Wikipedia:Teahouse

Stormy clouds, 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

Point deduction for football league table

Hi, how do you add in point deductions for teams in football league table? Editing Essex Senior League table for 2020-21 but can’t figure out how to add a 6pt deduction for southend manor Platypus88 (talk) 20:02, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Greetings Platypus88. Sadly, I do not know how to do that either. But unless someone else answers here, you might want to try over at the Wikiproject Football. (btw, consider leaving an edit summary in the future so other Wikipedians can see what you changed more easily!) --LordPeterII (talk) 09:55, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Edit war

I recently came across cases of disruptive editing on several historical articles. The user makes incorrect ideological edits, using sources already used or adds questionable sources for these purposes. He doesn't discuss his edits after reverting, but simply does them again.

I read the recommendations of Wikipedia, but I still didn't understand what I supposed to do. I would like to know the position of experienced participants on this matter. Please, explain what I have to do in such situations. Also, rate his and my actions and make a revision (if needed).

Revision histories:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Simo_H%C3%A4yh%C3%A4&action=history
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Soviet%E2%80%93Japanese_border_conflicts&action=history
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battles_of_Khalkhin_Gol&action=history KiL92 (talk) 16:42, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

You Canhthuy9 and Kil92 are in or on the verge of having edit war on three articles, which can lead to being temporarily blocked. Kil92 recommended going to the Talk pages of the articles in question to start discussions on how to resolve the disputes, including fact that one of the sources you cite is being described as unreliable. That is the correct follow-up. David notMD (talk) 20:04, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the answer. Yes, I suggested moving on to the discussion. I want to know what to do if Canhthuy9 continues his/her activity without consensus. Then his/her edits can be regarded as vandalism? KiL92 (talk) 22:16, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Edits in good faith are not considered vandalism, but there are other ways to ask for help with a disruptive editor. David notMD (talk) 23:23, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

What ways? Please clarify. KiL92 (talk) 00:21, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Canhthuy9 and Kil92 Wikipedia:Edit warring details what is and what is not edit warring, and how to register a problem with Administrators. Be aware that filing a complaint can boomerang back to the person filing. Strongly recommend trying to resolve on Talk pages of articles first. If it does go to Administrators, they want to see efforts were first made to resolve the problem. David notMD (talk) 14:54, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Asteroid Mining Corporation

Hello there, my name's Ian Winiarski, and I'd like to talk to you about my draft article that I have written that you have repeatedly rejected. I have written an article draft regarding the Asteroid Mining Corporation, however you have stated that it is not notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia, I don't know if you'll change you mind on this, but I will still point out the flaws in your argument nonetheless. My first example is another company focused upon space resource extraction, the Shackleton Energy Company. In this Wikipedia which was in fact approved that regards a company focused on extracting resources from space, there are thirteen sources, many of which barely or don't at all mention the Shackleton Energy Company. My draft article regarding the Asteroid Mining Corporation, which you have rejected twice, has seventeen sources, and likely more to come, all of which are focused upon the subject of the Asteroid Mining Corporation, and don't just have passing mentions of the Asteroid Corporation. Another example that I will bring up is Deep Space Industries, which is in fact another example of a space resources company. Coincidently, the Wikipedia article regarding Deep Space Industries also only has thirteen sources, many of which barely or don't at all mention the company. Given the evidence that I provided, it is clear that the article draft I have written regarding the Asteroid Mining Corporation does in fact deserve approval. It has seventeen sources and many more to come that are specifically focused upon the Asteroid Mining Corporation, given the other two examples I have provided, them being Deep Space Industries and the Shackleton Energy Company, it is clear that the article I have written regarding the Asteroid Mining Corporation deserves approval. However regardless of what I believe to be a large mistake, I thank you for your input on the article draft that I have written. All input is much appreciated, and serves for the betterment of the article draft regarding the Asteroid Mining Corporation that I have written, and will play a key role in providing readers with a better article when this article is eventually approved, whenever that may occur. The link for my article draft regarding the Asteroid Mining Corporation and the links for Deep Space Industries and the Shackleton Energy Company are below. I hope you take what I have stated here into some consideration, and even if you don't, I thank you for reading this.

- Ian Winiarski

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_Space_Industries https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shackleton_Energy_Company --— Preceding unsigned comment added by IanWiniarski (talk • contribs) 2020-12-06T18:33:47 (UTC)

Hello, IanWiniarski. I'm afraid I'm not interested in ploughing through a wall of text to see if there is merit in what you say: please use paragraphs. I will, however, point you to OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. The fact that you may have found a couple of the thousands and thousands of substandard articles has no bearing on whether a new one will be accepted or not. Feel free to improve the existing articles, or nominate them for deletion if their subjects are not notable. --ColinFine (talk) 20:00, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Asteroid Mining Corporation was Rejected (stronger than Declined) and then resubmitted by an editor other than the one who created the draft, with only minor changes in the interim. I agree with the Rejection. Massive amounts of text in the draft are there to justify the concept of asteroid mining. These are not relevant to AMC. The first ref, used 16 times, is by AMC. Wikipedia only cares (and allows) content written by others about a company, not what the company says about itself. Ref quantity is meaningless, and in fact Wikipedia dissuades over-referencing. In my opinion, the only chance for this draft is to blank everything and start fresh. David notMD (talk) 20:27, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Articles contain only what has been, not what is planned. David notMD (talk) 21:01, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

(e/c) Hi Ian. What we are looking for when we review a draft is that the content be primarily verified by citation to reliable, secondary and entirely independent sources, directly supporting the information written, and that by the use of those types of sources, if they treat the topic in substantive detail, a demonstration is provided of the topic's notability.

Ideally, then, a good draft would be what would present if someone with no familiarity with Asteroid Mining Corporation, and couldn't care less about promoting it, decided to write only what the could learn by looking at those types of independent sources – possibly, just possibly filling in minor gaps, for utterly straightforward details that present no analysis, opinions, or synthesis, with primary sources.

That is not at all how the draft presents. Let's take a look at the 17 current sources cited. Respectively, in order of their use:

1. Own website - non-independent source ("NIS"); useless for demonstrating any notability, and as primary source has limited use;
2. Does not mention the draft topic at all ("DNMTDTAA");
3. Youtube video by CEO of company and NIS;
4. NASA source – DNMTDTAA;
5. Physics World – a brief mention, i.e., non-substantive treatment ("NST"), followed by a quote from CEO, i.e., NIS;
6. CGTN – seemingly fair source; appears at first blush independent; real news organization; has some substantive content that isn't, on its face, regurgitated press release material
7. NewSpace Index – NST, just a name drop, seemingly misused in draft to support fact not appearing in source (fails verification);
8. Listing site of related companies – regurgitates companies' own material – useless NIS;
9. Repeat of source 7;
10. "Error 521"; "Web server is down";
11. Company's own Twitter Tweat – useless NIS; see also WP:TWITTER;
12. Own Facebook (currently says "The link you followed may be broken"); – useless NIS;
13. Tech Times – seemingly fair source; appears at first blush independent; has some seemingly usable content;
14. Academic paper – DNMTDTAA;
15. Space.com article – DNMTDTAA;
16. Digital Trends article – seemingly fair source; appears at first blush independent; has some seemingly usable content;
17. Crunchbase; mere listing, NIS; NST.

Okay, so as you see, there are three sources above that may be useful for a decent write up. They are buried among the others—for content that mostly should not be included. If, with great discipline, you were to pretend to be the type of independent writer I spoke of above, and started essentially from scratch, citing just these three sources and others like it, for a completely neutral write-up of only what they verify, the draft might have a decent chance of acceptance. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:25, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

IanWiniarski, to summarise what Fuhghettaboutit says: You've got three (probably) good sources there. If you want your draft to get through review, make sure the overworked reviewer looks at them. Don't hide them in a pile of garbage. Maproom (talk) 23:03, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

As the reviewer, I'd also just like to point out that this is the third version of this page that has existed within the past week or so. Versions 1 and 2 were speedily deleted around several days ago, and this third version is pretty much a carbon copy of the previous versions. Curbon7 (talk) 02:54, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Draft deleted and submitting editor blocked. David notMD (talk) 14:51, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Requests instead of Reverts

Some wiki articles such as the Notability article (just as an example) state that when an editor feels articles or edits to articles are not suitable (he doesn't like the sources, the content, the length, or other issue) he should either look for sources himself, ask the article's or edit's editor, or ask for input from others. Yet I find that what generally happens is someone will simply, quickly "revert" or reject without taking any of these steps first. Why? And is there a way to try to ensure that happens instead of sudden rejections/declines or reverts? DogBehaviorPro (talk) 21:12, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

@DogBehaviorPro: Welcome to Wikipedia. Reverting is part of the normal Wikipedia process of being Bold with changes. If someone objects to the revert, they may restore the material and start a discussion on the article's talk page to get consensus. See WP:BRD for more info on this. If you see something reverted and you disagree with it, then you can start that discussion. RudolfRed (talk)

