Wikipedia:Teahouse

A lad insane, a Teahouse host

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

Ask a question

Question forumMeet your hostsArticles to improveBecome a host

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

Help Wikipedia

Article for Creation: Eric Rosen

Hello,

The page for Eric Rosen, a popular online chess player and International Master, was deleted in November 2019 due to lack of notability. It was asserted that IMs don't generally deserve their own Wikipedia pages, which makes sense. This assessment was confirmed in June 2020, when a submission to reinstate the article was rejected.

I'm a little confused by this, though. There are several pages about IMs or FMs whose online viewership is less. For example, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexandra_Botez is a WFM with 95k subscribers on YouTube, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiona_Steil-Antoni is a WIM with about 10k subscribers on Twitch, and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Rensch is an IM with 17k subscribers on the platform. Rosen currently has about 107k subscribers. Under WP:BIO, "Has a large fan base or a significant 'cult' following" is a valid criterion for notability. Of course, "large" is pretty subjective.

How should this page's notability be decided, and at what point of popularity should the article be created? Or is there a different test for notability that applies here?

Sincerely, Ovinus (talk) 10:16, 24 July 2020 (UTC) 

@Ovinus Real: Could I just ask you to expand on the acronyms, as they may mean little to most people (i.e. me!) Nick Moyes (talk) 11:15, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Of course, IM = International Master, FM = FIDE Master, WIM = Woman International Master, WFM = Woman FIDE Master. They are all various official chess titles. Ovinus (talk) 11:43, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

OK (you missed one: I discovered that FIDE is an international chess federation.) Without me having to look at any of these articles, I can say that (for anyone) Wikipedia doesn't really care how many followers any person has got on any social media platform. The quote you gave does seem to relate to entertainers, actors and models, and in today's times I agree that 'large' is very subjective, but 100k might not be that significant. We really only base NOTABILITY on whether or not independent, reliable sources have written about that person in detail and in depth, or whether they have won certain national or international awards or accolades. We have an essay called "Wikipedia:Other stuff exists which might interest you. Often, when someone says "oy, you deleted person A, but not person B" someone will then take a look at person B and consider whether or not that person also meets our current notability criteria, or not. Of course, media coverage changes. So a person previously not notable can become notable once circumstances and sources describing them also change. You might get more specific chess-related advice by asking at Wikipedia:WikiProject Chess. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 12:24, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Ovinus Real. Among the millions of articles in English Wikipedia, there are thousands (probably tens of thousands) which are not satisfactory, and would not be accepted if they were submitted for review now. Ideally they would all be fixed or deleted, but for some unaccountable reason not many editors want to spend their time rooting through the spoil heap (I include myself in that criticism, obviously). If you find an article which you think is substandard, you are welcome to fix it or tag it appropriately. If you think that the subject does not meet Wikipedia's standards for notability, you are encouraged to nominate if for deletion - though you should carry out the process in WP:BEFORE first. Please also see other stuff exists. --ColinFine (talk) 12:10, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello Ovinus Real! We do not have specific notability guidelines for chess players. So, notability has to be decided on WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO or WP:ENT. Even most of the GMs don't meet our notability guidelines; we keep them anyway because WP:WikiProject Chess advises that we do and at least some of them are likely to. So, it is extremely unlikely any non-GM is notable. I don't think any of the other people you've linked meet our notability guidelines either. Daniel Rensch in particular seems to have been written for promotional purposes, possilbly by WP:COI or WP:PAID editors. Please look at WP:NCHESS, which is not a community guideline on notability but is a good rule of thumb for which articles are likely to be kept in a deletion discussion, and which articles the chess-topics editors are likely to approve of. For example, Fiona Steil-Antoni apparently won a medal at women's chess olympiad (pass of NCHESS and more importantly, arguably good enough for ANYBIO) and the article content isn't itself hugely problematic, so that article is fine by me. If I had the time, I would investigate Danny Rensch's article thoroughly to see whether it should be trimmed or deleted. Botez is probably not notable either (women notability bar is lower) except she might have got some coverage because of how well known the Botez gambit has become as a meme (I don't know). To summarise, GNG is the gold standard, article may otherwise be kept if good arguments can be made at a deletion discussion that the subject meets NCHESS or ANYBIO. If articles exist that don't meet this standard (assuming you didn't miss something in your analysis), it's more likely that those need to be deleted, not new ones of similar notability created. On a personal note, no, I don't think Rosen is any less notable than Rensch or Botez; it is more likely that all three are not notable (Rosen has an article on the German Wikipedia, and based on brief perusal, someone seems to be trying to promote Rosen with weak sources, as with Rensch, NOT GOOD; I never support keeping any article created for promotional purposes, we are an encyclopedia afterall). Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 08:30, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

A Proposed GAN

Hi,

I want to nominate Helena, Montana for GA status, but I'm not sure if I have made enough edits. Could someone help? Also, please give any other suggestions if you have them. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 13:36, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi P,TO 19104, and welcome to the Teahouse. There's no requirment for having "enough edits" to nominate an article for GA; in fact, anyone could do it. Seeing that you have 34.6% authorship of the article, you seem very familiar with the subject, which will make the review process easier. The instructions on how to nominate an article are at Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Instructions. Good luck! ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 13:48, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

P,TO 19104 One specific thing about the article: [1], and the two city-data.com references are three sources that shouldn't be used as they're highly questionable sources as per WP:RSPSOURCES. NNDB doesn't have good fact checking, and so may be inaccurate, and city-data.com looks to be a site that copies from other sites without attributions (and is now on our spam blacklist, so cannot be added anymore). If you could find better sources to replace those three sources, that would be good (it'll likely be something picked up in a GA review). Joseph2302 (talk) 13:55, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

P,TO 19104, one thing I will add to the above is that, before you proceed, you ought to propose and discuss this with other significant contributors to the article who are still actively editing on Wikipedia, if any. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 08:37, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Adding "citation needed"?

Hi! I'm wondering how to add a "citation needed" note in an article? I chose to edit an article from the "Popular low quality articles" list, and landed on Brooklyn Beckham. There are several claims in this article that don't seem to be substantiated clearly from a reliable source, at least online (for example, that Elizabeth Hurley is his godmother), but they're not entirely without credibility (one tabloid article in the Daily Mail does mention this in passing, and there are several photos published of Hurley with Beckham's parents), so I think it might help to give someone a chance to add a citation. What should I do? Cisternet (talk) 14:13, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

@Cisternet: To insert the citation needed template, insert {{citation needed}} at the end of the sentence, after the period. Keep in mind that the Daily Mail is considered a deprecated source; that is, the Wikipedia community reached the consensus that its generally unreliable and shouldn't be used as a source. If you find a dubious claim, you are allowed to outright remove the claim itself, especially if it's a biography of a living person. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 15:09, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your help! and thank you for the heads up on Daily Mail, I wasn't sure which citation was at issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cisternet (talk • contribs) 17:36, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

I want to work as a paid editor

I want to create a page for a company. It has several independent references on the internet. What should I do? or how can I start? Please help Thank you Seedlesslime (talk) 14:16, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

@Seedlesslime: Welcome to Wikipedia, and thanks for stating that you are a paid editor. You must follow WP:PAID required disclosures. Tp create an article, you can follow the steps at WP:YFA, and there is a wizard there you can use to create a draft for review. RudolfRed (talk) 14:34, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

@Seedlesslime:, the way I interpret your comment is that you would like to be paid to edit. Wikipedia does not pay editors. While you are free to offer your services to others off wiki as a paid editor, Wikipedia is primarily edited by volunteers working on their own time because they believe in the value of this project. As noted, if you choose to edit for people that hire you to do so, you must comply with the relevant policies. 331dot (talk) 14:39, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Be aware that the company you are thinking of may not want to be the subject of a Wikipedia article. Once an article (not a 'page') is created, anyone can add to it as long as they provide valid references. Has the company ever lost a lawsuit? Been the subject of government regulatory action? All that could end up in the article. David notMD (talk) 14:56, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

@Seedlesslime: There's an essay about that at WP:PROUD. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 06:33, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

How to create

Hi! How to create an article? Eswnav (talk) 14:36, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

@Eswnav: There is a lot of good information at WP:Your first article. GoingBatty (talk) 00:05, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

@Eswnav: ... and in the post on your talk page at User talk:Eswnav#Welcome!, left just before you posted here. Keep in mind that creating an acceptable article from scratch is a substantial amount of work, requiring familiarity with what Wikipedia is not (a promotional or social media platform), Wikipedia's notability and reliable source requirements, Wiki markup language, citing references properly, article layout, etc., and must be written in a professional, encyclopedic tone. Those who try to do so without having spent some time editing existing articles to "learn the ropes" will often have a difficult experience. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 06:44, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

How do I start as a contributor for Wikipedia

What tips and tricks do you have for me, how do I find vandalism, because it seems like there is barely any, and what is a good way to start getting some edits in. AydenBear (talk) 17:29, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Aydenbear, you can start at Help:Introduction. You do have multiple warnings on your user talk for unconstructive editing, including some that appear to be deliberate vandalism, so looking for vandalism may not be a good place to start. I would recommend you instead start by making small constructive edits to articles you have an interest in, and always include an edit summary explaining why you think the edit you're making is an improvement. —valereee (talk) 18:27, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

... and Special:RecentChanges, Aydenbear. Usedtobecool ☎️ 08:43, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Graph

How do you reverse the x-axis so that the highest number shows first using the Wikipedia template? DMBanks1 (talk) 19:51, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, DMBanks1. Whilst I have never used the Graph template to which I assume you're referring, if you search the documentation for xAxisMin at Template:Graph:Chart you'll see a description which states: "xAxisMin, xAxisMax, yAxisMin, and yAxisMax: minimum and maximum values of the x and y axes (not yet supported for bar charts). These parameters can be used to invert the scale of a numeric axis by setting the lowest value to the Max and highest value to the Min." Maybe this might be of some help? But avoid bar chart format!. Nick Moyes (talk) 20:13, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

I tried but cannot figure out how to do it. Also, can a notation be shown with the numerical value on the x-axis, or alternatively within the body of the line graph? DMBanks1 (talk) 20:20, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

@DMBanks1: May I make a suggestion? Copy the source code of whatever it is you are trying to work on and paste it into your sandbox (which you've not yet created - see red link at very top of any page). That way we can see what it is, and try to help you. I'm no expert, but I do like toying around with things like that, as it's a great opportunity to learn new things myself. I just need to see what it is you currently have, and what it is you're trying to achieve. Nick Moyes (talk) 21:49, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

@DMBanks1: I've had a little play around with the sample graphs at Template:Graph:Chart.

version 1 - normal x and y axes

version 2 (below) - X axis reversed by inserting the parameters xAxisMin=8 and xAxisMax=1

This chart is an uploaded image, but the two legend lines can be edited here.

