released an album called 'Catatonia Greatest Hits', the album is in fact called 'Greatest Hits' and the page should be titled 'Greatest Hits (Catatonia album)'. However I am not able to do this is searching that title redirects to the main band page. I've tried to remove the redirect but upon further research of the issue have discovered that this is something that can only be done by an administrator (understandably).

Could I ask for assistance in the matter please?

Kind regards, Sburbridge92 (talk) 19:33, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Sburbridge92, and welcome to the Teahouse. I have moved the article to Greatest Hits (Catatonia album). It looks to me as if one or two additional sources would not be a bad idea for this article. I added one. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 20:18, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Teahouse&oldid=963967496"