Hi DogBehaviorPro. I'm going to slightly disagree with a part of what RudolfRed posted above. If you're BOLD, and your edit is subsequently REVERTed by another editor, then you shouldn't automatically revert back unless there's a really clear and strong policy-based or guideline-based reason for doing so (e.g. a clearcut case of WP:VANDAL, a clear WP:BLP violation). What you should do, in principle, is (1) look at the page's history for an edit summary explaining why your edit was reverted and then (2) seek clarification from the editor who reverted you by posting a message on their user talk page or by posting a message on the article talk page if you still don't understand or agree with the revert. Bold, Revert, Discuss (or WP:BRD) is good practice most ot the time when trying to resolve any disagreements you may have with others over article content; Bold, Revert, Revert back, Discuss (or WP:BRRD), on the other hand, is usually counterproductive because it can quickly lead to edit warring which is something nobody really wins. You need to be really quite positve that any reverting back of a reverted edit you make will not be considered edit warring by the community at large because you may be sanctioned by an administrator if it's not. Whenever in doubt, try to seek resolution per WP:DR since will likely lead to a resolution that's best for Wikipedia and avoid any problems requiring administrator action. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:41, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Request for review

Would someone, or even several someones, be available to review the following page. It is my first and seems to be drawing some conflicting opinions. Thanks

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Playcrafting Naixa (talk) 02:48, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Naixa, the page is queued in the new pages feed, and will receive a review from a new page patroller in the next few weeks. There's also some chance it might be nominated for deletion before then, given it's already had a speedy deletion attempt and a draftification which you reverted. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 10:05, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks (talk) 02:48, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Contact Editor who removed my article

Eddie891 removed my article. How can I contact him to find out why and get him to reinstate it? GeorgeSanders1008 (talk) 04:13, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

@GeorgeSanders1008: You can leave that user a message at User talk:Eddie891 RudolfRed (talk) 04:24, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi GeorgeSanders1008. The reason why are explained at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Mt. Shasta. I cannot speak for Eddie891, but the consensus at the discussion was clearly that the topic did not meet our notability requirements, and so the topic did not appear to warrant a stand-alone encyclopedia article. In my experience, the only likely grounds on which a request for reinstatement might be successful, if at all, is if you can and do point to a variety of reliable, secondary and independent sources, which treat the topic in substantive detail, that are in addition to the sources used in support of the prior version of the deleted article, and assure the requestee that if the content is userfied, you will be adding those sources to the content before attempting to return it to the article mainspace. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 05:17, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

GeorgeSanders1008, I am an editor who has visited the Mount Shasta region many times, and have hiked extensively on its slopes. I made it to the summit by the West Face Gully route in 2007 at age 55, a grueling and gratifying experience. I am in complete agreement with the deletion of this article, because this person is not notable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:30, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd pretty much agree with Fuhghettaboutit above. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:17, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

reopening a rfc

Hello! I intend on reopening a rfc with the permission of the original discussion's author - do I start it directly below the original posts, or create an entirely new section? Thank you! Bettydaisies (talk) 05:27, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi Bettydaisies. You can find out more about RfCs in WP:RFC, but generally it's not proper for an editor to re-open an already closed RFC; if might be possible to challenge the close as explained in WP:CLOSECHALLENGE, but you can't really just re-open the discussion just because you want it to continue. However, it seems to be possible "re-start" an RfC that hasn't been officially closed as explained in WP:RFC#Restarting an RfC. Sometimes an RfC is started but never ends up (for various reasons) resolving anything and just whithers and dies on the vine so to speak; eventually a bot will show up and remove the RfC template and the discussion may then even be archived after a certain amount of time has past. So, perhaps if you could provide a link to the actual talk page where the RfC in question can be found, another Teahouse host can give asses what happened and provide you with some more specific advice. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:55, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Change username

Hi! Sorry, but I am just trying to figure out how to change my username is all  Rachelmarie24 (talk) 06:38, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi Rachelmarie24. You can find out more about username changes at Wikipedia:Changing username. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:49, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Footnote question

I have been doing a bit of work on the Eureka Flag article and I have a question. You will see that footnote 35 has been used number of times. But how do you deal with a situation such as in footnote 101 where the reference is nested within another reference? Robbiegibbons (talk) 07:25, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi Robbiegibbons. Does footnote #35 even satisfy WP:PUBLISHED (WP:PUBLISH)? If the material cited in both footnotes is essentially the same, then you probably can just use footnote 101. I don't think you can really cite what someone might have said during a talk at some academic conference (unless there's some "published" record of it available somewhere), but you can perhaps cite any published materials that the talk was based upon if that can be done in accordance with WP:RS. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:36, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

como pasar videos para yuotube

 OSONEGROOSOPANDAOSOELGEY (talk) 07:42, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

OSONEGROOSOPANDAOSOELGEY, este es un foro sobre wikipedia, no sobre youtube. Para descargar un video a YouTube, haga clic en el ícono de descarga y envíe el video que desea enviar. (for other editors, he's asking on how to upload vids to youtube). GeraldWL 07:46, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello OSONEGROOSOPANDAOSOELGEY. This is the English Wikipedia. Perhaps you can find some help at the Spanish Wikipedia. On the other hand, Wikipedia is not a website to learn about uploading YouTube videos. This is not a how to website. Check out YouTube itself for that. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it

Offensive Content

Can someone please review the first line of this article as it is offensive: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_multinational_festivals_and_holidays 82.26.219.36 (talk) 08:02, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Reverted. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Takes a strong man to deny...} 08:03, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Need a guide

I need a guide/book for learning the wikitext/wiki-markup language (by mediawiki). Are there any freely available books or websites for learning the complete wikitext/wiki-markup language? Huzaifa abedeen (talk) 09:38, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Huzaifa abedeen, Help:Cheatsheet has most of the basic markup. Beyond that, most Wikipedia editors just learn through experience or through documentation at specific help pages. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 09:59, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Article posting

How to post articles online RIPU D SINGH (talk) 10:56, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

RIPU D SINGH Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Successfully creating a new article is the absolute hardest thing to do here on Wikipedia. It takes much time, effort, and practice. Many new users fail in their first attempts and get frustrated and upset, I don't want to see that happen to you. For that reason, I would suggest that you first spend time editing existing articles in areas that interest you, to get a feel for how Wikipedia operates and what is expected of article content. If you gain experience first, you will greatly increase your chances of succeeding at writing a new article. It's also a good idea for you to use the new user tutorial.

However, if you still want to attempt to create a new article, you should first read Your First Article and then use Articles for Creation to create and submit a draft for someone else to look at before formally placing it in the encyclopedia. 331dot (talk) 11:08, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

What do I do with an article idea

I think there is an article that should be added to Wikipedia I don't know what to do, should I propose it in some way? Or should I just start one? FatSheeep (talk) 11:02, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, FatSheeep. You could add the proposed article to one of the lists at Wikipedia:Requested articles, but given the size of the backlog there, it could well be decades before anyone picks up on your suggestion. The alternative is to write it yourself and submit it for review, as explained at Help:Your first article. Either way, it's a good idea to check whether the subject meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines first, because if it doesn't then the article won't be accepted. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:11, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Webtrees

Can this script be setup to track seed breeding? Thanks in Advanced 98.185.199.152 (talk) 14:31, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm confused what you're asking about. The Teahouse, I'll add as well, is for asking questions about how to edit Wikipedia. Le Panini ^Talk 14:49, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

I assume this is about Webtrees (which article I have just tagged as having no reliable independent sources and being probably not notable). If the answer to your question isn't in that article, then the only place on Wikipedia where it would be appropriate to ask is at the Computing section of the Reference Desk. --ColinFine (talk) 19:06, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia 1.0 Server

I've tried using my wikiproject's table containing lists based on importance and quality, and over the last few days I've been completely unable to get the lists of articles to load or anything else for that matter. Is the server down or something? Am I doing something wrong on my end? I'm currently working on the Wikiproject Podcasting. TipsyElephant (talk) 14:31, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

@TipsyElephant: I assume you mean that. I investigated, and it seems like that webserver is down. However, That tool is not provided by the Wikimedia Foundation which hosts Wikipedia, so I assume we cannot help you. Victor Schmidt (talk) 15:55, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Student's Sandbox Content Deleted

Hello, I am writing to see if I can get some additional information on my student's (User:KS2812) sandbox content which was deleted because of copyright concerns. There seems to be a misunderstanding as the student was simply updating material from the existing Philosophy of Biology article and was doing that work in his sandbox before moving it over to mainspace. The copyright issue referenced is actually an error because the website mentioned actually copied the article text from Wikipedia (not the other way around). We are trying to recover the lost material from KS2812's sandbox and cannot seem to locate it. Could you please advise? Thank you in advance for your assistance. Amyc29 (talk) 15:19, 7 December 2020 (UTC) Amyc29 (talk) 15:19, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