  % Cups of tea served by Teahouse hosts (estimated)

  % cups of coffee served by Teahouse hosts

I assume this was the kind of thing you wanted to achieve? I'm not quite sure what you meant by your second question about notation. You might need to explain that a bit further (maths and graphs were never my strong point!) Nick Moyes (talk) 22:34, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for various advice. My next query is how do I add two verticle lines that enclose a section into which can be added a comment? DMBanks1 (talk) 23:27, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

@DMBanks1: From looking at the template documentation I linked to above, I doubt that's possible, but it's certainly beyond my abilities to fathom. Do you have any urls that might demonstrate the type of thing you want to achieve? Nick Moyes (talk) 23:53, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Something like the pale blue section of the first chart on Recession of 1937–1938.DMBanks1 (talk) 01:08, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

@DMBanks1: The graph used in Recession of 1937–1938 (and reproduced here with modifications) is an image file, not a live, editable Wikipedia chart. You would have to make that image in another programme, such as Excel, and then upload the jpg/png file. Nick Moyes (talk) 10:21, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Academic and expert reference being disputed

Hi Wiki Editors,

I'm currently having a debate about whether the following references would merit inclusion in the body of an article (note, I'm not trying to start a new article here!) and would truly appreciate your views. The change references a controversy connected to the initial article:

a) One of the references is self-published in the form of a letter, signed by a subject-expert (someone who's won a number of awards in their field and had their work nominated for the top global honour). They've been both academically and professionally published on a number of occasions.

b) Another reference is in the form of a link and reference to a lecture on the controversy, which has been published directly from a respected university website's news page.

c) The controversy has garnered significant public support (videos about it have been seen over 40,000 times, and a petition made in outrage of the controversy has been signed 1,500 times).

However, as of yet the references haven't been cited or used in the mainstream, commercial media.

Given that the article is about a high value product, owned by a corporation who would naturally want to protect it, I have been told that none of the above are strong enough references to merit inclusion of the controversy in the body of an article. I totally disagree, given Wiki's guidelines (I have noted these differ, depending on whether editing an article or starting one).

My opinion is that the article is clearly not neutral without a reference to the controversy in question, and I am concerned that those who are arguing against me may have ulterior motives.

I would therefore really appreciate the thoughts and a fair debate with the wider Wiki community (i.e. with those not connected to the article in question).

Thanks. 78.144.198.67 (talk) 20:39, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

You might find reading WP:ACADEME will answer an element of your question. Experts and Academics have a different view of the world from Wikipedia editors. Fiddle Faddle 20:43, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Timtrent. I've gone through article with interest. The issue here, though, isn't that the person wanting to make an edit is an academic (I used to be!), but rather that I want to cite academic sources and subject-experts on the matter, who have in turn published information about this controversy independently.

I have used this as a reason for doing so: 'with regards to Self-published expert sources (they) may be considered reliable (for inclusion in an article) when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications' WP:SPS. But it's being ignored.

Given that the controversy is already in the public domain (with the video views and signatures of support), alongside the above academic/subject-expert references, is there any other reason why this shouldn't be mentioned in the article?

Help and advice truly appreciated, Thanks! 78.144.198.67 (talk) 20:59, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

I haven't read the huge discussion at that talk page in full, but I think it is correct to exclude this content. Robin Mukherjee (writer) may be an expert in certain things, but he certainly is not a recognized expert in who created the TV series Britannia. (Disputed edit for reference.) He is just a person who claims first-hand knowledge of this fact. So WP:SPS doesn't apply. Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:21, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for response, Calliopejen1. If you’ll allow me to reply with my counterpoints:

You have said Mukherjee isn’t a recognized expert in who created Britannia. However, it cannot be denied that he is an expert in writing for television (see his list of credits on IMDB - he has written for a number of the nation’s biggest shows), ergo he is an expert in this field. Furthermore, if you read the letter he published in support of his former student (Krushkoff), it is clear he is extremely familiar with the script that has allegedly been used by the creators of Britannia to write their show. So, he is an expert in writing for TV, has specialist knowledge of Krushkoff’s script and he has publicly stated that he believes Britannia is too similar to it for it to be coincidental. Based on the advice of the WP:SPS page, his expert opinion on the matter would surely be enough (on its own) for inclusion in this article. However, it's not just him from the university who have publicly supported Kruskoff's claims.

There are a number of other tutors at Bath Spa University (including the Head of Faculty) have supported Mukerherjee’s views. Please note the course was described by an independent assessor as the ‘flagship writing course of its type’ in the country (the UK), at the time. A number of award-winning and well-known writers teach/taught and have graduated from there. So, it is not just Mukerhjee who is saying it looks like Krushkoff’s work has been ripped off. (Annie McGann, wife of TV star and former Dr Who Paul McGann, a highly respected theatre stage manager, has described it as ‘blatant plagiarism’). So it’s multiple academic views who have supported Krushkoff. Some of the referable quotes are on his website.

That 1,500 people have publicly signed a petition in support of Krushkoff’s claims, and that his video’s have been seen tens of thousands of times with almost exclusive positive responses, means the controversy is already in the public domain.

Given the above, I believe the article cannot be described as being neutral without referring to the many people (including a number of experts and professional writers), who all believe it was Krushkoff, and not Butterworth, Butterworth and Richardson, who came up with the original story from which the show’s narrative was based on. 78.144.198.67 (talk) 14:55, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

None of that changes my assessment, sorry. Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:07, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Calliopejen1 Can you explain why, though? It's easy to say 'I don't agree', but until I know the reasons why, how can I change my own opinion? I'm having the same problem on the page itself. I'm presenting what I consider a valid counter-argument, yet it's ignored. FYI Bath Spa University's Creating Writing Faculty, which is where the references come from, was described as 'the flagship creative writing course of its type' at the time. The views of the faculty there must surely be of relevance. SethRuebens (talk) 18:13, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Three comments:

The lead section of an article ought to summarise the rest of the content. There is no mention of any dispute in the body of Britannia (TV series).

The clause which you added leaves it unclear what the dispute is about. Does Krushkoff claim that it was not the Butterworths who wrote Brittania? Who does he claim really wrote it?

You refer to "number of ... sources", but the only source you cited is a private letter, not a reliable independent published source such as Wikipedia requires. Maproom (talk) 22:24, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Maproom, thanks for replying. In response to your three points:

Firstly, the lead section referenced the controversy secion (which was in the body of the article for two months, before it was removed by someone who had written a number of articles about Sky's shows, and very little else).

The controversy section did explain the cause of the controversy: Krushkoff is alleging his academically submitted work was missaprirated by a journalist and adapted (poorly) and used as the source material for Sky's show. Given that his work was submitted to a leading writing faculty, he asked for their opinion and the response was exclusive: Robin Mukerherjee (highly respected screenwriter) wrote a letter of support, another of his tutors Annie McGann (a highly respected stage manager) has published her thoughts on the matter ('blatant plagiarism') and the Head of Faculty has been reported as saying 'we support these views'.

Wikipedia guidelines state the following, which is my issue here:

'Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications.'

This includes writing things on blogs, newsletters, etc.

As I've mentioned, I'm not trying to start an article about the scandal, which would require 'notability' of the controversy (even though I believe 1,500 signatures in support and tens of thousands of video views would make it notable anyway). I'm merely trying to add an edit into the body of the existing Britannia article. Without it, the academic and expert views, as well as those 1,500 people, clearly aren't being represented. Thanks for reading! 78.144.198.67 (talk) 14:55, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

The Teahouse isn't the place to resolve a dispute. The correct place is on the article's talk page. If you can't reach agreement there, read about dispute resolution. --David Biddulph (talk) 18:28, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

David Biddulp ah, ok. Thanks for pointing that out, David. There is already an active discussion on the article's talk page, but I felt my questions were just being ignored (which is why I raised them here). I'll go down the dispute route tomorrow. Kind regards. 78.144.198.67 (talk) 18:36, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

How to disable this text being added in my Contributions log?

Hi there! In all of my recent contributions, a line appears afterwards saying:

Tag: 2017 wikitext editor

I have no idea where this came from! And I don't know how to disable it. Can I disable it? I imagine it is probably some setting that I modified in Preferences, but I can't figure out which one. Thanks in advance. Nickgray (talk) 22:00, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Nickgray and welcome to the Teahouse.

There is nothing to worry about. Wikipedia supports (at least) three different editors. There is the classic wikitext editor, which is what I use, and i think is still the default for new accounts. There i9s the 2017 wikitext editor, which is a somewhat minor change from the classic editor. And there is the visual editor. (I think the editor for the mobile version is again slightly different.) The tag in the history is just to tell any reader which editor you used. (That can be set in your preferences, yes.) That isnt because any of these are wrong to use. It is just that some functions are easier on one editor than another, so it is helpful to know which o9ne an editor used, so areas that are harder with that editor can be more carefully checked. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 22:11, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Welcome to the Teahouse, Nickgray. I assume you mean why are all your edits ending with "(Tag: 2017 source edit)". That's because you have 2017 wikitext editor enabled in the 'Beta' Tab in your Preferences (see here). I have been using it continuously for the last few weeks, but have just turned it off again as it singularly fails to work on my mobile in desktop view. If you look at my user contributions, you'll see the tag disappeared late last night after I gave up in sheer frustration at not being able to view anything correctly on my phone screen. Does that make sense? (It's a pleasure to return to real source code editing, not this half-way house of source editing inside the Visual Editor's layout.) See Wikipedia:Tags for more information. Nick Moyes (talk) 22:13, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

That fixed it, thank you so much Nick Moyes and DES! I really appreciate your support and this TeaHouse space to ask questions. Nickgray (talk) 12:24, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Why doesn't my edit box include a "cite" menu?

I am new to serious editing of Wikipedia. All the instruction pages I see (e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Referencing_for_beginners) explain that citations are really easy because there's a "cite" menu in the edit box. Why doesn't my edit box have this?? I see "Advanced," then "Special characters," then "Help," and that's it. Do I need to activate the "cite" menu somehow? Or does it work only in certain browsers or only on Macs (I have a PC)? Thanks for any help folks can offer. Grn1749 (talk) 22:08, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

@Grn1749: That's really weird. It definitely works on my PC, and I don't think I had to activate it. Have you tried editing in the visual editor rather than the code editor? The visual editor has even better tools for making citations than the code editor does. I rarely work with citations in the code editor these days. Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:14, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

If you are using the wiki-source editor, Grn1749, you need to enable the RefToolbar This is done in the Gadgets tab of the Preference page, in the Editing section. If you do that you will see the "cite" option toi the right of "Advancd", "Special characters", and "Help". The visual editor uses a quite different interface for a similar purpose. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 22:19, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

@DESiegel:Ah, perfect! That fixed it! Thank you so much. Might I suggest somebody update all the how-to pages to add that instruction? I found it super frustrating to keep seeing references to this toolbar as though it were an automatic part of the editing menu! Grn1749 (talk) 22:40, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I Have just updated Help:Referencing_for_beginners, Grn1749 to mention this. I would add that you should never trust the output when you use RefToolbar's "search":con next to the URL. It often gets most of the fields correct, but it sometimes makes significant errors. It has a nasty tendency to stuff the site name into the title of the page being cited, after {{!}}. This is simply wrong, and you should always check for it and move the name into the "website" or "newspaper" field. It sometimes gives the title in all-caps, which is also wrong. It quite often fails to pick up publication dates and the name of the author of the page/article being cited, if they are in slightly non-standard locations. And it never wiki-links the author or the work (website, journal, or newspaper), which should be done when there is a relevant article. It is a sizable help, but it isn't magic, indeed it isn't as good as a human. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 22:43, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

@Grn1749 and DESiegel: To be quite frank with you both, I had thought it was a default function, myself! I've long felt that every page in Preferences should clearly show what the default setting normally is for each tick box. Those of us who've been around a while tend to forget how the settings were when they first started! Nick Moyes (talk) 22:46, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