@Amyc29: You can ask at WP:REFUND for the page to be undeleted so the user may continue to work to improve it. If the material in the sandbox was copied from a Wikipedia page, then WP:CWW rules must be followed. That is, the user must say that they copied the page from the Wikipedia article. RudolfRed (talk) 15:29, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

It looks like User:KS2812/sandbox was deleted by Jimfbleak as a copyright violation of [1]. You are probably better off speaking to that admin, although if it significantly copied from that website, it's unlikely it'll be restored, as we cannot store copyrighted material anywhere on Wikipedia. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:37, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi, Amyc29, after verifying that the linked webpage does indeed appear to be a copy of Wikipedia, I've restored the sandbox, after making a note of the attribution. Just for information's sake, RudolfRed is exactly correct: even for copying content within Wikipedia, there are attribution requirements that have to be followed; as they say, WP:CWW has the details. I've gone ahead and already made an edit summary for the sandbox that indicates this attribution. Hope this helps! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:09, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

@Writ Keeper: I added {{Backwards copy}} to Talk:Philosophy of biology to document the finding. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 18:36, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello

How to block an ip address ? EOLE79 (talk) 16:19, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Ask a admin on their talk page and give a reason. TigerScientist (talk) 16:27, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

@EOLE79: Only administrators can impose blocks. See WP:BLOCKREQUESTS for how to request one. If it is just one particular page that the IP user is vandalizing, you can request page protection at WP:RFPP RudolfRed (talk) 16:29, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

TigerScientist / RudolfRed Thx :)

I'am an new ! EOLE79 (talk) 16:32, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

1918 Influenza Pandemic edit/additional information

Hi. I wanted to edit/add additional information on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_flu?action=edit to add Disproportionate mortality males vs female. How do I get access to add my information? Lfay002 (talk) 16:27, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Make sure you cite your new info and it is reliable. TigerScientist (talk) 16:29, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

@Lfay002: The page is semiprotected, but your account should be able to edit it. What problems are you having? RudolfRed (talk) 16:38, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

(e/c) Hi Lfay002. Since you know how to edit the article, given the edit link you posted in your question (and even though the article is semi-protected, that should have no affect on you since your account is autoconfirmed), can you describe exactly what issue you're having when you try to add this information? Is your intent maybe to add it into a template on the page? Or, possibly, to add an image containing a graph? Something else? Please advise.

P.S. I second the sentiment above by TigerScientist. Please make sure, when you work on adding this information, in whatever form, that you are citing (using inline citations) to reliable sources that directly verify your additions (without copying the wording used). Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:50, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

backlink

how can i put back links in wikipedia Versatileabacus (talk) 16:45, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

@Versatileabacus: Welcome to Wikipedia. You can link to another Wikipedia page with double brackets like this: [[Math]] to link to Math article for example. RudolfRed (talk) 16:50, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

If you are in visual editor, there is a linking symbol and select a word and it will give some articles to select from TigerScientist (talk) 16:55, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Increased rules on articles leading to overzealous article thinning and deletion

I've been a Wikipedian for over 16 years, and I would like to comment here, that over time, many good editors have left due to exhaustion and frustration with what appears to be an ever increasing set of rules being enforced by an overzealous army of editors who seem driven by the unquenchable need to remove every bit of content that they deem unnecessary, non-notable, insignificant, or inadequately cited or sourced to degrees clearly not originally intended by the rules and guidelines. I would dare to say that Wikipedia has become a rather unfriendly place, where the police shoot first, and ask questions later. Sadly. --Thoric (talk) 17:21, 7 December 2020 (UTC) Thoric (talk) 17:21, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Thoric, you may want to address your concerns over at the village pump (policy). —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:41, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree Thoric. TigerScientist (talk) 18:07, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Bang! What? David notMD (talk) 18:21, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia is known to amend its rules and guidelines over time, as it is the world's first ever "Wikipedia". I am probably one of those editors you mention, and can tell you that Wikipedia once wanted to grow (almost) at any cost, but now places more emphasis on quality and encyclopedic tone. Why would that make an editor quit in disgust?--Quisqualis (talk) 02:55, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

How to report a malicious outlink?

I tried to read a referenced source in Rent control in New York but got redirected to a phishing site. After some more attempts and observations it seems that housingnyc.com has been taken over to redirect to a number of potentially malicious redirect chains. I have marked in all references in that article to the domain as usurped, but I am worried about other pages, and the problem of bad reference urls being taken over in general. Is there a place, maybe a committee or a collective page, where I can report usurped urls and domains? Can we somehow mark a domain as usurped throughout Wikipedia? EdLeMa (talk) 18:15, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

@EdLeMa:, you can use WT:SBL to suggest additions to the Spam Blacklist. The instructions are at the top of that page and in the yellow box under "proposed additions". I hope that helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:43, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

@EdLeMa: WP:URLREQ is the place to report a usurped URL so a bot will fix the existing usage of it. If you can find a new site that the content has been moved to, give that info; otherwise, it will add the Wayback archives to the cites and mark them with |url-status=unfit.

I'll note in this case, the new site appears to be https://rentguidelinesboard.cityofnewyork.us , but it has probably been completely re-organized. Good project for someone to update the article and re-cite. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 19:27, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Youtube music video

I was trying to edit a page in Summer Of 69' and I wanted to add a music video link from youtube. But for some reason, a bot named the XLinkBot reverted my edit. I've seen wikipedia editors doing the same, and yet their music video link doesn't get removed from the wikipedia page. Is there anything I can do to prevent the music video link I added to the page from getting reverted? KitsunePV (talk) 18:52, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

@KitsunePV: It depends on what you are linking to. If it is a copyright violation, then it is not allowed. See WP:YOUTUBE RudolfRed (talk) 18:59, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Please transclude AfD for me.

Hello, I am a newer editor and cannot transclude this AfD into the log. Please move it into the log for me, thanks. RanDom 404 (talk) 19:42, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

@RanDom 404: done. I have also altered Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Compsosaurus to include all the stuff. See WP:AFDHOWTO step 2 again. Victor Schmidt (talk) 20:01, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Citogenesis warning tag

Hello

Could a citogenesis warning tag be created? so that readers of an article can be made aware that some of the information is potential unreliable, but because wikipedia has been used as a source by so many media, academic and other sources it is nigh impossible to discern at this point if a source cited is based on information taken from wikipedia.

That way the reader is alerted that although the sources used are usual reliable there is a risk that the authors, journalists etc didn't take their information from wikipedia.

Happy to Discuss 84.13.85.156 (talk) 20:25, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi IP; welcome to the Teahouse! We have three templates already available for that purpose. {{Circular reference}} and {{Citogenesis}} can be used inline; the latter is for when it's not 100% clear that citogenisis is happening. {{Circular}} can be used to tag an entire page. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:51, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

And there is Template:Backwards copy for the talkpage. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:07, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks both!

BCE Premium TV draft

Please help me edit and complete this article about "BCE Premium TV": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:BCE_Premium_TV Bcesoccerus (talk) 20:41, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Declined because the article is extremely short, and because the three references confirm BCE exists, but do not have any lengthy content about it. David notMD (talk) 22:42, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

i´m sorry that i klene the word

 84.219.207.83 (talk) 20:48, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Your edit was already reverted [[2]], but please be careful that you preview your edits before saving. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:33, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Can i have someone with extended autoconfirm add this?

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

I noticed Element is missing from the list. I don't have edit permissions.

Element (software)

type; instant messenger

focus; Live chat and voice for groups Annemaricole (talk) 21:33, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Welcome back to the Teahouse, Annemaricole. If you click the padlock symbol at the top of the List of social networking services page, it will take you to the instructions at Wikipedia:Protection policy#extended. If you follow those (the final paragraph in particular), you can make a request on the article's talk page. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:09, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Error in Composer's birthplace

BIRTH PLACE OF A COMPOSER your article on THIAGARAJA,THE COMPOSER IN tAMILNADU,iNDIA SAYS HE WASBORN AND LIVED IN THIRUVARUR THIS IS NOT CORRECT HE LIVED IN THIRUVAIARU HOPE YOU CORRECT THE ERROR SINCERELY G.SOUNDARARAJAN PH.D 2600:1700:3A20:7200:29A8:7A18:51EE:5FBD (talk) 21:48, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

(Please dont write in ALL CAPITAL LETTERS. Its considered yelling) Victor Schmidt (talk) 21:57, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: I have taken a look and the post above appears correct. However, fixing the article is not as straightforward as it might seem at first blush, because after looking at some of the sources, it appears the confusion also taints some of them. (I will post to the talk page, and possibly at an appropriate Wikiproject)--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:05, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Protecting my user page

How do I protect my user page from vandalism using twinkle? KitsunePV (talk) 21:48, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

KitsunePV Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. You cannot use Twinkle to protect any page because you do not have admin rights. There does not appear to be a vandalism problem on your user page; page protection is not done preemptively. 331dot (talk) 21:51, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

@KitsunePV: Why do you think someone would vandalize your user page? Nobody but you has edited it, with the exception of a bot that (correctly) removed an invalid protection template. I've been here 13 years and have had my user page vandalized twice, just this year, possibly by the same now-blocked person. Both were reverted by someone else before I even saw them. Focus on positive contributions to the encyclopedia, and you should avoid any such drama. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 00:07, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Best suggestions to follow

What should be suggestion for new editors, how can they add value and increase their editing skills? How can we create new pages for new projects? Alisha Azeem (talk) 22:01, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Alisha Azeem Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Creating new article(not mere "pages") is the hardest thing to do on Wikipedia, so it's a good idea to start smaller by editing existing articles in areas that interest you, to get a feel for how Wikipedia works and what is expected of article content. A good way to start is to start small with minor edits like fixing spelling, and working your way up to more substantive edits and finally article creation. If you need help finding areas to work on, you may visit the Community Portal where there is a list. 331dot (talk) 22:05, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

How can we see article that solely needs spell checks?  Alisha Azeem (talk) 22:07, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

As I said, the Community Portal has categories of suggested edits. 331dot (talk) 22:09, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

What's an internal error?