@DESiegel, Nick Moyes, and Calliopejen1: Thank you, everyone!! Grn1749 (talk) 23:20, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

@DESiegel, Grn1749, and Calliopejen1: Interestingly, our edits to update the help guide have just been reverted by Sdkb, who quite rightly pointed out that they were unecessary as RefToolbar IS enabled by default. I have also checked with my alternative account which uses only the default settings, and can confirm they're quite correct. So maybe, Grn1749, you had at some time in the past unwittingly turned off this function without realising it, which is why you lost it. I stand by my statement that default options ought to be clearly marked in Preferences. Can anyone comment whether this is a WP:VPR issue just for en-wiki, or is one better raised at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Help_talk:Preferences. Nick Moyes (talk) 10:12, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

@DESiegel and Sdkb: Interesting. I don't believe I ever turned that default setting off, because I don't recall ever going into my Preferences tab. Although I've had a Wikipedia account for more than a decade, I haven't done much more with it than correct punctuation and typos, so haven't previously had the need or interest to venture into custom settings. Is it possible my account predates the existence of the RefToolbar, and that's why it wasn't included in my editor? Regardless of it being the default setting now, surely I can't be the only one who for whatever reason doesn't have it activated and doesn't know how to activate it. Isn't there value, then, in allowing your one-sentence explanation of how to turn it on to stay in the reference guide? Grn1749 (talk) 16:30, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Grn1749, your hypothesis is correct there — the RefToolbar was turned on by default in 2014. You might find it helpful to go into your preferences and click the "reset to default" button, in case there are any other similar things going on with other tools. Regarding the intro tutorial, we're discussing it here; my suggestion is to add a link to WP:RefToolbar to help anyone else who encounters the issue in the future. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 16:39, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Sdkb, thanks for the tip! I've reset my defaults. And thanks for the link to your conversation. Reading the discussion about if/where to include instructions on turning on the toolbar is a fascinating education for me about how Wikipedia editors make decisions behind the scenes! Grn1749 (talk) 19:34, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

@Grn1749: And here is a further piece of behind the scenes discussion that your Teahouse post has prompted!. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:02, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Should Events at the 2013 World Games be an article?

I just noticed that @Govvy: nominated Finswimming at the 2013 World Games for deletion. (as the deletion tag is about to expire I'll remove it for this discussion) At the bottom there is a box "Events at the 2013 World Games" with a whole bunch of red links, and I don't know if fistball at the 2013 World Games is much more notable than finswimming.

Perhaps all these events (or at least the results) should be merged into Events at the 2013 World Games, redirect the existing articles and only keep articles (with a {{Main}} at the to be created "events" article) for single events that appear to be notable on their own and consist of more than a table of winners? - Alexis Jazz 22:57, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

@Alexis Jazz: I suggest asking at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sports. Good luck! Calliopejen1 (talk) 07:16, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, done. - Alexis Jazz 08:30, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Land Borders fix

Can someone please fix India's entry on this table? I am unable to figure out to wikitext to do it. Thanks! I-82-I | TALK 22:59, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

@I-82-I: I think I fixed it by adding "|Includes:|" in the table code. Let me know if this is not what you had in mind. Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:11, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

@Calliopejen1:Thank you! That fixed the problem. I-82-I | TALK 07:14, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Discouraged by added complexity of automated processes, thinking of giving up editing WP

I am not exactly a new editor for WP but I was pretty inactive for a long time due to life circumstances. Since I have started trying to engage with it again, my experience is that it has become a user hostile medium that is too complicated to be worth investing my time into.

I have just spent a long time trying to fix two non-functioning reference notes at the article on Charlotte Perkins Gilman, a "first wave" feminist thinker and writer. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Charlotte_Perkins_Gilman Notes 68 and 69.

The notes are important because it appears that pretty much the whole bibliographic section comes from the same source, to which both of the notes refer. The original notes apparently were created in 2008, and the underlying article in 1999. They now go to a revised and marketing oriented version of the website in question which has no way to get to what material may exist there relating to Gilman.

In the Talk page there is a note by the InternetArchiveBot saying it had created a web archive link for the notes to The Wayback Machine. The bot wrote:

I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20132018093800/http://www.womenwriters.net/domesticgoddess/CPGguide.html to http://www.womenwriters.net/domesticgoddess/CPGguide.html

As listed on the talk page, the archive link does work, leading to a Wayback Machine page devoted to Gilman which shows all the signs of having been created in 1999.

However, the web archive URLs in the main article are incomplete, and not the same as the one in the talk page, apparently following a truncation in the original link (?).

Gilman's works include:

See, I thought I was actually including the text from the note, but apparently the reflist formatting transfers here too.

Did the bot fail? Did it not include the complete URL because it was following an incomplete model? Did someone mess with its work?

I tried to add the missing piece of the URL from the Talk page but encountered two problems. First, it turns out that you can't check to see if a link works from inside a preview page (or if you can it requires arcane knowledge I don't possess), so I had to make actual edits to see if they worked. Then it turned out my modified links didn't work. I'm not sure why not. I think maybe it has something to do with the reflist citation method.

At first I tried just typing in the missing end of the URL(s). That produced a link to a different Wayback Machine iteration of the website than the one needed, though for the URL itself what was visible was the same as what was on the Talk page. However the Talk page did not include everything in the Template:... brackets, or in the whole . So I tried again, this time copying and pasting the whole URL from the Talk page. That produced a date mismatch somehow between July 25, 2020, which now appeared, and the November 2018 web archive date by the bot, in a way that my just typing hadn't. So I reverted it all, or at least I thought I did.

This is only one example of the kinds of complexities I find myself facing that have me questioning if the game is worth the candle.

In this case I suppose what I should do for the Gilman article is try to use my sandbox to try to build a reference from scratch that works while preserving what should be preserved from the original.

I'm an ex-academic with a Ph.D. in African History and a lot of knowledge about other history, and other work experience as a professional editor. I always thought that Africa scholars have done a pretty piss-poor job of making the knowledge created in African Studies since ca. 1950 available in a more publicly accessible way -- both circulation and writing. I have that kind of substance to contribute, including knowledge of reliable sources, as well as copy editing and proof-reading. The information democracy aspects of Wikipedia have always appealed to me.

But it seems like since I first edited around 2009 or so, Wikipedia has gone a significant way toward being really only for devoted insiders with very high barriers to entry for what ought to be fairly simple kinds of tasks.

Sorry to be so whiny, and so discursive. Cabin fever and fascistic federal agents wreaking havoc in the streets of Portland where I live, I guess. Chris Lowe (talk) 04:37, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello Cclowe. I for one hope that you will continue editing and in my personal experience with general editing for 11 years, I rarely run across such vexing technical challenges. You wrote, "In this case I suppose what I should do for the Gilman article is try to use my sandbox to try to build a reference from scratch that works while preserving what should be preserved from the original." I think that you gave yourself some excellent advice. It is less frustrating to try to solve such a problem in a sandbox than in a live article. Sorry about the heavy handed feds roaming your streets. Best to stay away from the Federal Building late at night, I guess. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:53, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Unfortunately I can't follow what I think are your main points. Some minor comments: It's normal for one reference to point somewhere and for another, later reference to point to the same place. Wikipedia makes great use of one flavour of the "Vancouver system", of which this is a result. I don't much like it. (And I'm quite mystified by the inversion of names: Why "Davis, Cynthia" instead of "Cynthia Davis" [as one example], when there's no alphabetically ordered list?) But that's what we have. Any attempt to imagine that it's a footnote system is doomed to increase confusion. There's no reason to write "Online. Internet." when it's obvious that something is a web page, which of course is on the internet and (server downtimes etc aside) is online. If a past version of a web page is superior to the current version, just link to the past version (perhaps adding a comment that will dissuade a later editor from updating the link). If some nitwit either hasn't heard of Gilman or pretends he hasn't, and writes on the talk page that nobody's heard of her, better just to ignore this (unless the comment is lengthy, offensive, or repeated). Inane comments aren't speedily deletable merely because they're inane. -- Hoary (talk) 06:51, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Cclowe, so, to take it from the top, the template {{webarchive}} uses the "date" parameter (click the linked for documentation) for the date of archival. The date of archive is also easily deduced from the archiveurl which is in the format "web.archive.org/web/[date in the format YYYYMMDDhhmmss]/[url]". As you say, the article was using the archive links from already after the url was dead, i.e. from 2018, this was reflected on the url and the date parameter of the template. I copypasted the url you gave above which redirects to one (that works) from August 2013, and also got a date mismatch error, and then fixed the date parameter of the template in line with the url, which worked. The url goes web.archive.org/web/20130812..., so the date should be August 12, 2013. You can use the preview button to see if the link works. Click on "preview" on the publish dialog window; the preview that is given works the same way as the published page.

Indeed, the compromise between functionality and accessibility is a tricky one, and the problem you said you face is not one that the regulars never do. I took months to figure out the essentials and am still figuring out new things as I have to.

Using your sandbox to figure out stuff is the best option there is. That's what it's there for. You could also have used a {{help}} template to ask another editor for help with regard to that issue. And, finally, I reckon there are a lot of topics on African History altogether missing from Wikipedia. Perhaps, you'd consider creating missing articles from scratch. WP:CITEVAR allows you to choose any citation style that you feel comfortable with, in articles you start. You could use just the styles you have been using in your academic work. This option, it seems to me, would be miles better than leaving, depriving the world of your knowledge in a topic area that is embarrassingly undercovered on Wikipedia. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 09:38, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

References

Question regarding file license

Should autopatrollers add |image has rationale=yes by themselves in the license template? -- CptViraj (talk) 06:15, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

CptViraj If a previous editor (likely the uploader) has in fact provided a rationale but failed to add the template parameter it would certainly be helpful for a patroller (or indeed any experienced editor) to correct the template. If the reasons for usign the image under fair use are in fact reasonable clear, it would even be helpful to write up and add the rationale, but that is farther than most patrollers choose to go.