Sometimes I go to my contributions page and it says [X86t5gpAAD8AAHYXkdQAAABX] 2020-12-07 22:34:14: Fatal exception of type "Error". Why!? a gd fan (talk) 22:34, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

See below since another person seems to have had the same issue. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:28, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Error

Hi, I have a problem today, that when I want to go to anybody's contrib page, it says

[X86uswpAAMMAAyLZVygAAAAL] 2020-12-07 22:37:39: Fatal exception of type "Error"

then I cannot see them's contrib. Anybody know how to fix that? Thank you very much.  Larryzhao|Talk|Contribs 22:43, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Larryzhao123 and GeometryDashFan12, it seems you are both encountering the same error. I'd suggest raising this at WP:VPT, and describing what's happening (and what operating system you're on, etc.) in as much detail as you can. Hopefully someone there will be able to figure out what's going on. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:47, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Sdkb Contrib is good now. But if I go to my pref page it says database locked, its in view-only. Do you have the same problem? Larryzhao|Talk|Contribs 22:51, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

@Larryzhao123 and GeometryDashFan12: I'd generally wait an hour or four before reporting such problems. They're usually transient and already being worked on by systems people by the time you see or report them. Have a cup of tea, take a walk, or build a snowman, as the case may be. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 00:19, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Keyboard test

ghdfghdgfdhgh 148.75.127.9 (talk) 23:04, 7 December 2020 (UTC) ghgfhdghghghgfhdghghfgghdghgfhdghdgfhghdghdgfhgfh

It looks like your keyboard is still working. Congrats! Do you have a question for the Teahouse about editing Wikipedia? TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 23:08, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

... and please use the Sandbox for such tests – that's what it's there for. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 00:22, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

I added the section title to the gobbledygook that was strung onto the last question, with some minor passive aggressive snark. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 01:11, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Work and Publisher

For the cite web template, are these two parameters the same thing, or is there a difference between them? For example, if I found a source published by, say, Bleacher Report, is there a difference to use one or the other? If there is, what is it? RolledOut34 // (talk) 00:00, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

The two are not synonymous. The work is the website that has the source, the publisher is the entity that runs the website. For example, using Ars Technica as an example, the work would be Ars Technica and the publisher would be Condé Nast. This is explained in the template's documentation. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Takes a strong man to deny...} 00:04, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Oh, that makes sense. Thanks for the clarification! RolledOut34 // (talk) 00:30, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

(ec) @RolledOut34: |work= is usually the only one that is necessary, unless it is ambiguous or not well-known, so if it goes away, we might have a chance of knowing how to find it (less of a problem now that most everything gets crawled by Internet Archive). For {{Cite news}}, it may be more important for offline sources. If, for example, it's a small-town newspaper named something generic (e.g., The Daily Report), you might want to also include |publisher= and |location= to properly identify it. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 00:34, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Need to know

Does anyone oversee highly-specialized topics to check changes such as these? They are the first two edits by a new user. Is there an easy way to find experts at WP to ask? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/FradSer --LilHelpa (talk) 00:18, 8 December 2020 (UTC) LilHelpa (talk) 00:18, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi LilHelpa. Generally, most monitoring of articles is done by regular editors such as yourself. There are some editors who belong to groups like Wikipedia:Recent changes patrol, but they are just volunteers like you and me. There are also WP:BOTs set up to look for problematic edits like Wikipedia:Vandalism, and there are also Wikipedia:Edit filters in place to catch bad edits as well, but there are limits to what can be done automatically when there are over six million articles to watch. So, bascially it's editors like yourself you for whatever reason might notice an edit that seems questionable, and decide to review it.

So, if you come across any edits that you think are a "problem", you can WP:REVERT them if you think such a thing is needed; however, perhaps first you should consider if there's way to fix things. Sometimes editors who mean well and are trying to make an improvement to an article, just don't know how to properly format or cite the changes they've made. Wikipedia is WP:IMPERFECT so it generally more in tune with the spirit of collaborative editing to try and build on the work of others and make it better if possible than to completely discard it. This is not always possible for sure, especially when the content is a serious policy or guideline violation, but it's good to try to do so. Regardless of whatever you end up doing, you should try and leave a clearly worded Wikipedia:Edit summary explaining your edit so that others will at least why you felt the edit was needed.

Regarding the edits to Multivariate normal distribution that you're referring to above, that seems like a pretty technical article and the edits seem to be to some type of mathematical equation. I don't know anything about the subject matter; so, I can't really say whether they're an improvement. If you are familiar with this subject matter and think a mistake was made, you revert the edits if you like. Just leave an edit summary and possibly follow that up with a post at Talk:Multivariate normal distribution seeking further clarification. If you're not sure, then perhaps try asking for input from the WikiProjects listed at the top of the article's talk page. Start by assuming good faith that this new editor probably meant well (maybe they're a mathematician?), felt there was a problem, and tried to fix it. New editors like this often starting simply because they notice an error in something they're reading and then try fix. They may be wrong of course, but at least start with the assumption that they mean well. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:52, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. Sounds eminently reasonable. --LilHelpa (talk) 00:59, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

References / Press

Hello! The article I created for songwriter/producer Luke Niccoli (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Luke_Niccoli) was denied because it did not included enough references about the individual, even though multiple were included citing his contributions to major pop songs/albums. Do the references need to be about him as an individual to count?

Thank you so much for the help!! Haleymegahouse (talk) 01:29, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi Haleymegahouse, and welcome to the Teahouse! In order to count toward notability, references need to be "significant coverage". Editors vary in how they interpret that, but it needs to be more than just a passing mention, and coverage specifically about Niccoli would be best. You can read more of the relevant notability requirements at WP:NMUSIC. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 02:04, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Got it, thank you for your help!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haleymegahouse (talk • contribs) 02:07, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Real James Bond

I know this may be difficult for you to accept. My great uncle on his deathbed told me his story as a secret agent. It is utterly undeniable that he is the main inspiration to James Bond. One of my edits was removed I suppose for false information. I have a mountain of evidence and I cite the website that I created.

I am not certain that I have a question, except to question your measurement of what is an authentic source. My source is indeed authentic. Chuckxxx (talk) 01:39, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Citing your own website looks incredibly suspect at best. We require that a source be published if we are to use it, among other requirements. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Takes a strong man to deny...} 01:46, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Chuckxxx, the type of material you have on offer is valuable, even if it cannot be accepted by Wikipedia. Rather than depending on your website to keep it in the public eye, you may be able to find an additional home for your material at an alternative outlet. See also Wikipedia:Directory of alternative outlets.--Quisqualis (talk) 02:38, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

How to cite

How do you gather reliable sources for citations? Thanks! TheLAXPlanespotter (talk) 03:00, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Basically, TheLAXPlanespotter, the process involves such things as making a Web search, going to a library, reading a lot about your topic to find more sources, looking at your bookshelf. I assume you are already familiar with the concept of reliable sources.--Quisqualis (talk) 03:30, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

@TheLAXPlanespotter: You might wish to read WP:REFBEGIN on how to insert citations once youve found good quality sources. As an aside, I note your userpage is a little misleading. I suggest you remove mention of you not being an admin, but being a bit of a vigilante. With just 8 edits to your name, I'd say you're simply a novice, which is a mighty fine thing to be in and of itself. Nick Moyes (talk) 12:27, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

At the request of Nick Moyes, the user page has been updated to reflect a more "current" synonym because vigilante sounds too 1880's. I didn't want to change it, but I decided to because I am not an idiot. (I am referring to myself, not anyone else). Bye for now, and maybe it sounds like I'm not welcome here. :) TheLAXPlanespotter (talk) 15:09, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Quality edits?

FYI

 – Heading added by Tenryuu.

how do I know why something I added didn't get kept as a quality edit? I edited a page today, but within a few hours it showed that the page had been edited again, and all that content was removed? where are the reasons why it was removed? Economist716 (talk) 04:51, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi Economist716. Wikipedia is a collaborative editing project in which people from all over the world are editing at all times of the day. So, sometimes when you're WP:BOLD and make an edit to an article, another editor comes along later on (sometimes even a long time later) and WP:REVERTs the changes you made (either partially or entirely) because they don't think it was an improvement. When this happens, the next thing to do it to follow WP:BRD and try and WP:DISCUSS things on the article talk and seek clarification. Ideally, an editor who reverts another should leave an edit summary explaining why. If you check the page history of Off-track betting in New York, you find that is exactly what the editor who reverted you did here. Now, if you want clarification about that, you can start a discussion about it at Talk:Off-track betting in New York. My personal assessment is that the content you added was done in good faith, but it probably wasn't something really needed per WP:NOTEVERYTHING and WP:Namechecking; so, it's encyclopedic relevance to the general reader seems a bit questionable. If you disagree with that assessment, you're free once again to discuss why on the article's talk page. Why it can be a bit of a shock to have an edit reverted, it's really quite commonplace and as part of the way articles are improved over time. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:32, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

(ec) @Economist716: If you look at the "View History" tab of the article, you can see who edited it and the edit summary they provided. In this case, Special:PageHistory/Off-track betting in New York says that Toohool edited it with the summary "unnecessary excessive detail". The next step, if you disagree, is to start a discussion on the article's talk page Talk:Off-track betting in New York, being sure to PING the user (e.g., by starting your message with {{Re|Toohool}}). —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 05:36, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Editing question

How can I edit the 2017 in Philippine television? Alanconsebido (talk) 09:00, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Alanconsebido, Yes. If you are to add any new content, be sure it is backed up with reliable sources. Le Panini ^Talk 11:48, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

@Le Panini: I believe the question might be "How". In which case @Alanconsebido: the answer is, like so: Go to the section you want to edit (I assume this one), then click the "edit" next to July. For some technical advice on what to do then, please take a look at Help:Editing. But as Le Panini said, be sure to back up your info with sources! --LordPeterII (talk) 12:42, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

LordPeterII, Wiat... that says "HOW", not "CAN". Dang. I'm stupid.

"How can I edit?"

"Yes." ~ Le Panini Le Panini ^Talk 12:45, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Well, given that it's currently quite popular to answer "How many ...?" with "Yes" [3], I don't blame you ;)

(But seriously, you probably read "who" instead of "how", which would make your answer perfectly legitimate. And confusing these two has happened to me several times as a non-native speaker; and I guess it can happen to natives as well.) --LordPeterII (talk) 13:27, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Too much detail?

Hi there, I have recently been reading the article on PvZ, and it seems to me that the "gameplay" section has way too much detail. The article itself says it is in the process of a major restructuring, but it seems like that the restructure is actually making the article worse. Should anything be done about this? 185.73.65.98 (talk) 09:21, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

It seems User:Lazman321 is the one doing a major expansion of the article, so you can contact them on their talk page and make suggestions if you want to. I'll look through the gameplay section and do a copy-edit. Le Panini ^Talk 11:37, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

suggestion for funding Wikipedia

More of a comment than a question. I usually do not give when asked by Wikipedia donor drives since I believe it just burdens those who appreciate the service, but this time I gave the minimum (plus admin cost) since, like everyone else, I really do use it alot. I think Wikipedia should start charging a very small membership fee for use. I think anyone who uses the platform regularly would pay $5-10 per year to have access to the content. You could have special, cheaper student rates too. Just level with people: anything that has value is not free.

best regards Allan 131.111.85.79 (talk) 09:52, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia's finances are currently stable (though the Foundation is trying to build an endowment to reduce the need for donations in the future) so there is no need to raise funds in such a manner. Wikipedia prefers that the knowledge here be available without cost to the reader. 331dot (talk) 10:13, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure charging a fee to use Wikipedia would turn down younger viewers and editors alike that don't have access to money. Although most editors are adults, there is a fair share of people who are young, and that would turn down a lot of people that keep Wikipedia stable. Le Panini ^Talk 11:28, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

An access fee, even though small by first-world standards, would be a significant barrier to access from poorer parts of the world - precisely where we really need to expand participation to reduce systemic bias. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:14, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Edit Request - New Section - Niall Dunne

Hi, I am trying to add a section to Niall Dunne's Wikipedia page however because of COI (I know Niall and am an employee at the company at which he is CEO) I am unable to make the changes myself. I've created an edit request on his page, I did this a couple weeks ago but there has been no movement or update. Is there something I am doing wrong or could do to make the updates get approved quicker?

Really appreciate any help or tips! Thank you :) SophieStromback (talk) 11:51, 8 December 2020 (UTC) SophieStromback (talk) 11:51, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

SophieStromback Your edit request was properly made and is pending; as noted in the request box, there are 108 requests pending, so you will need to continue to be patient. 331dot (talk) 11:55, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your response! I will sit tight :) SophieStromback (talk) 12:20, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi @SophieStromback:, I just took a look at the request. First off, hats off for declaring the COI, that's a lot better than many people around here do. The edit itself reads fine, but I've an issue in that even such a simple claim needs a source to back it up. Is the source for this already in the article? If yes, please point to it so it can be used for an inline citation - if not, please provide a link to the source. (I mean the link you provided [4] certainly is sufficient to prove that he is CEO, but e.g. I don't see the info about the $19 million funding, nor that he has been CEO since 2018.)

PS: Better write links within Wikipedia like this: [[Imperial College London]], and not like this: [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_College_London|Imperial College London]]. There's no need for the vertical bar unless you want to change how the link is displayed, like so: an awesome place (which written in markup reads: [[Imperial College London|an awesome place]]) This also works on talk pages, in case that wasn't clear. --LordPeterII (talk) 13:03, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Is Articles For Creation mandatory?

Greetings fellow tea enthusiasts,

I've finally finished a non-stub (imo) article (albeit not from the ones I set out to do, but meh... he was redlinked in a random DYI article recently). I intended to go through Afc properly this time (have published 2 stubs before directly in mainspace), but I see that the backlog is currently 3 months.

So, question: Is that process mandatory? I will certainly be going through it with my BLP article once that one is done, as that needs extra care (because living people and stuff). But I'm frankly a bit bored right now and don't really want to wait 3 months, so... can I publish the non-BLP article to mainspace directly? If that's shunned upon I can wait ofc; but if it is acceptable and allowing Afc helpers to spend more time on those difficult cases, I'd go the direct route (as I have done before, but back then I didn't know about Afc). -- LordPeterII (talk) 12:29, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

LordPeterII Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. It is not mandatory to go through AfC, but it is highly recommended unless you have a great deal of experience in article creation. If you are confident that your draft would survive an Articles for Deletion discussion(the primary thing AFC reviewers look for), then you could move it into the encyclopedia yourself. 331dot (talk) 12:32, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

LordPeterII (edit conflict, so basically the same answer), Nope! AFC is only required for non-autoconfirmed users. However, I would recommend using it to make your article as good as it can be before it goes live; I see a lot of articles being published where users write about 4 sentences and doesn't visit the article again. If you were to submit it however, I'd suggest expanding it, maybe with an image and expanding the lead section summarize the article more. Le Panini ^Talk 12:36, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Note that your article will be subject to WP:new pages patrol. The folk who do these patrols tend to be less forgiving of poor articles than would be the case for ones created by AfC, but you can try.... Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:39, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Alright, thanks y'all. I guess I'll go through Afc then, if only to not set a bad example for others. And that it will be work either for Afc or New Page Patrol folks is a good point; so I won't really be reducing anyone's workload.

See you all in 3 months for an angry rant about you wicked Wikipedians unlawfully declining my perfectly best article! ;) --LordPeterII (talk) 13:17, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

LordPeterII, nah, a lot of us ain't wicked. At least a lot of us. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ GeraldWL 13:40, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

I've tidied up your draft Henry Ehrenreich and accepted it. Theroadislong (talk) 15:14, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

@LordPeterII: Looking at that excellent, now accepted draft—if everyone was like you (and not, instead, like 95% of today's active new accounts – undeclared-paid, SPAs with a COI mostly not here to do anything but promote their one or two self-interested pet topics)—we wouldn't need AfC. It would probably be good if AfC was made mandatory, and then we could exempt the rare new user like you, actually here to build an encyclopedia.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:15, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Here here, a pleasure to help a genuine useful contributor for once. Theroadislong (talk) 16:31, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Delisting good articles

I'm trying to delist Stephen Fry's Podgrams and I can't figure it out. I'm using this quick tutorial:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Good_article_delisting. When I delisted the article on the talk page inside the article history template I couldn't figure out how to include the date I'm delisting it, and I can't figure out how to remove the article from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Good_articles/.