By the way i suppose that you mean "New Page Patroller" not "autopatroller". An autopatroller is a user who is experienced enough that his or her edits are automatically marked as patrolled, and do not need to be reveiwed by a member of the NPP. Pretty much all NPPers will have the autopatrol right, but reverse is far from true. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 15:16, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

@DESiegel: No, I really mean autopatroller. As you said "An autopatroller is a user who is experienced enough that his or her edits are automatically marked as patrolled, and do not need to be reveiwed by a member of the NPP", so would it be fine if an autopatroller add that parameter by himself/herself on his/her own uploades? -- CptViraj (talk) 03:53, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

I see, CptViraj In any case, any user, with or without any special rights, may (and indeed should) add that parameter if a proper rationale is present. This is true whether the user has personally written the rationale, or some other editor has previously done so. Is that clear? DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 13:44, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

@DESiegel: Yep, this is helpful. Thanks :) -- CptViraj (talk) 13:55, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Comments

Hi there. I have a question regarding web comments and copyright. Are they copyrighted? For example, are YouTube comments copyrighted? And I were to publish a screenshot of it, what license would it be appropriate to be labeled? GeraldWL 07:11, 25 July 2020 (UTC) 

@Gerald Waldo Luis: Yes, theoretically. Why would you need to screenshot them rather than just quote them? Under the law, the result is the same, but Wikipedia treats quoted text more leniently than screenshotted images, generally speaking. It's also better for visually impaired people using screen-readers (and other readers, frankly) to just type out the text rather than using a screenshot. Calliopejen1 (talk) 07:13, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

@Gerald Waldo Luis: Can you be more specific about the case? Most comments by random users would not seem to be something we should quote or cite here. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 07:28, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

@AlanM1: Its those comments where they talk poetically about their reaction to a video, similar to of people in existential crisis. I feel like its original and that the words belongs to the author, but at the same time, comments with similar statements have been replicated, to the point where I feel like it seems cliche and ineligible for copyright. GeraldWL 07:35, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

@Gerald Waldo Luis: Which article? Which video? —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 07:47, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

@AlanM1: The article is Timelapse of the Future. The video is this. GeraldWL 08:04, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Side note, in order to have a sense on why the photo is there, I might put a caption like "An example of a triggered viewer comment. This type of comment is seen a lot of times" or something. GeraldWL 08:06, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Gerald Waldo Luis a ststement such as This type of comment is seen a lot of times would be Original research unless the conclusion was first drawn by a reliable secondary[ source which is cited in the article. This is exactly the kind of conclusion drawing that editors here should not do. Who decides what 'kind" of comment this is, or how typical that kind is? Only an RS should do so. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 15:09, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

About the publication of a new article

Hello,

When you finish and publish a new article, how long does it take to appear suggested in any search?, in Google for example. LiebeZenPeace (talk) 07:39, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

This is a frequently asked question. Not before Google cares to add it. But in practice, fairly quickly, once Wikipedia has authorized its appearance. To quote Quisqualis above: "[your article] has not been reviewed; therefore Google cannot see it. Once it is reviewed, it will be able to appear on Google shortly thereafter. If 90 days pass without review, it will be visible to Google in any case. Just be patient." -- Hoary (talk) 08:13, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Awards add

Rohan Mehra

How to add iconic and star parivaar awards And if in relible sorce infomtion is wrong about birth year then how can change it correct? Rohan Fan (talk) 07:40, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Add awards to the table in the "Awards" section, of course citing your sources. Wikipedia uses reliable sources. What makes you think that the "reliable" sources are wrong? -- Hoary (talk) 08:17, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Current Events page

I added the headline about Arizona's Democratic Party HQ being burnt down (which is significant considering that police believes that this is probably arson in an election year in a battleground state) to the Current Events page for 23 July, but I have two queries:

1. which section of the page is more appropriate for this? Politics or Crime?
2. since the fire happened overnight, should it be listed as happened on 23 July (when it started) or 24 July (when it became apparent that the attack was serious and manmade)?

45.251.33.122 (talk) 08:09, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Regarding when, take your queue from what reliable sources say. S Philbrick(Talk) 15:29, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Noted, Sphilbrick. I’ve moved the headline to the next day as the fire was reported an hour after midnight. (I am the same IP editor) 45.251.33.0 (talk) 16:04, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Sounds appropriate. S Philbrick(Talk) 17:43, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Adding caption to image in article, etc.

Please, I need help with Ramesseum magician's box. I did copyediting here, but the captions for the photos (from Commons) are stranded over in the text. If someone can "fix" just one of them, perhaps I will be able to see how to do the others.

Next, the image for "boy carrying a calf" is not present at all, although it has a link in the text to a museum image. Not sure what should be done here. I suspect that this is not a free image, which is why it was not posted to the article, but would like advice, etc. Perhaps I could just put the link under external links, versus in the text area? Seems best??

I don't have experience with image captions, or images, but I am willing to learn. Thanks, Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 08:16, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Your first question: Not "[[File:Ramsseum contents pic.jpg|thumb]]" but instead "[[File:Ramsseum contents pic.jpg|thumb|Whatever you'd like as a caption]]". Your second: the section "Boy carrying calf" simply doesn't ask for any image to be displayed, or anyway doesn't do so in any valid way. By "Penn Museum [https://www.penn.museum/collections/object/136702 Statuary - E13405 | Collections - Penn Museum] E13405, H 3.17cm, L 7.62cm, W 1.91cm", are you perhaps attempting to have a file hosted by penn.museum displayed? If so, this won't work: no file external to Wikimedia will be displayed. -- Hoary (talk) 08:27, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

@Hoary: Thanks for the info, very helpful, will give it a try. As for the Penn.museum, I think this must be why the original editor left it as is, since we cannot link this way, but thanks for confirming. Will move from text to external links, if I think it is appropriate. Thanks! Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 09:17, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

/* External links */

I think this external link is good because there are did not such an external link in this article please help me what is the right way Etexplain (talk) 08:57, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Etexplain I think it is because you are not allowed to link to a blog, (if this question refers the the Poison article) Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 09:32, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

There is no right way to add links to your blog. You have repeatedly asked not to attempt this. If you persist, you will be prevented from editing. -- Hoary (talk) 09:32, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Japanese actor article titles

Hi, I've been reading up a bit on the naming convention for articles pertaining to subjects or people where the name is not originally in a Latin alphabet, such as Japanese, and have a bit of query about how certain articles are currently titled. Specifically, I happen to edit a lot of articles about Japanese actors (voice actors mostly) and have noticed that most, if not all, articles currently feature the macron form of the actors names.

Most of these actors have official English romanizations of their names provided by their management agencies (eg. Sōma Saitō spells his name as Soma Saito), and these romanized names are what's predominantly used by news outlets in English when reporting/talking about these actors (not to mention is also how the actors themselves spells it on their social media/official website/merchandise/etc.). So far I've only encountered one article on Wikipedia that follows the actors own preferred spelling (Koutaro Nishiyama) and that article name change was only relatively recent.

Long story short, my question is: is it acceptable for regular editors such as myself to change the names of these articles provided there is sufficient proof of how the actor prefers to romanize their name, since by all account it follows the guidelines written here?

Thank you, Saruhikofushimis (talk) 09:28, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Saruhikofushimis, those guidelines say: "The use of modified letters (such as accents or other diacritics) in article titles is neither encouraged nor discouraged; when deciding between versions of a word which differ in the use or non-use of modified letters, follow the general usage in reliable sources that are written in the English language (including other encyclopedias and reference works)." What you should look at is this. For ambiguities or difficulties, or to propose changes, ask here. Once there's agreement for retitling, regular and irregular editors are equally authorized to carry it out. (Incidentally, "Koutaro" is a mongrel rendition, isn't it? Normally I'd expect either "Kōtarō" [Hepburn] or "Kotaro" [macrons zapped].) -- Hoary (talk) 09:45, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

@Hoary, thank you for getting back so quickly! And thank you for clearing things up and for the link; just to clarify though, I should leave a proposal or start a discussion here first before actually changing any article names, correct? (And yes, "Koutaro" is an unorthodox romanization being halfway between the Kotaro or Koutarou versions, but it seems to be his definite preference as its used consistently on his websites/social media/acting credits) Saruhikofushimis (talk) 11:27, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Saruhikofushimis do remember that Wikipedia does not automatically follow the preference of the article subject (much less that of the subject's manager) or any "official" name, but rather follows the usage in reliable English-language sources, as per WP:COMMONNAME. You should in my view start a move discussion on the article's talk page, and list it at requested moves, but you will p0-robably get more editors with a knowledge of the issues involved if you post a pointer at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Japan-related_articles (as {{|Hoary}} suggested) or at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Japan or both. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 15:00, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, good advice from DES. I'm not at all fond of WP:COMMONNAME, but at least it's consistent and fairly easy to apply ... except when something or other (class deference?) renders it inapplicable. Not "Anthony Blair" but "Tony Blair", good; but none of "Tony Armstrong-Jones", "Snowdon" or "Lord Snowdon", but instead "Antony Armstrong-Jones, 1st Earl of Snowdon", which I think few people outside Wikipedia would say or write with a straight face. (Also, people such as Snowdon are described as having "issue", which to me sounds revolting, like some kind of suppuration.) -- Hoary (talk) 23:17, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

About my first article

 Ja99u (talk) 15:23, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Ja99u Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Do you have a question about your first article? 331dot (talk) 15:25, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Ja99u, and welcome to the Teahouse. I am guessing that this is about The Citi Bazaar, as in User:Ja99u/sandbox. If you are contemplating the very difficult task of writing a new article, I suggest you start by reading Your first article, and then read about notability, and see whether you can find the independent reliably-published sources which are the very first step in creating an article (because if you can't, then any other work you do on the article will be wasted). If you can find such sources, then you can start writing the important part of the article, which is the text summarising what independent commentators have published about the company. Finally you can add finishing touches like images and infoboxes. --ColinFine (talk) 16:43, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Can anybody help me

Can anybody help me in creating a article about a Indian politician which have no articles about him on Wikipedia?

 Nandu M Nair (talk) 16:10, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

@Nandu M Nair: I recommend reading WP:YFA. If you have any further questions after reading that, feel free to ask them here. Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:17, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Nandu M Nair (ec) Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. This politician would need to meet the Wikipedia definition of a notable politician, as shown with significant coverage in independent reliable sources. If that's the case, you may visit Articles for Creation to create a draft article to submit for review. You may want to use the new user tutorial first. 331dot (talk) 16:21, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Removal of warning notices on page and questions regarding suitable sourcing and citation

Hi everyone.

Recently I discovered someone had created a page on my deceased mother Berrell Jensen. I do not know who created the page. The text was terrible, with multiple factual and grammatical errors so I ventured to fix, and to improve with photographs and so on. I did make a couple of changes when I first saw the page, using an IP, but nothing substantial. It was only very recently, and mostly yesterday, that I made substantial changes, knowing there were more to make.

Given the immediate responses from other editors clearly I made a huge mistake in not doing a ton of research on editing Wiki pages prior. Nevertheless I feel the way everything was approached was unnecessarily heavy handed. To be honest the good feelings I've always had about Wiki are sullied somewhat. I know I went about my editing the 'wrong' way, learning as I went, I knew there was much to fix. I believe it was the increased activity on the page that brought the page to the attention of certain bots and editors. One did write a friendly note on my talk page for which I am grateful.

And, if I had left well alone I am sure the page would have remained in its original state with multiple factual errors. I will endeavour to find citations and so on, but I suspect the page will be deleted by then.

However, I hope this is not the case.

Here are a few issues I'd like to resolve:

1. The notice on the Talk:Berrell Jensen page.

It states that "This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons".

Berrell Jensen died in 2015. How do I have this notice removed?

2. There are two warning notices on the actual page and I'd like advice on how to deal with them so they can be removed.

a) The first warning is regarding notability and that citations are needed.

There are dozens if not hundreds of newspaper articles about Jensen's work, mostly from 50-60 years ago in South Africa and so far I have found none archived online, not unless I pay for a service. Can I upload scans of the articles to wiki commons and use these as citations? I notice this has been done on other pages.

Given Jensen created 22 large scale sculptures in metal, commissions for public buildings, including for Jan Smuts International airport (as it was known then) and the Johannesburg Municipal Library (which I can in fact find a citation for but I don't know if it's suitable - https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=4pe5AAAAIAAJ&q=Berrell+Jensen&dq=Berrell+Jensen&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwizo6Xyz-jqAhXhUBUIHRp2BnQQ6AEwAnoECAYQAg) and 14 of these commissions were created at a time when most white women in apartheid South Africa were absolutely not welding, I am very surprised that such full-on interrogation and opposition has been given to this issue of notability. Some of the South African newspaper articles I have in my possession attest to how unusual her work was at that time by very language used in the article (highly sexist language).