I did ask in the talk page and the wikiproject whether it was okay to delist the article, and someone at the wikiproject said it was okay. TipsyElephant (talk) 13:05, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

@TipsyElephant: I'm going to start by saying that I tend to agree with your concerns about GA status for Stephen Fry's Podgrams, and would probably have graded it C myself. Now, I've not personally been involved in any downward reviewing of any GA articles, but I feel you could have gone about things better.

• First off, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Good_article_delisting is marked as historical, so I would tend to ignore anything there, for start. You should be following the 'Individual' process outlined at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment.
• WP:GAR explains the process, either of community review or of individual reassessment as you're doing.
• That advice is to raise issues on the Talk page and, after an appropriate period of time for feedback, make the amendments.
• You decided (not unreasonably) that, after attempting to improve it, it's still not worthy of GA status - and I tend to agree with you - and you stated that you were going to change it immediately, and mentioned (here, but not on the talk page) that someone on on a WikiProject somewhere supporting that view.
• Rather unhelpfully, you failed to provide a link to that discussion on the talk page itself, and made the change immediately. But there is WP:NO DEADLINE, so I think waiting a few days for feedback would have been preferable.
• You only removed the GA quality status from one of the two WikiProject assessments. - You'll need to remove them both for it to have an effect on the grading that appears on the article itself, below the title. But you will also need to remove the {{good article}} template from the bottom of the article page, too.

If I've missed anything out, I hope someone with more experience of GA reassessments will chip in. Bottom line: make sure you're following the right instructions. Nick Moyes (talk) 14:21, 8 December 2020 (UTC)  

(edit conflict) Hi TipsyElephant. If you look at the top of Wikipedia:Good article delisting, you'll see there's a banner stating that the page is retained for "historical reference". This means it's probably not a good idea to follow the steps listed there since the community might have developed a new approach for delisting good articles. Since articles undergo a formal review process for them to be upgraded to GA status, it seems unlikely that such a status could be taken away without a similar review process. I suggest that you follow the advice given in Wikipedia:Good article reassessment and request a reassessment of the article and simply don't just try to delist the article on your own. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:23, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Would it be okay to undo all the edits on the talk page and start over so that I do it all right and get the experience? I noticed that Nick Moyes made a recent change, should I undo that as well or is it possible to just undo my changes? The Wikiproject page that I asked the question is here (I'll add it to the article's talk page as well once I decide whether I'm undoing edits or not): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Podcasting#Consensus_Before_Change. Should I ask in all the wikiprojects that are in the article's banner? Nick Moyes Marchjuly

@TipsyElephant: I'm afraid neither Marchjuly nor I got any notification of your reply as you didn't sign your post, so nothing happened. (more info on this at WP:PING). You are clearly working in good faith, so I'd be OK you following the guidance and doing what you think is best (it can always be undone by you or someone else if you mess up - see WP:BRD) If you do post to seek views on different pages, it's best to direct all comments via a wikilink to just one page, so that all responses are collated there for all to see and respond to. ie. draw them to your post at the article talk page. Good luck. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:09, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Reliable sources for Article

Hello, This is in regards with my draft – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Hello_Mini which was rejected due to not using the proper reliable sources. I have checked the sources and found only one reliable - https://www.iwmbuzz.com/digital/editorial-digital/review-hello-mini-erotic-thriller-ends-justifying-stalking/2019/10/07 can you please help me and let me know if it can work. Also, you have rejected the MX player link earlier. But the Hello mini series is available to watch on MX player only. So I can not understand the rejection reason. Though I think it is not promotional. Mathurrajv77 (talk) 13:09, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

I haven't look at the article; instead, I take your word for it that you don't have any reliable source outside the iwmbuzz.com page. I looked at that. Here's how it ends: Also, 15 episodes is too long, especially if you want to promote binge-watching. P.S. I know I went on and on, but kya karen, the exciting series and story deserved a longish explanation. This writing is at the "lazy secondary student" level. It inspires no confidence in the rest of the review. And sure enough, Iwmbuzz is merely a marketer. If you don't have sources that are a lot better than this, you will not be able to create an article on this subject. -- Hoary (talk) 13:40, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Hoary for your time. So in this case, I will check if I can collect some other reliable sources.

Can I add MX Player link or https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/web-series/news/mx-player-drops-the-trailer-of-their-first-psychological-thriller-hello-mini/articleshow/71326257.cms ?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mathurrajv77 (talk • contribs) 13:52, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

How to become an active contributor

How does one get to become an active contributor and get to go live on Wikipedia? Pete11DD (talk) 13:48, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Pete11DD Hello and welcome to the Teahouse and Wikipedia. By posting here and editing your sandbox, you are an active contributor. If by "go live" you mean create a new article, creating a new article is the absolute hardest thing to do on Wikipedia. Looking at Draft:Sarah Serem, you're actually not off to a bad start. I would still suggest that you use Articles for Creation to submit your draft for a review, so some other eyes look at it. You may find it helpful to read Your First Article and use the new user tutorial. 331dot (talk) 13:51, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes, Pete11DD, I agree - this is a really good start. I like the way you've collated all the key sources you might want to use before you actually start extracting information and supporting statements with proper inline citations. That's absolutely the right way to approach it. You will find WP:REFBEGIN of use in understanding how easy it is to add a good quality inline citation in the relevant place with our editing tools, and for it to magically appear in the 'References' section. I see you've thought about taking our interactive tour of Wikipedia, called The Wikipedia Adventure - there are 15 separate badges to collect as if you complete it all. There is a bit of advice here on things to remember when doing biographies of living people. All in all, a great start, and we're here if you need us. Nick Moyes (talk) 14:33, 8 December 2020 (UTC)  

Tool I can use for WP:TFDH

Hello. I’m helping out at WP:TFDH which involves orphaning templates. Which means I have to go on every page that transcludes those templates and remove them, and copy an edit summary into the edits I make. This can get tedious when doing by hand, and can take up some of my school time. I want to know if there is a tool I can use to help with this process and make it faster to orphan templates. PorkchopGMX (talk • contribs • Merry Christmas!) 14:12, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

(Comment: @PorkchopGMX: Whilst I can't answer this rather technical question, myself, if you don't get an answer here it might be more appropriate to then ask at either Wikipedia talk:Templates for discussion, or WP:VPT. I'd imagine WP:AWB might be suggested, but I can offer no direct guidance. Nick Moyes (talk) 14:40, 8 December 2020 (UTC) )

Period for consideration

Hi! glad I got your feedback so how long does it take to be given rights to publish upon participating on edit-job on the pre-existing articles? again upon checking my article what significant misdoings did you note kindly thanks Pete11DD (talk) 14:14, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Pete11DD, You already have the rights to edit and create and submit drafts. However, your account needs to be 10 days old before being able to publish articles without going through the draft process. Le Panini ^Talk 14:26, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

You can edit pre-existing articles now, unless those are semi-protected or protected (a 'lock' symbol, top right). As to your draft Draft:Sarah Serem, keep on adding content and inserting the references you have identified before you submit it to Articles for Creation (AfC). And maybe seek out other articles about Kenyan government officials before submitting. David notMD (talk) 15:52, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Finding articles to edit

How would i find articles to edit on Wikipedia? Then how would i know if something needs to be edited? Mekeit (talk) 15:13, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Mekeit Hello. Some users just click the "Random article" link on the left of the screen to see what comes up and if it needs any edits. Others might start with one article in an area that interests them and branch out into other articles that are linked within it. However, if you would like to be directed to specific articles that need editing, the Community Portal has lists of articles that need various edits. 331dot (talk) 15:16, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

• @Mekeit: As 331dot said, there are different approaches. You might want to try the WP:Task Center, or click "articles to improve" at the top of this page. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 17:00, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

@Mekeit: You may be interested in subscribing to SuggestBot. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:24, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Harry fear

Hello there, I hope you’re all doing well. Can someone please review my article Draft:Harry Fear and tell me if it needs adjustments? I really want it to be accepted. Thanks j advance Engy Badawy (talk) 15:24, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

I have declined it there is too much inappropriate content such as "As a teen, he was into photography and mass communication" "His favorite food is Malaysian cuisine" "his favorite country to visit is Egypt" etc etc and poorly sourced. There is also content copied and pasted from https://seribulangkah.com/harry-fear-the-british-journalist-who-will-inspire-you/ which is a BIG no no, all content MUST be in your own words. Theroadislong (talk) 15:36, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Stating his opinions isn't something I'd see in an encyclopedia --a gd fan (talk) 16:37, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Help finding a template

Salutations teahouse staff, I have returned to pester you (this shouldn't take long though). Does anyone know the template that reads something like "while there are sources in this article it lacks in-line citations"? Because I was just working on an article that could use that. Thanks! SnazzyInfinity (talk • contribs) 15:55, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

@SnazzyInfinity: {{No footnotes}}. Victor Schmidt (talk) 15:59, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

@Victor Schmidt: Thanks! SnazzyInfinity (talk • contribs) 16:00, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

@SnazzyInfinity: You can also use twinkle --a gd fan (talk) 22:51, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Oh yeah I have twinkle, I totally forgot about that! (P.S. GD Fan, I saw your user page earlier and I liked your userboxes and stole a whole ton) SnazzyInfinity (talk • contribs) 23:04, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Non-English query

eu nn consigo traduzir porcaria nenhuma, eu uso a traducao automatica , edito tudo oq esta errado ai do nada em alguns topicos fica em vermelho ai quando eu vou publicar falam que nn foi permitidp TioAldemir (talk) 16:09, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to theEnglish Wikipedia, your comment translates from Portuguese as "I can’t translate any crap, I use machine translation, I edit everything that’s wrong there out of nowhere in some topics it’s in red there when I’m going to publish say that it wasn’t allowed" so I'm not sure what your question is? Theroadislong (talk) 16:58, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

(e/c) (Inglês usado abaixo) Oi. Wikipédias em diferentes idiomas têm padrões diferentes para aceitação de artigos, com os padrões da Wikipédia em inglês para atender a sua diretriz de notabilidade sendo geralmente mais elevados do que para a maioria dos outros idiomas. Também pode existir um artigo em outro projeto de linguagem da Wikipedia que não atende nem mesmo aos padrões de aceitação, mas ainda não foi focado e revisado (ou devidamente excluído), onde estaria se alguém tivesse levado o hora de olhar o artigo com atenção.

O que você deve procurar ao avaliar os artigos para tradução, então, é que para a maioria dos fatos no artigo, as citações são fornecidas, usando citações in-line para fontes secundárias confiáveis que são totalmente independentes do tópico (não há problema se essas fontes estiverem em Português). Supondo que esses tipos de fontes citadas também tratem o tópico com algum detalhe, seu uso para fins de verificação também demonstrará a notabilidade do tópico. ((Usei tradução automática para fazer este post no que presumo ser sua língua nativa, então espero que não seja muito confuso). Cumprimentos.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:16, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

(e/c) (English used below) Hi. Different language Wikipedias have different standards for acceptance of articles, with the English Wikipedia's standards to meet its notability guideline being generally higher than for most other languages. It's also the case that an article may exist at another Wikipedia language project that doesn't meet even their standards for acceptance, but just has not yet been focused on and reviewed (or properly deleted), where it would be if someone had taken the time to look at the article carefully.

What you should be looking for when assessing articles for translation, then, is that for most facts in the article, citations are provided, using inline citations to reliable, secondary sources that are entirely independent from the topic (it's fine if those sources are in Portuguese). Assuming those types of cited sources also treat the topic in some detail, their use for verification purposes, will also demonstrate the notability of the topic. (I used machine translation to make this post in what I assume is your native language, so I hope it's not too garbled). Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:16, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Shaming me to donate

Why bother me for donations when I already pay a monthly contribution of $3.75? Doesn't your system have the capability of knowing when a true SUBSCRIBER's IP address is searching Wiki? Bobbystar80 (talk) 16:41, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Bobbystar80. Teahouse volunteers and Wikipedia editors in general aren't in control of donation appeals - they're run by the Wikimedia Foundation. As far as I know, your Wikipedia account and IP address is kept separate from your personal information supplied when you donate. Here's the advice those of us who volunteer at WP:OTRS send out in response to queries such as yours: Our apologies for the banners causing annoyance or inconvenience. Wikipedia and its sister projects receive over 400 million unique visitors per month, so for fundraising it is important that we keep it displayed during the limited duration of our campaign. To hide the banners, you can click the x in the upper right corner. If you create or already have a Wikipedia account, you can tick the "Suppress display of fundraiser banners" option in your account preferences at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets, which will prevent the banners from displaying. I hope that helps. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:54, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@Bobbystar80: Hi, and welcome to the Teahouse! We're just editors here, not the Wikimedia Foundation staff putting up the banner. I definitely agree with you it'd be better if the banner were smart enough to recognize when people have donated. There might be some privacy concern involved, idk. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 16:56, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

In general I hate the banner. It is up to the readers/editors whether they want to donate. It's a waste if they ask me to, and I click it and it says that donation is not available in Indonesia. GeraldWL 17:00, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

• Bobbystar80 The donation system is completely separate from Wikipedia. I think there would be privacy concerns with linking them together. As noted, you can turn off the banner messages in your Preferences. As a fellow editor, thanks for donating. 331dot (talk) 17:07, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia

Why I have to edit? Do you mean, the writings are take for granted only? or you're just assuming I am a Scientist? Geebei1988 (talk) 17:46, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Geebei1988, welcome to the Teahouse. Could you explain further? No one is obligated to edit. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 18:06, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Persistent timesink (see G's Talk page). No article editing to date, only own User and Talk, Teahouse, and other editors' Talk. Either troll or Wikipedia:Competence is required. Time to block. David notMD (talk) 18:09, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

And, blocked. Thank you. David notMD (talk) 19:25, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Help

I have tried everything on the Help page for Help:Cite errors/Cite error references no text, but it never works no matter what I do. I'm talking about this reference on Draft:Slater and Devil fires, I want to put the same reference without making a duplicate reference, but it doesn't work. Can someone help me? a gd fan (talk) 17:48, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. I've done it for you. Take a look at what I added to the article in my latest edit and you'll see the problem, which was that you didn't name the reference at its first occurrence. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:53, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you! --a gd fan (talk) 17:58, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Need admins help

Hello, can anyone share their views on this page : RightScale

I think my edits were not unsourced or poorly sourced. If they are proper, then can anyone edit them back?

Let me know what is right.

Thank you! Flenleaf (talk) 18:19, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Flenleaf Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Any user is capable of weighing in, not just administrators. You are welcome to discuss your concerns on the article talk page. If you are a representative or employee of RightScale, you must review conflict of interest and paid editing for information on disclosures you may be required to make. 331dot (talk) 18:26, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

You added content identical to what had been added by Kingoftheuno, later reverted because identified as undeclared paid editing and furthermore Kingoftheuno being blocked as a sockpuppet. As such, you are suspected of also having done undeclared paid editing and/or conflict of interest, and being sockpuppet of User:Ablasaur. You are especially suspect as your attempted addition to the article is your only article edit to date. David notMD (talk) 19:13, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Proper Names

why do some company names show in blue and others in black. Can I make it consistent? IwTbA4EvR (talk) 19:10, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

IwTbA4EvR, welcome to the Teahouse. Some companies are linked and have an article due to their notability, which will cause them to appear in blue text. Linked text to articles that don't exist will appear in red. As a general guideline, we don't redlink in articlespace (unless it's possible that they're notable). —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) (🎁 Wishlist! 🎁) 19:13, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

@IwTbA4EvR: The ones in black are not linked at all, either because there is no appropriate article to which to link them, or it has already been linked once before in the article and so does not need to be linked again (see WP:OVERLINK). —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 00:26, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

How can I request an article be written for a restaurant chain?

I would like to add Goodcents to the list of restaurants featured at:

List of submarine sandwich restaurants

After reading about how to create articles, I don't think I'm qualified to do so. Further reading suggests one can request an article be written, but I found the instructions on this topic to be intimidating and complex. I thought it best to simply ask what I should do to request a Goodcents article that I can then link to from the above linked article. Bubbleking (talk) 20:08, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Bubbleking Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. You may request that an article be written at Requested Articles; but there is a severe backlog of thousands upon thousands of requests, and very few people to fulfill them. The best way to see an article created is to do it yourself. You are correct to be cautious, as successfully creating a new article is the hardest thing to do on Wikipedia. However, given time and experience editing existing articles in areas that interest you, it is possible to succeed. If this business is given significant coverage in independent reliable sources and meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable business, it is possible to submit a draft using Articles for Creation. 331dot (talk) 20:46, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

If you are associated with this chain(other than perhaps being a mere customer), you will need to review conflict of interest and paid editing. 331dot (talk) 20:47, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Bubbleking: Welcome to the Teahouse. You are probably looking for Wikipedia:Requested articles, though from what I've heard activity there is... glacial. I think it would be helpful to find reliable sources for Goodcents to establish that it is notable to merit its own article. My (partial) suggestion would be to to create it as a draft through Articles for Creation (AfC) and use the template {{refideas}} on the associated talk page to deposit those sources for interested editors to peruse. I am unaware of any templates that acts like an RfC (Request for Comment) but for article creation (and it seems to be too much to be an edit request), so if any other editors know of any it would be much appreciated. Ultimately, Wikipedia is a volunteer effort, so the creation of such an article would rely on editors that are at least marginally interested in the topic. I suggest worrying less about feeling unqualified about writing an article, and create a draft via WP:AFC and have reviewers look at the product when you feel like you've done the best you can. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) (🎁 Wishlist! 🎁) 20:47, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Picture of Alex Mains used on the wiki site.