I believe that one of the reasons behind this notability issue is the lack of recent articles about Jensen. The primary thrust of Jensen's work spanned only 13 years, from 1960 - 1973.

b) The other warning is: This article may have been created or edited in return for undisclosed payments, a violation of Wikipedia's terms of use. It may require cleanup to comply with Wikipedia's content policies. I was told by an editor that whoever originally created the page has been blocked. I presume it must have been someone paid by a man who has kept an online archive of South African Artists. He is in his 80s and I can only surmise he was unable to do such a thing himself, probably he hoped to have many artist pages on Wiki and paid someone to do so. I don't know this for a fact but given some of the citations link to his online archive, it seems likely.

Given I have nothing to do with whoever did create the page, how can I have this notice removed or prove that I, myself, am not being paid?

3. COI issues.

I am aware there are COI issues and I have stated this on my talk page and by using my name not an IP. There is no one, to my knowledge, who could update this page rather than myself. They are all over 80 or dead.

All help much appreciated regarding how to deal with the three warning notices mentioned above and if scans/pdfs of articles uploaded to wiki commons are suitable forms of citations and sourcing. Sandra Anne Jensen (talk) 16:41, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

To answer one of your question: content - old newspaper articles - do not have to be available on line to be cited. Scanning to Commons is the wrong way. All you have to do is create a reference that lists the title of the news item, newspaper, date, page, and if there was a byline - the name of the person who wrote it. David notMD (talk) 17:34, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

I removed the PAID tag, which was inappropriately added just recently, and replaced it with a COI tag. Your User page and the Talk page of the article establish what your COI is (article is about your mother). The tags are not so much warnings as article status indicators to readers of the article. If you add valid references, an editor (not you) can decide to remove the first tag. The second tag stays until enough editing is done by other editors. Again, not for you to do. David notMD (talk) 17:52, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

@David notMD Thank you so much for this. Huge help.

@David notMD: I've mentioned this on my user page but perhaps this is a better place to do it. A user has offered to assist with citations. It will take time, but it will be done. In the meantime, another user has edited content in a way that makes notability tag added by Unforgettableid even more concerning by removing two mentions to important exhibitions (citations are needed yes but that was not why they were removed, the reason stated is "unencyclopedic") and has rendered one section of the text non factual, an error made before, and one of the reasons why I originally went in to fix the page up. Ireland is not in the United Kingdom - and the history of the countries makes this a very grave error. This is exactly the kind of thing that if seen by anyone would make them think Wikipedia is totally unreliable. Because of all the attention I've received on this page I'm very nervous about going in to fix it myself. I've let them know on their talk page but no response. It feels to me that there has been a lot of focus on what I have done wrong, and yet users are going in and doing this kind of thing so it is confusing for me quite honestly. I would also like help in understanding why there has been so much focus on this page and my actions on it. Is it because the page is thought to be created or edited in return for undisclosed payments? If so, I can probably find out if this is the case as I can contact the person who would really be the only person to consider making this page due to their years of digital archiving information on South African artists, including Berrell Jensen, and some of the original citations and information on the page refer to his website. SandAJ (talk) 09:46, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Where do i report an editor for spam?

Specifically this user: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/154.72.171.45 Disoff (talk) 17:02, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi @user:Disoff, and welcome to the teahouse. It looks like the user has already been properly warned by User:The4lines. If the editor continues, you will have to give them a higher level warning, such as a level three. You can see more information on the templates we use for warnings here. Happy editing! Ghinga7 (talk) 17:15, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

If you would need to report them (like if they did it several times after being warned), you should probably contact an admin on their talk page. I don't know of any noticeboard for advertising. Ghinga7 (talk) 17:32, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello Disoff and Ghinga7. Spammers should be reverted and warned. If warnings and discussion do not work and promotional editing continues, then please file a report at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard aftee reading the instructions at the top of the page. The quick shortcut is WP:COIN. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:19, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

I thought about COIN, but I thought that might be a bit specific. @User:Cullen328, would it still be appropriate to post to the talk page of an admin about that sort of thing? Ghinga7 (talk) 18:27, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, Ghinga7, it is OK to approach an individual administrator, but that person might be busy off-Wikipedia at that time. You may get a quicker response by posting to an appropriate noticeboard monitored by many administrators. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:52, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Adding an article

I recently tried to add an article about Gallery House London, which was an important alternative art space in London in the 1970's. I think it's important that there be accessible public record about these vital, often overlooked alternative art spaces, which have so often provided platforms for creators who weren't supported by mainstream arts institutions, but I'm disappointed to see the article isn't live. I was careful to cite credible, published sources for nearly every sentence of the article, including "London Art Worlds", a book published by Penn State Press, which has the most comprehensively compiled research on the organization. I don't see any records about my attempted article addition, so I'm not sure what happened. Is there any way to find out? I was going to start adding some articles about other alternative art spaces and their histories, but I want to make sure I'm investing my time wisely and correctly so the articles are likely to be published. Thank you in advance! Cisternet (talk) 17:54, 25 July 2020 (UTC) Cisternet (talk) 17:54, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Cisternetm and welcome to the Teahouse. I see that Draft:Gallery House, London is currently awaiting WP:AFC review. Because there are many drafts and few reviewers, a review can be delayed for weeks or even months. I see that the draft currently cites only four sources, and the National Archives source does not seem to have much directly about Gallery House, so a few additional sources would be desirable if such sources exist. I also notice that there is no source given for the date of the closure of Gallery House, or the circumstances of that closure.

Thank you for writing this draft. If you need help with any improvements, please do ask here again. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 18:23, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello Cisternet. The draft in question is Draft:Gallery House, London. Of the four references in the draft, it appears to me that only one, the book called London Art Worlds, is a reliable source that devotes significant coverage to this gallery. Most reviewers will expect at least three references to sources that discuss the topic at length and in detail. I suggest that you search for reviews in the London newspapers and art magazines of the era, especially those discussing the opening and the closing of the gallery. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:33, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Serious pandemic figures in error?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:COVID-19_pandemic_data tells me that Canada has had 8,923 deaths (seems correct). Canada has a population of some 37.411 million. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:COVID-19_pandemic_data/Per_capita tells me that Canada has 3 deaths per million population. I get around 238. What am I doing wrong? The figures for USA are 147,650 deaths, 329.065 million population and I get 449 per million which is very roughly the 405 from the Wiki page. Canada's figures are way out, by the looks of things.

--Terry Dr T Rowe Gromit1943 (talk) 18:13, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello Gromit1943! I suggest you ask this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject COVID-19. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:24, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Pinging Naypta. I guess User:Yapperbot/COVIDdata uses Template:COVID-19 pandemic data/Per capita/death calculator. The entry for Canada includes {{#invoke:WikidataIB|getValue|ps=1|qid=Q83873580|P1120|list=p-1}} which produces: . At the time of writing it says 101 which is an old number of deaths from 31 March in COVID-19 pandemic in Canada (Q83873580). I guess it's supposed to use the latest number 8,711 from 7 July. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:46, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

@PrimeHunter: Thanks for the ping, and thanks to Gromit1943 for raising the question. This was an issue with an entry on Wikidata; PrimeHunter rightly points out that the data from 31 March was being used, because it was set as preferred. I've unset it as preferred, so when the bot next runs (in a few hours time), the data should update with whatever the latest record on Wikidata is - which looks correct.

As an aside, Yapperbot doesn't use Template:COVID-19 pandemic data/Per capita/death calculator - it just calculates everything itself. You can see the full template it uses over at User:Yapperbot/COVIDdata/template.

Cheers! Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 21:53, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Charmaine Fong

Needing help with the article Charmaine Fong. The user Magnolia677 is constantly reverting edits to "remove unsourced content" even when it is just a list of musical releases that is common knowledge and can be found anywhere, and shouldn't require citations. They don't seem to have a problem with Filmography or TV series which are also unsourced. I think it's bad practice to just outright undo people's contributions as opposed to add a simple "citation needed." 218.255.108.232 (talk) 18:58, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello, IP editor. Welcome to the Teahouse. Magnolia677 was quite justified in undoing this edit. You added statements that were not backed up by sources, and it seemed a bit non-neutral as a result. If someone challenges a factual statement, it is up to the inserting editor to supply a source - especially if, as you say, you think it can be found anywhere. So supply the link, please. That said, I'm not so sure I'd have removed the year 2019 from one of those edits, as the YouTube video did suggest that was when her song was released. Often you are better asking these simple questions of the other editor directly, rather than initially seeking third party comments. I would add that two edits to remove challenged information hardly constitutes 'constantly'. Nick Moyes (talk) 19:51, 25 July 2020 (UTC)  

While agreeing with almost everything that Nick Moyes wrote above, I would add that, in general, if you object to a revert, the best place to comment is on the article talk page, in this case Talk:Charmaine Fong, in line with the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle. I would say, however, that publication dates of creative works are generally considered to be implicitly sourced to the work itself (at least if the published work contains a publication date) and do not need separate sources. The same is true for information included on the copyright page/section or credits of a published work, (such as the name of the author, and cast lists and such) so bibliographies/discographies do not usually need separate sources, although they can be provided. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 20:01, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Sourcing and citations

I have been adding to an entry that someone else created for my late father, Gerald Bonner, who was a historian of the Early Church, recognizing the potential conflict of interest and endeavouring to remain as detached as possible. My father's area of scholarship was such that relatively little has been written about him in secondary sources (other than a festschrift compiled in his honour, which includes a short biography), but having worked my way through his papers and private correspondence there is considerable information in unpublished form. I would like the Wikipedia entry to be as comprehensive as possible and wonder if there is a way to incorporate unpublished sources (perhaps by uploading pertinent documents to an online site). What is the general view of unpublished sources? JBonnerAnglican (talk) 19:22, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Sadly, they cannot be used. WP is an encyclopedia, so we can only summarize what is found in secondary sources. Perhaps some other entity might be interested in his papers...museum, historical society? Best, Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 19:33, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello, JBonnerAnglican, and welcome to the Teahouse! In short, unpublished material (see Wikipedia:Published) is not what should be used on WP. The approach has strengths and drawbacks, but it's how we work. If you wish to write about your father using such material, WP is not the place. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:37, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hello, JBonnerAnglican. I am terribly sorry to disappoint you, but Wikipedia cannot base articles on unpublished documents, nor would it want to base them on links to a blog or other online site. Because we work on a principle of Verifiability (q.v.) we need to cite independent and properly published books, journals or online sources that have had editorial scrutiny. Not doing so would leave us open to all sorts of mischievous links to fake websites, POV-pushing sites and false information. So we have a principle of not accepting them at all. That said, there could be times when an External Link to a resource page might be included, but none of the article's contents should actually be based upon it. The way around the probelm could be to encourage an organisation with some credibility (museum, historical society, university or local newspaper, for example) to publish documents and accounts. We would probably regard that as more reliable than a homespun website, and thus be happier to link to it. Does that make sense? Nick Moyes (talk) 19:39, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for providing a better explanation....Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 19:59, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Need help

An article name Babushan Mohanty was needed additional citation. And someone added references and it improved. So can anyone help me how to remove the tag Additional situation or can someone remove the tag from there. Myslfsbhijit (talk) 19:43, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Myslfsbhijit, welcome to the Teahouse. Almost everything in the article is still uncited. Per WP:BLP, this is not good enough. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:28, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi , thanks for your review and reply. So can you help me how to remove the tag of additional citation need when the article will completely improve ??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Myslfsbhijit (talk • contribs) 06:33, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Deleting revisions

Another user has been adding copyrighted lyrics to Don't Know Why. I want to use Template:Copyvio-revdel to request redaction of these edits, but this is the first time I'm doing this, so I'm a little confused. I know how to add the revision number to the "start" parameter, but it's the "url" field that's perplexing me: "The url of the site the article was in infringement of, or a text explanation of where the source(s) can be verified". No site was infringed upon. How do I handle this kind of thing for copyrighted song lyrics? Thanks. ResPM ^{come to my window} 01:18, 26 July 2020 (UTC) ResPM ^{come to my window} 01:18, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello, ResolutionsPerMinute, and welcome to the Teahouse.

I have done quite a few copyright revdels. What the reviewing admin needs is some way to see the copyrighted text that has been infringed, so that s/he can evaluate exactly what is and what is not an infringement. Note that the admin must confirm that an infringement exists at all, as well as which revisions infringe. So if the copyrighted text is available online, please link to it. If it isn't online, explain where and how to find it, please. Without this, the reviewing admin has a much harder task. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 03:01, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

@DESiegel: I'm a little puzzled. Because it's a modern song (2002) by a well-known commercial artist, shouldn't we assume that it is copyrighted in the absence of evidence of a suitable license (unlikely)? This search shows it's been reproduced all over the place, but those are probably all copyvios, too (as usual), so we don't owe them the protection so much as the original artist, right? The relevant edits are the latest four: 969526531, reverted at 969528179, and 969533068, reverted at 969534325. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 04:19, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

AlanM1, I agree with you and just did the revision deletion. @ResPM:, I think you're all set. Calliopejen1 (talk) 05:58, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. Pinging ResolutionsPerMinute. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 07:03, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

@DESiegel: Thanks for the clarification. So what you're saying is I need to link to some site that displays lyrics, like MetroLyrics? Does it matter if the site is a licensed lyrics provider? ResPM ^{come to my window} 11:49, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

AlanM1 It wasn't so much a question of confirming that a commercial song was copyrighted -- I would indeed assume that -- as of confirming that the text added to the article was in fact the words of the copyrighted commercial song. For that purpose, any reasonably reliable site, copyvio or not, would do. Yes I probably should have just searched for such a site myself, but I answered the question as asked. ResolutionsPerMinute, Calliopejen1 says the issue is now dealt with. But yes, any such site, licensed or not, would serve the purpose, IMO. While we do not normally link to sites that display copyright violations, for the limited and very temporary purpose of showing what the copyrighted text is, I think it would be OK. If a licensed site is known to you, that would be better, of course. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 13:58, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Could someone take a look at an article?

There’s an article with a lot of misinformation and unsourced information about living persons. I tried deleting the edits but other editors told me not to edit the page because I made too many edits and rolled back all of my edits. I understand this, but there are still many edits on living persons without sources which can be reached or any other form of information. If someone could look and possibly work with me or point me in the right direction, that would be great. Thank you! Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 06:07, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

@Lima Bean Farmer: To which article are you referring? —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 07:05, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Seems to be this. Calliopejen1 (talk) 07:56, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't think so, as a bit old. So, again, which article? David notMD (talk) 10:00, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Calliopejen1 has the right one, it’s the 2016 Trump Endorsements. Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 11:45, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

So AlanM1, could you please look at it or point me to someone who will? Thank you. Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 23:35, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

@Lima Bean Farmer: The place to find editors interested in the article is on its talk page. If that doesn't work, try the talk page of the WikiProjects mentioned on the article's talk page. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 06:29, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Notability of Individual Passenger Train Articles

Hello fellow editors ! I have a doubt regarding inclusion of individual articles on normal passenger trains (which are approximately 14,000 in India). For example articles like Indore–Ajmer_Link_Express, Rajendra_Nagar_Patna–Indore_Express. These both examples are completely normal trains, which clear fails WP:GNG and their is no other subject specific guidelines for trains (that I am able to find). Most of these articles are unsourced or poorly sourced stubs. I believe that these articles should not be included on English Wikipedia, this may also be a case of WP:NOTTRAVEL. Can someone provide their views about it. Thanks. Zoodino (talk) 06:08, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Zoodino, I would ask this question at WT:RR. Calliopejen1 (talk) 08:10, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Calliopejen1, I was going to ask at WT:INRI, but asked here earlier to get a general perspective from people who were not a part of the project. I would ask there, but if you or anyone else have views about it, you are welcome to comment here. Zoodino (talk) 15:10, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Is this article self-promotion?

The article about Tim Dodd reads like self-promotion to me. Things like bed sheets, childhood toys, ... triggered me. It feels like it abuses references and links to other articles. But I might be completely wrong - I haven't edited much on Wikipedia.

Reference: Identifying_blatant_advertising (Behalf_of_a_person)

Should I propose changes? 176.63.184.197 (talk) 07:45, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

You're welcome to propose changes. If I were you, I wouldn't be worried by the man's bedsheets; however: (i) "In 2019, Everyday Astronaut stickers were taken up to the International Space Station and photographed floating in the cupola." Cited source for this: a tweet by the man himself. (ii) "he released exclusive video interviews [...] that trended on YouTube." Who were or what was excluded, exactly what (if anything) does "trended" mean, and what's the source for the claim of trendedness or whatever it is? -- Hoary (talk) 09:01, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

about the new article

new article

my husband published a book in 2018 we want to share some of the imporptant informations of that book and author, can we create the new article about that book in wikipedia? shall wikipedia approve the article?? Mariyadivya (talk) 09:21, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Mariyadivya Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia is not a place to merely tell people about something, like a book. As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources with significant coverage state about a subject, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of notability(in this case, the definition of a notable book). Not every book merits a Wikipedia article for this reason. If this book has significant coverage in independent reliable sources(such as reviews or discussion in the news or academic journals, not brief mentions or press releases), it may merit an article.

Furthermore, you would have what we call a conflict of interest(click to review) in writing about your husband's book. Writing a new article is the hardest possible task to perform on Wikipedia; it's even harder to do when you have a conflict of interest, but it is not impossible; you would need to use Articles for Creation to create and submit a draft for review by an independent editor before it is formally placed in the encyclopedia. Please review the conflict of interest policy before attempting to do that. 331dot (talk) 09:28, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

New pages feed backlog

What is with the incredibly long backlog at Special:NewPagesFeed? There are unreviewed articles dating from 2005, and are over 9000 total. I recently created my first article (Ed Currie), and discovered it is pending review. I understand that I just created it and it may take a while, but I am concerned it may take months (due to the backlog). Why is the backlog so long, and is there anything I can do? I-82-I | TALK 09:44, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Don't panic, I-82-I. What looks like an incredibly long backlog of articles from 2005 and 2006 is actually a reflection of very recent changes to pre-existing pages which have brought them suddenly to our attention. For example: Cypriots was a simple redirect page for 13 years until yesterday when this edit converted it to an uncited article. It will now be assessed as if it were a completely new page, but its date of creation is still displayed as 2006. But, yes, it may well take up to three months for a new article to be reviewed. With 9,000 new articles pending review - our volunteers are not going to rush to especially review yours or anyone else's. You will have to be patient. The trick is to make the reviewer's life easy by ensuring you include clear evidence that the topic is notable. If, after 90 days, an article has not been individually reviewed, then it will be released to Google to be indexed. That won't stop someone subsequently nominating it for a deletion discussion - but that applies to every article here. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 10:30, 26 July 2020 (UTC)  

I had recently edited "UNTOUCHABILITY" but it has been deleted after a few days..why is that so ?

 103.208.71.97 (talk) 11:20, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. You edited the article to bold a word in the lead of untouchability; typically only the title of the article, or the titles of redirects to an article, are bolded. 331dot (talk) 11:35, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

103.208.71.149, who edited 22 hours earlier, damaged the markup for an illustration (with no explanation) put various sentences in bold (with no explanation) and removed two references (with no explanation). So in the space of 22 hours, two IP numbers belonging to Global Networks Infocomm Pvt Ltd added nothing to the article Untouchability but instead merely degraded it. I note that another user has since appeared, again putting bits and pieces in bold. My thanks to Suneye1 and Kakima minimoto for their work reverting such damage. -- Hoary (talk) 12:13, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

how do i add reference to the content ?

 Rishabhmukherjee.work (talk) 14:05, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Rishabhmukherjee.work. Welcome to the Teahouse. This is a good question, and an essential skill for anyone to learn if they are tying to write an article from scratch, as you are. You will find guidance by reading though this page: Help:Referencing for beginners. Nothing about a living person should be added to Wikipedia unless supported by a citation. These have to be independent, detailed and reliable. See WP:RS for an explanation of what that means. You might also wish to undertake our interactive tour of Wikipedia called The Wikipedia Adventure, and then read Help:Your first article. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 14:16, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Rishabhmukherjee.work Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Information on citing references can be found at this page. I would note that if you are associated or work for the subject of your draft, you will need to read and formally comply with the paid editing policy and the conflict of interest policy. 331dot (talk) 14:11, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Appears to be about Draft:KaySukumar. which is only article Rishabhmukherjee is editing. David notMD (talk) 17:14, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Just so you know, User:David notMD, I had an IRC discussion with this user and they told me that they were associated with but not paid by the subject. They also sometimes need some direct explanation instead of just pointing them to policy. Just a note so you guys can help this user. Ghinga7 (talk) 19:47, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Looking at the draft, Rishabhmukherjee now shows proficiency in creating references. David notMD (talk) 21:34, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Script size

It seems I have changed something in my preferences but I don' know what? My script in the English wikipedia is now smaller than in the Wikipedias in other languages. Before the script in the English wikipedia was the same size as in the other Wikipedias. I have searched for a solution, but it seems I need help. Thank you very much for anyone who can help. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 14:29, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

@Paradise Chronicle: Perhaps you changed the skin at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-rendering? There doesn't seem to be a font size or name setting specifically, but the different skins likely use different fonts, sizes, etc. for some things. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 15:01, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Could it be a setting in your browser? Many browsers let you set size, e.g., Firefox changes size by pressing the CTRL key while using the mouse wheel; change the size, and a percentage figure is displayed near the top of the screen. The size is unique to a url; thus, en.wikipedia.org is treated differently than fr.wikipedia.org . If that's the case, while viewing the English language Wikipedia, reset the size to match your other language Wikipedias. Pressing CTRL plus "0" (zero) will probably reset it to the default size. --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 15:38, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

@Traveling Man:thank you very muchParadise Chronicle (talk) 16:03, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

@Traveling Man: Thanks for that. I didn't realize that the magnification was for each site by the browser. Learned something new! —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 19:45, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

@Paradise Chronicle: and @AlanM1: Sure thing. I stumbled across it a while back - and keep stumbling over it! --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 20:14, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Deleting birthdate

I have been requested by Mr. Arie Vardi himself to remove his birthdate, which I made several attempts but everytime his birthdate would reappear two days after. Please advise me on how to make this edit permanent. Thank you. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arie_Vardi 47.184.205.107 (talk) 16:21, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