Today I found that a baseball card from 1919 of my great uncle does exist. The family has been looking for years to no avail. I am wondering if anyone can tell me where the picture of the card came from and who might have it yet today ? 174.25.168.15 (talk) 20:31, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. This is a place to ask questions about using Wikipedia. You could try asking this at the Reference Desk and hope there is a baseball expert there. 331dot (talk) 20:37, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

According to the description page, the image File:1919_Zeenut_Alex_Main.jpg was uploaded from a website tradingcarddb. You can try looking at that website to see if there is more info on the card's current owner. RudolfRed (talk) 02:55, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

David Burnell IV

Is David Burnell IV a notable subject? David Burnell the Fourth (talk) 20:41, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

David Burnell the Fourth Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Are you asking if you yourself are a notable subject? What do you do, and is it written about in independent reliable sources? 331dot (talk) 20:43, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

David Burnell the Fourth, in addition to 331dot's questions, I would caution against writing about yourself; it's not prohibited, but is strongly discouraged. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) (🎁 Wishlist! 🎁) 20:51, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Another problem: if you ARE NOT David Burnell IV, who appears to be a film actor, you should not have chosen his name as your User name. There is a name change process. If you ARE him, you may be asked to confirm that. David notMD (talk) 01:32, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Question related with Wikipedia timing

So I know there is no time rush on Wikipedia. I got burned a few months ago after asking a question on a talk page, only receiving 1 response (a support) after a 48 hour wait. The article had almost 50 edits done during that 48 hours, so people had chances to reply. When I implemented the change though, tons of people got upset saying I did it too quick. (It was too quick and it was a split proposal and I know that should be a week at least). Too be honest, I was slightly confused why people didn't choose to respond but when the change happened (no one opposing at the time), people got upset.

So I recently asked a question about a new source for an article. I have waiting 24 hours and no responses. (Topic is slightly searched and between the time of my asking the question and now, an article related to it had a closed Afd ending in a merge into this article.

My question is simple. How long should I wait before implementing a change if I hear no responses. I don't want to wait too long, because I would probably forget the change, but if I do it too quick, I don't want to have a ton of people up set with me. Thanks in advance for your responses. Elijahandskip (talk) 22:23, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Elijahandskip, I'd say give it a few days, but you could make the changes per (weak consensus from) WP:SILENCE. If people object to it, direct them to the relevant discussion at the talk page. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) (🎁 Wishlist! 🎁) 23:15, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Categorization alphabetization

Hello! I was looking at the Category Deaths in police custody in the United States, and I added the Death of Chavis Carter article. But on the category page, it lists that article under the 'D' section. Other pages in that category are under sections by the subject's last name. How is this accomplished? What do I need to do? Kirby777 (talk) 22:56, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

I added <s>{{DEFAULTSORT|Carter, Chavis}}</s>. See WP:DEFAULTSORT for more information. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 23:08, 8 December 2020 (UTC) Update: It's <s>{{DEFAULTSORT:Carter, Chavis}}</s> not <s>{{DEFAULTSORT|Carter, Chavis}}</s>. Thank you Le Panini. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 23:15, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

When putting the [[Category:Deaths in police custody in the United States]] to an article, put {{DEFAULTSORT:Chosen Name}} before any categories to set a default name. In this case, {{DEFAULTSORT:Carter, Chavis}}. It's been put in for you. Le Panini ^Talk 23:12, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

how to send page from sandbox to live

I moved my page from sandbox but after that I got this error please help me with publishing my page live "This sandbox is in the article namespace. Either move this page into your userspace, or remove the {{User sandbox}} template." Repairdental (talk) 23:55, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

It sounds like you didn't remove {{User sandbox}} when the content was moved from the sandbox to articlespace. Removing it should fix the issue. It appears that NoSandboxesHere has done that already. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) (🎁 Wishlist! 🎁) 00:16, 9 December 2020 (UTC) (Addendum at 00:21, 9 December 2020 (UTC))

Message on your Talk page requires you change your User name, and provides link to method. David notMD (talk) 01:36, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Harry fear

Hello there, I hope you’re all safe and well. Can someone review Draft:Harry Fear ? Do I need to edit it more? Thanks in advance Engy Badawy (talk) 01:34, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

@Engy Badawy: The Draft:Harry_Fear is already marked submitted for review. You just need to be patient. RudolfRed (talk) 01:39, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Specifically "This may take 3 months or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 3,475 pending submissions waiting for review." You can continue to work on it in the meantime. RudolfRed (talk) 01:41, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

@Engy Badawy: Another thing you can work on is providing the licensing info for File:Harry_Fear.jpg, otherwise it will be deleted. RudolfRed (talk) 01:43, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

I’ll work on it. Thank you so much

The current version - refs #2 and #3 are interviews, which Wikipedia does not accept as confirming notability, and ref #5 is his own blog. Try, before the next reviewer gets to it, to find better references. David notMD (talk) 01:46, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Okay 👌🏻 Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Engy Badawy (talk • contribs) 02:01, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Need to publish my article successfully

I need my article to be reviewed and successfully published. I have written a article which is verified by me and need to get my article published. Maverick2554 (talk) 03:33, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm confused. What is the need? I mean, what bad thing will happen if there is a delay? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 03:35, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi Maverick2554. I can say right now that the content in your sandbox will most likely be declined (or rejected) as it is. I suggest you take the time to read Your first article and this beginner-friendly primer for referencing. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) (🎁 Wishlist! 🎁) 03:39, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You have created a draft in your Sandbox User:Maverick2554/sandbox. It has been submitted to Articles for Creation (the large yellow rectangle at bottom). There is a backlog of thousands of AfC drafts. The selection by reviewers is not a queue, so can be days, weeks, up to several months. In its present state it will surely be declined, as it has no references. Verification requires references from reliable published sources. Lastly, you have a duplicate version of your content on your User page. Please delete all of that. Your User page is for a description of your intentions as an editor. David notMD (talk) 03:41, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

And based on a Google search (String: "Shalkal carty" singer) there's no possible way we could have an article on them at this time, notable or otherwise. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Takes a strong man to deny...} 03:47, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

I declined it as covering the same person and having a large overlap with a declined draft from a few months ago by another editor, Draft:Shalkal Carty. I also moved your "user" page to User:Maverick2554/sandbox2, submitted it on your behalf, and did a "pro-forma" decline as it is almost identical to your draft in User:Maverick2554/sandbox. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 03:57, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

My article was rejected here. But need to be done in wikitia. Please do help me in wikitia. Maverick2554 (talk) 05:10, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi Maverick2554. There's not a lot anyone here at the Teahouse can do to help you with respect to Wikitia. That's a completely separate project from Wikipedia with it's own policies and guidelnes that nobody here has any control over. You'll find out a little bit about Wikitia by going to their homepage. I can't even add a link to Wikitia to any Wikipedia page because the site has been WP:BLACKLISTed by the Wikipedia community. So, you just have to Google the name and then get the link yourself. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:21, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Goutte d'Or

I noticed that the article about the Goutte d'Or neighbourhood of Paris has been flagged with: This article includes a list of general references, but it remains largely unverified because it lacks sufficient corresponding inline citations. (September 2009) This article needs additional citations for verification. (September 2009) While I am by no means an expert on Paris, I'm wondering if it's just a case of finding some better and more recent citations? I had a quick look for information about le marché Dejean and there were several pages, although some of them were published many years ago. Are there any Parisians who have got time to give this article a quick look, please? Canberranone (talk) 08:24, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Canberranone, more references to reliable sources would solve the {{More citations needed}} tag, but {{More footnotes}} requires the current references to be attributed to the end of the information that they source. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) (🎁 Wishlist! 🎁) 08:36, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

shutterstock, alarmy: are their location pictures a reliable source?

shutterstock, alamy: are their location pictures a reliable source? 24.7.56.99 (talk) 09:08, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Possibly I can guess what your question is about, but I doubt it. Please provide a link to one such "location picture", and specify the assertion that it may or may not reliably source. Then somebody here can comment on that. -- Hoary (talk) 09:25, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

My article was unjustly rejected and i am protesting against this decision.

MY article Jeriq was rejected unjustly. I need to understand exactly what is wrong with that article Fabregado (talk) 09:35, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Fabregado Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. You were told what was wrong with the draft, "A biographical article for a musician must satisfy WP:MUSICBIO. Furthermore please our general notability criteria, what Wikipedia is WP:NOT, WP:COI & WP:PAID". Wikipedia is not a place to merely tell about a musician. Any draft about a musician must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about a musician, showing how they meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable musician(again, WP:MUSICBIO). If this person meets at least one of the criteria, you haven't adequately shown that with reliable sources. 331dot (talk) 09:38, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Just a note that I've fixed that link, which was doing very odd things. It now links to the draft. Nosebagbear (talk) 09:41, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Locking Train Robbery article

Hello

I thought someone might want to lock the train robbery article. It appears people are continually adding the cast of Red Dead Redemption 2 to its list of famous train robbers.

Thanks 84.13.85.156 (talk) 10:01, 9 December 2020 (UTC)