If you are editing on behalf of an article subject, you will need to review the conflict of interest policy. If you are being compensated in any way(not just money) to do so, you must read and comply with the paid editing policy. A Wikipedia article summarizes information that appears in independent reliable sources. Very little on Wikipedia can be made "permanent". If his birth year appears in independent reliable sources, there is not much that can be done to keep it out. If his birth year is not widely published in reliable sources, it may be possible to remove it. You should discuss your concerns on the article talk page, and avoid directly editing the article. You may format your comments as a formal edit request to draw the attention of other editors. One user gave some helpful links in an edit summary here, that you might find helpful. 331dot (talk) 17:00, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Are you the same editor as User:Poonchuifun? Poonchuifun has repeatedly removed the age information from this article, has been warned to stop on Talk page. The year-of-birth information has been in the article for many years. David notMD (talk) 17:24, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

IP editor: I believe you are under the mis-impression that the article Arie Vardi "belongs to" or is controlled by its subject, Arie Vardi, as it might be on a social media platform like Facebook. That is emphatically not the case. Wikipedia is an encyclopædia, not a social media platform. It has articles (i.e., that belong to the encyclopedia) about notable subjects, summarizing what reliable, independent, secondary sources (like books, newspapers, journals, etc.) have said about the subject. What a subject says (or wants to say, or wants to "un-say") about themselves has very little to do with what the article contains, with the exception of provably incorrect or non-neutral point-of-view information. As has been said above, make your case at Talk:Arie Vardi, where editors interested in that article can discuss it with you. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 21:18, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a guideline specifically covering situations like this, about the presumption in favor of privacy. It says at WP:DOB "If a subject complains about our inclusion of their date of birth... err on the side of caution and simply list the year, provided that there is a reliable source for it." That is what is currently in the article. So unless there are extraordinary circumstances, it is probably appropriate to leave it as it is. --Gronk Oz (talk) 12:08, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Rumtek

Dear fellow editors, There is a page on Rumtek Monastery but no page on Rumtek. I think there was a page about the city but was merged into this.... Can you please rename the page to Rumtek, so that I can add information about the city... Cheers ... Anupam Dutta (talk) 17:20, 26 July 2020 (UTC) Anupam Dutta (talk) 17:20, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

@Anupamdutta73: Please make this suggestion on the article talk page: Talk:Rumtek Monastery. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 17:35, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Content deletion no discussion

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

I was looking up the National Christian foundation. The wiki article has a tag saying that it reads like an advertisement. There is little content concerning the many controversies that NCF is embroiled in. There is no talk page content.There have been repeated attempts to add a criticism section but the same IP deletes them with no explanation. I am not an editor. I am a user trying to get good information. How do I contact editors to look at the article. Thanks. 2600:6C50:547F:EE05:A9C4:338B:5830:1CB8 (talk) 19:15, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

The next best step is to start a discussion on the article's talk page. RudolfRed (talk) 19:50, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

I've looked at what's happened. I see your point, 2600:6C50:547F:EE05:A9C4:338B:5830:1CB8. I've asked about this at Talk:National Christian Foundation. Please feel free to participate in any discussion there. (You're likely to sound more credible if you register and edit while logged in.) -- Hoary (talk) 00:12, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Draft Questions

When I first started contributing to Wikipedia I attempted to create an article for a small indie rapper called Emay and I ran into a lot of issues because I was new to the rules. The article was flagged for deletion because I cited too many sources and a lot of the content wasn't necessary. I was able to convince the people planning on deleting the article to instead draftify the article and since then I've trimmed down the number of sources and the content. I was curious how I'd go about receiving advice as to which of the remaining sources are acceptable and I figured either someone here would help me with that or I could maybe submit the draft for review, but I wasn't sure if having the article reviewed was the right thing to do yet.

Here's the article:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Emay_(rapper)

Thanks for your help! TipsyElephant (talk) 19:17, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

TipsyElephant, I'd just go ahead and submit for review at this point. Others can chime in with their advice and suggestions, if they have any, though. Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:51, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

There were negative and false statements written about me on a Wikipedia page

 69.112.173.80 (talk) 20:32, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Assuming you are the subject you have edited about- if there is incorrect information in the article about you, please make an edit request on the article talk pages, detailing the nature of the errors. Please understand that Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources state. 331dot (talk) 20:42, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

The page Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Help has information about additional help options for you, as well. Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:49, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

1619 Project

In the 1619 Project citation it is correctly stated that enslaved Africans were in St. Augustine, Fl in the 15th century. I am concerned that this gives the impression that this was the beginning of North American slavery. American Archaeology Mag. Summer issue 2020 indicates the presence of enslaved Africans in what is known today as Mexico as early as 1518. Something to consider. 68.109.38.110 (talk) 20:56, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

If you have suggestions for improving an article, you should start a discussion on that article's talk page. Or, be WP:BOLD and make the change. A note though: 1518 is the 16th century, so it is after the 15th century reference you are concerned about. RudolfRed (talk) 21:04, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Need direction or support with draft

Hi there! I have been trying to add a living person biography for this acclaimed Doctor and realized I am not following the correct formats/templates. The document I was given to work with has the short bio I included, but then an extensive list for each of his accomplishments. I have edited pages successfully but never created a new one and I find myself at an impasse. I either need a ton of guidance or referral to a writer who can do this correctly if I provide the content.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Masood_A._Khatamee,_MD,_FACOG Leslie Mark (talk) 21:30, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

@Leslie Mark: Welcome to Wikipedia, thanks for wanting to add to it. Writing a new article is not an easy task, so you may want to instead just continue to work on existing articles. Some quick feedback: An encyclopedia article is not a CV. Start by cutting out the continuing education, societies, appointments, honors, and presentations sections. Then, you can use the guide at WP:YFA for creating the article. RudolfRed (talk) 21:39, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

SO MUCH OF THE CONTENT needs to be deleted, and then references provided for the rest. For example, a list of continuing medical education programs he has taken part in has no part in the article, and same for the LONG list of presentations. I suggest you find existing articles about academics and model on those. David notMD (talk) 21:56, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

@Leslie Mark: The way you worded your question suggests to me rather clearly that you may have a close connection with the subject, or are being WP:PAID to write the article for them. If so, you should declare any Conflict of Interest and, if an employee or otherwise paid to write this, you are obliged under our terms of service to declare who is paying you. Please read both WP:COI and WP:PAID to understand what to do before continuing to edit. At the moment, what you have written looks just like a self-promotional LinkedIn page, full or trivia, and definitely not a succinct encyclopaedia article about a Notable Person. Nobody cares about all the trivia, and everyone needs references to independent, reliable, published sources which show how this "acclaimed doctor" is noteworthy. This matter should be addressed as a priority. Remember "less is more". Nick Moyes (talk) 22:15, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Christi Golden-Clark history

How do I get my name corrected and apart from other people with similar names to mine and a history of myself? 1964 Miss Teenage Detroit, Dearborn High 1965 graduate, shot by my husband Victor Robert Golden, Jr. on December 18, 1969, lead singer in local band, sang at Confetti Lounge in Dearborn 1960s, model 1960s, wrote FAMOUS LAST Words: "If I Can't Have You, No One Else Can" 2015 and FAMOUS LAST WORDS: "I Will Survive" 2020. Founder and Director of Overcomers of Domestic Violence and Asheville Writers Reign. Book signings at Barnes and Noble book stores, Interviewed by WLOS, Asheville affiliate of ABC and 96.5 Magic Radio by Bill Clement. 174.80.249.107 (talk) 21:59, 26 July 2020 (UTC) Christi Golden-Clark

This is a place for Wikipedia-related questions. Are you referring to existing articles with names similar to yours? Because I do not see any Wikipedia articles with similar names. David notMD (talk) 22:05, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

I suspect that the poster is searching, either in Wikipedia or in Google, David notMD, and Christie Golden is coming up. Christi, if there is enough material published about you by people with no connection with you, so that you meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability, then we could have an article about you; but you are strongly discouraged from writing it yourself. --ColinFine (talk) 23:38, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Striking a deadname from my user page's edit history

Hiya, folks! I have a bit of an unorthodox question- I'm aware that edit histories are generally permanent, as that's the point of them, but quite recently I re-examined my identity and came to the conclusion that I'm trans-feminine non-binary. As such, I've changed my name to suit this identity, and because of this, I now consider my deadname to be rather sensitive information. This is a big deal for me, and this is the only time in my life I've ever changed my real name, so I hope there's no worry this will become a regular occurrence for me or anything! I understand if there's no way to do this, but I would really, really prefer that the edit history of my userpage doesn't contain any revisions with reference to my deadname. I'm willing to jump through whatever hoops it takes to achieve this! Thank you for your time <3 Mexxmer (talk) 22:28, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

@Mexxmer: Userpages can be deleted upon request. User talk pages can't be. Are you just referring to your user page? If so, do you want all but the current revision deleted? Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:37, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello Mexxmer. I've gone ahead and just done this in the usual manner. If you wish to delete the whole thing you can do that by adding {{db-user}} to the page. User pages (technically, pages in user space) are treated very differently from article pages and you get a fair bit of latitude with them. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 22:38, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you guys so much, this means a ton to me! :D Mexxmer (talk) 22:42, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

NEED HELP TO IMPROVE MY ARTICLE

I have submitted my article but was rejected so i can add more references, i have a few but i recon they are not satisfactory enough, kindly advise how many reference more will be adequate in order to get this article published, just now i have added 2 references (2 and 12), can these assist my article?.

• Draft:Ojay

Bethel Sandius (talk) 23:16, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Not really. Interviews do not establish notability. Nor podcasts. Nor brief mentions on music sites. This may just be WP:TOOSOON in his career for people to have written about him at length. David notMD (talk) 23:34, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hello, Bethel Sandius, and welcome to the Teahouse. First of all you should note thatr the draft was declined not rejected. Declined means "this isn't ready yet, try gain." Rejected means "This won't ever be ready, stop wasting your time and ours."

It is not a question oif how many sources are cited as it is of their quality. To pass the general notability guideline and WP:BASIC there must be multiple sources (usually three to five), each of which is independent and reliable, and each of which contains significant coverage] o9f the subject. This usually means several paragraphs about the subject, not a brief p-assing mention. It also means that the coverage cannot be based primarily on an interview with the subject, nor on a press release. Also, links to online searches do not qualify. WP:NMUSIC offers some other ways to demonstrate notability, but but significant coverage in multiple sou7rce is the most commo9n. Let us examine the currently cit3ed sources:

1. Punch Newspapers. This is an interview and so does not count toward notability
2. Soundreloaded This has only trivial coverage, and has signs of being based on a press release. It does not help.
3. Eastern Mediterranean University. This is a site search and so not a valid reference. It should be removed. In any case a page from EMU could do not more than confirm the subject's education, which does not help with notability.
4. Galaxy seems to be an interview, and so of no value.
5. Naijaloaded (2018-09-08) seems to be an interview or a show in which the subject participates, and so of no value.
6. Naijaloaded (2018-12-17) seems to be an interview or a show in which the subject participates, and so of no value.
7. Naijaloaded (2019-06-14) seems to be an interview or a show in which the subject participates, and so of no value.
8. Naijaloaded (2020-02-05) seems to be an interview or a show in which the subject participates, and so of no value.
9. SoundCloud seems to be a recording of one of the subject's performances. This is not independent, and is of no value in establishing notability. It should probably be removed.
10. Soundreloaded "Money Hanger seems to be a video for one of the subjects songs. This is not independent, and is of no value in establishing notability. It should probably be removed.
11. NAIJAOXYGEN seems to be another video of the subject, or perhaps another link to the same video. This is not independent, and is of no value in establishing notability. It should probably be removed.
12. Soundreloaded "Ojay - Silekun". This is yet another video featuring the subject. This is not independent, and is of no value in establishing notability. It should probably be removed.

In short none of the currently cited sources are of value in demonstrating the subject's notability, and several of them should be removed from the draft.

I urge you not to resubmit the draft until and unless you have found three to five sources each of which is reliable, independent, and offers significant coverage of Ojay. Don't have too many sources beyond your core ones, or include a comment saying which are the best three to five. I hope that is helpful. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 00:06, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

The alternative accounts

Hello fellow editors,

If the main account was blocked (for a certain period), but the legitimate alternate secondary account is still available to edit, Can the user ask a review of that block at "Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents" by this secondary account? Goodtiming8871 (talk) 23:56, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

@Goodtiming8871: Follow the appeal instructions in the talk page block notice of the blocked account. The appeal should come from that account. The block applies to the person. There should be no editing from any alternative accounts. RudolfRed (talk) 00:08, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

@Goodtiming8871: The blocked account is generally still able to edit their talk page to request a block review. Which account is this about? —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 06:47, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

What does "Undo" mean in the page history?

Hi, What does "undo" mean in a page history? Does it mean someone has reviewed it and propose for the change to be undo? E.g. 17:58, 9 July 2020‎ 2001:b07:6442:43f4:4176:e7d:fb06:73ed talk‎ 59,977 bytes +55‎ undo Page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Homer&action=history Thank you! 2600:1700:E120:9D80:1D68:60AC:94C4:51E5 (talk) 00:34, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

In an edit summary, it usually means reversing/reverting the edit, or series of edits, that came immediately before. -- Hoary (talk) 01:11, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

In a page history, each entry has several (blue-colored) links that are used to perform various actions. undo is used to revert (undo) that particular edit. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 06:51, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

How to reply to "Talk"?

How do I reply to "Talk"? Do I just click edit and start writing? Am I supposed to start writing at the top or at the end of what the other person sent me? Thank you! 2600:1700:E120:9D80:65AB:656:2D26:FA99 (talk) 00:51, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

I am hereby replying to you, within a page that isn't named anything-talk but is structured like a talk page. As you can see, I am replying below what I'm replying to. I am preceding my comment with one more colon than was before the message I'm replying to. As that message had no colons, I'm using one colon. And at the end of my reply, I hit the "~" key four times in a row. Hoary (talk) 01:14, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

I am hereby replying to Hoary. As the message above had one colon, I'm using two colons. And at the end of my reply, I also hit the "~" key four times in a row. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 02:35, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Adding a DISAMBIGUATION page and adding old article link to it, plus my new article

 Jagganath69 (talk) 03:29, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Greetings,

   With so much rules to follow, I do not know where to begin to effect this change. Can anyone give me a link to where I can read the instructions ?

DISAMBIGUATION

  "AT FIRST LIGHT"

-- current article is about Irish music group -- my new article (so far) : 2018 film by Fortitude International productions.

  IMDB link: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt5994166/?ref_=nv_sr_srsg_0  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jagganath69 (talk • contribs) 03:33, 27 July 2020 (UTC) 

@Jagganath69: The relevant pages to look at are WP:DPAGE and MOS:DAB. However, I wouldn't worry too much about the disambiguation page yet since you haven't created the article for the movie yet. First, make sure the movie fulfills the notability criteria for films outlined at WP:NFILM. Then, head to the the article wizard to create a draft article. After the draft's quality is checked, it will be turned into a proper article, and then we would create the disambiguation page. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 04:13, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

List of templates?

I am looking for a list of templates and reasons for using them. Thanks! Thx56 (talk) 04:24, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

@Thx56: Well, there's Wikipedia:Template index, but that page is quite hefty and there's probably a lot more templates that aren't listed there. What exactly do you want to do with a template? ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 04:41, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

I have received a spurious comment related to the pages which I have not edited or even I haven't ever come across

May 2020 Information icon Hello, I'm Suneye1. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Dulquer Salmaan have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse. Thanks. SUN EYE 1 07:38, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Information icon Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Remya Nambeesan. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

Who is this Suneye!....Dulquer & Remya?....I do not know any of them...Kindly settle if any there any issue... Argsvdv (talk) 06:47, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

@Argsvdv: You are referring to messages that appear on the talk page of an anonymous IP address (e.g., User talk:192.168.123.45). ISPs reassign IP addresses to users at various times, so if you did not edit those articles, it was someone else who was assigned that IP address at that time. The solution is to create an account and log in, as you have now done, so anything you do is attributed to your username (Argsvdv) and any communication directed to your talk page (User talk:Argsvdv) will definitely be intended for you. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 07:04, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Magazine publication date is not acceptable

I am sure this has been asked many times, but I can't find it - please feel free to slap me with a fish if it's obvious.

I am adding a citation to a magazine which has a publication date of "Feb/Mar 2020". That's what it says on the magazine, and I tried to be accurate in the citation and put it there. But then I get the error message "Check date values in: date=". And looking at the Help, there is no date format which seems to support this. So how can I put the date correctly into the citation? Gronk Oz (talk) 07:18, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

@Gronk Oz: Don't abbreviate months and use an unspaced endash separator: |date=February–March 2020. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 07:45, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you @AlanM1: that is exactly what I needed. I tried lots of permutations, but not the right one (of course!) --Gronk Oz (talk) 08:09, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Anne Kabagambe

Hi there. I've had an AfC submission (Draft:Anne Kabagambe) pending for nearly 8 weeks now; I understand there is a heavy backlog of pending submissions at the moment but there hasn't been any signs of a reviewer looking to pick it up. Davykamanzi → talk • contribs • alter ego 10:49, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

You'll see from Category:AfC pending submissions by age/7 weeks ago that there are nearly 300 pages in that category, but fewer than 100 have had to wait 8 weeks, so hopefully you won't have too much longer to wait. --David Biddulph (talk) 10:57, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

"Strength in numbers, is strictly a material condition" -Carl von Clausewitz-

 74.138.140.251 (talk) 11:07, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Do you have a question about using Wikipedia? -- Hoary (talk) 11:35, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Wanted Help to Review My First Article

Hello, I have created my first article using Afc wizard. The draft Draft:David Friend is pending for review. Please help me review and learn how can I improve my article further. JakePeraltaB99 (talk) 12:54, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

JakePeraltaB99, The first improvement is to understand that a fact, once verified in a reliable source, is verified. "in a $1.42 billion deal.[4][5][14][15][16]" makes the draft unreadable, and is a prime example of WP:CITEKILL. Instead we need one excellent reference per fact asserted. If you are sure it is beneficial, two, and at an absolute maximum, three. A fact you assert once verified in a reliable source, is verified. More is gilding the lily. Please choose the very best in each case of multiple referencing for a single point and either drop or repurpose the remainder.

Things like this prevent readers and reviewers alike from reviewing the draft or reading a finished article in this state. Legibility is fundamental. I anticipate that this will be declined, which means pushed back to you for further work.

I have not been able to make a judgement on Notability yet because I have no idea which references you will redeploy or drop, 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. Fiddle Faddle 13:02, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello Fiddle, thank you so much for helping me out. I will make the modifications to make the article better and then reach out to you when I need further help. Thank you again.--JakePeraltaB99 (talk) 13:10, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

JakePeraltaB99, always keep improving a draft even after you press submit, even when it is an article. Fiddle Faddle 13:13, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello Fiddle, sure. I will keep on working and improving the draft/article. I have removed the excess references as you had advised. Wanted to check in terms of notability, what can I improve here. I read the articles on general notability and biography notability but I am still not completely clear about it.

According to my understanding, if a person is well known and has any significant accomplishment, it makes that notable. Please let me know where am I going wrong. Thank you so much for helping me out. It's helping me a lot.--JakePeraltaB99 (talk) 14:45, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

JakePeraltaB99, notability is an awkward mix of objective and subjective. When I look at this chap though my jaundiced eyes now it is legible I see someone who's made a slew of cash starting companies up. Me? I see those folk as commonplace. They are notable to their staff and those who love or hate them. So there has to be more.

His products do not make him notable because he cannot inherit notability from anyone using them and when he makes them they are his products. It becomes a circular argument.

I can spot one item in here, the huge gemstone collection gift.

But this is me. Others here wil have different views. Some will be more stringent others less so. That brings me to my brief when I review a draft (I'm going to let other reviewers review yours since I've helped you). My role is to accept if I see it having a better than 50% chance of surviving an immediate nomination for one of the deletion processes. I think you can spot that I am at around 48-49% sure at present.

Why would I hesitate?

Because having an article deleted or discussed for deletion is unpleasantly stressful for the creator, and places a strict time deadline on improvements. Even then an improvement may not save the article Fiddle Faddle 14:57, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

JakePeraltaB99, And I failed to answer what would improve it! Something special about Friend would do the trick Fiddle Faddle 14:58, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello Fiddle, Understood. So I have to give and highlight the points which makes him different from the herd of common people who just run the companies and try to make big bucks. In the following case, I tried to focus on the following points:

1. He made donations to Yales Peabody Mueseum.

2. His synthesizer product was used by well known artists and also close encounters and R2D2(I think this is very significant as Star Wars is legendary and R2D2's voice wouldn't have been what it was without it.).

3. Boston Mayor gave delcared David Friend Day.

Should these be sufficient for a person to be notable or should there be something more apart from these. If yes, can you provide some kind of example for me to understand better.--JakePeraltaB99 (talk) 15:14, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Issues with archiving references in Wayback Machine

Hi, I'm not sure if there is a fix for this, but it would help to know if what I'm seeing with Wayback Machine is common, maybe depending on the websites themselves, or if it's due to some particular setting in my browser maybe.

I try to archive every website URL that use as a source to avoid future broken links, but the process is very hit and miss for me. I have the Chrome Wayback Machine extension add-on and just click on it to "save page". Most of the time (maybe 75% of the time) it works fine and I the archived version opens in another tab from where I can just copy the URL.

However, sometimes it just doesn't work and I would get the message: "Hrm. The Wayback Machine has not archived that URL." Then it gets a bit circular, because it tells me (under the previous message): "This page is available on the web! Help make the Wayback Machine more complete!" with another button to save, which sometimes results in a message of "Done!" but the link generated only takes to the same error message, and sometimes trying to save again results in a message of "This was saved a minute ago" (something along those lines).

The latest URL where this is happening is this one (this happens to be in Spanish, but I've seen this behavior for a variety of websites in English too): https://www.salamanca24horas.com/texto-diario/mostrar/926553/danos-milenario-verraco-estatua-lazarillo-puente-romano

So two questions: - Has anybody seen these kinds of issues with Wayback Machine archiving? - Is there another way to archive source URls?

Sorry for the long rambling message and thanks for the help!

--Alan Islas (talk) 14:40, 27 July 2020 (UTC) Alan Islas (talk) 14:40, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Seeking reviews on pre-submission page draft.

I have created a draft in the article wizard for Draft:Mary McEnerney Woolley and am seeking additional opinions on reference validity, format, section breakdown, and any other details that would weaken the caliber of the page. Additionally, I have omitted family information because I do not have independent references to corroborate, but see that many pages include this information while it is only partially cited. What is the best practice here? I am currently working on obtaining copyright privileges for a headshot, so it is not yet included. I am a wiki-beginner and welcome the feedback of the experienced community. Thank you. VonEisenMark (talk) 15:03, 27 July 2020 (UTC)